My prediction is/was that there will be more keepers than with the 500/4 varieties. I can say now after a few months ownership that I've used this PF more than my EOS 500ISii simply because it doesn't hurt
Just in case you didn't think the 500 pf was sharp enough:
Z7 + 500 f5.6 PF, 1/500s f/5.6 at 500.0mm iso1600
100% crop of above. This is how Lorikeets feathers look, especially these Scaly-breasted Lori's, quite difficult to photograph as they are rather iridescent and reflect light at certain angles. Hence this white look at certain angles.
ALl superb images. This 500 PF gets better and better.
Lance - might you have similar Lorikeet portraits taken with your 400 f2.8E? Be interesting to compare these magnified. I've run off series between my two Nikkors under controlled conditions (same subject, on gimbal etc) - with and without TCs to compare IQ and bokeh. And I'm also in the process of taking advantage of my cats in play to compare AF between the 400 f2.8 and 500 PF.
But all these tests will take some time (to find) to present the images properly. I do not have the 500 f4E, but from what one reads the 400 f2.8E sets a higher benchmark to evaluate the 500 PF
100% crop of above. This is how Lorikeets feathers look, especially these Scaly-breasted Lori's, quite difficult to photograph as they are rather iridescent and reflect light at certain angles. Hence this white look at certain angles.
chambeshi wrote:
ALl superb images. This 500 PF gets better and better.
Lance - might you have similar Lorikeet portraits taken with your 400 f2.8E? Be interesting to compare these magnified. I've run off series between my two Nikkors under controlled conditions (same subject, on gimbal etc) - with and without TCs to compare IQ and bokeh. And I'm also in the process of taking advantage of my cats in play to compare AF between the 400 f2.8 and 500 PF.
But all these tests will take some time (to find) to present the images properly. I do not have the 500 f4E, but from what one reads the 400 f2.8E sets a higher benchmark to evaluate the 500 PF...Show more →
Thank you very much, Chambeshi. Much appreciated.
I have similar shots with these birds but not in similar lighting conditions and not with the same camera (D810). Any inference that could be made would be incorrect other than to say that they are close but I still think the 400 f2.8 might just have the edge. However, it is marginal and any differences in lighting, conditions, different camera, slight AF differences etc, etc would have way more impact. In other words, to see any differences it would have to be perfect conditions for both. The obvious advantages of the 400 are subject isolation and low light shooting using wider apertures, but that of course is at the expense of weight and size. Also, the 400 f2.8 at f4 might have the edge over the 500 at f5.6 as there may be diffraction at f5.6 as opposed to f4 using 46Mp? I think f4 is now the sharpest aperture is it not when using 46Mp?
Suffice to say, other than for the extra two stops of light, I am just as happy using the 500 PF as I am using the 400 f2.8 as far as sharpness and overall IQ. However, the 500 is much smaller and lighter!
I tried for an hour yesterday to find a bierd. No luck...maybe a Dove far far off but the weather was so horrible every one was hiding. So I had to settle for a branch and a bokeh ball.
Back to back frigid days on the river...
I posted a few yesterday, but pulled them because I was not pleased with the post work... hopefully these look a bit better.
