Well stated, Bruce. I too consider the 500 PF to be quite good, and am surprised at the unwarranted bashing, for whatever reason. Perhaps Christian can state with technical specificity what his conclusions are based upon. Bald conclusions serve no useful purpose.
ilkka_nissila wrote:
I would think it is; the question is how extreme the crop is.
Like I said before, the contrast and colours tend to be washed out when shooting into the light with PF lenses. In this shot the background is the light source.
However, this is not the only kind of photograph one may want to make.
You are being unnecessarily harsh on this lens.
The crop was huge, to me an impossible shot. The eagle was 65-75 yards distant min.
MedicineMan404 wrote:
Christian, don't look another suck sub-par from the PF
In this internet world I'm just glad I'm the only one I have to please ha!
OwlsEyes wrote:
Why all of the 500PF hate ChristianH?... I am curious about your perspective here, because you seem to dislike the lens without shooting it.
I have seen quite a few sub-par photos taken with the 500mm f/4G, legendary 800mm f/5.6E, 600mm f/5.6E, yet these other less than amazing photos get a pass from you and other photographers. Nobody claims that the 300mm f/2.8VRii is crap when someone shares a less than stellar image.
For the record, I own and shoot the 500PF, a 200-500 f/5.6, an 80-400G, and a 200-400G vr1. There are times when I make some pretty amazing photos with each of these lenses, and there are other times when my photos are pure crap.
Interestingly, you seem to be one of a very few vocal minority that is seeking to diminish the value of the 500PF... that's cool as the web is a great place to air opinions and grievances, but from my experience... the 500PF is a real winner and has exceeded my personal expectations. I am only wishing that I have had more opportunities to really get the most out of the 500PF this winter.
I suppose it's that the gap between claims to greatness and actual results seems wider than usual in this case. (The cases you mention "get a pass" because I've hidden the photographers in question; I rarely see their work, such as it is.)
Christian H wrote:
I suppose it's that the gap between claims to greatness and actual results seems wider than usual in this case. (The cases you mention "get a pass" because I've hidden the photographers in question; I rarely see their work, such as it is.)
I think that you know this as well as I... For pictures displayed in any lens-specific post, the quality of the image has much more to do with the subject, light, and skill of photographer than it has to do with the optic...
From my perspective, the 500PF offers me four things that the 500G does not...
1) Super telephoto optics that has a small footprint for travel or hiking that allows me to bring my 200-400VR or 80-400VR when weight is really limited.
2) Hand-holdability for extended periods in canoes, kayaks, and zodiacs
3) Modern/current design that include electronic aperture, fluorine resistant coatings, VRII tech
4) A 5 year warranty that protects my purchase.
Note, I did not claim any kind of optical superiority, as the 500G offers an f/4 aperture and is likely the optical equivalent of the 500PF by f/4.5 or so.
Final point... I doubt that I would have purchased the 500PF if I had already owned a 500G. However, I don't think that I am the type of photographer that would benefit from both a 500G and 200-400VR; I would have probably replaced zoom with the 200-500 or 80-400 so that I could carry them both. It is here that I think the PF has offered me something that the 500G does not... I like my 200-400 and I like my 80-400G... I now have a lot of flexibility where I can carry a very wide range of telephoto optics anywhere and not want for much more.. other than a D5
"I suppose it's that the gap between claims to greatness and actual results seems wider than usual in this case. (The cases you mention "get a pass" because I've hidden the photographers in question; I rarely see their work, such as it is.)" Sorry but not sure how to reply with the above at the top of the reply so I just cut and pasted it.
I currently own the Nikon 600f4E, the 80-400 ii and the 500 PF. Prior to that I owned the following Canon lenses, 600 f4 ii, 500f4ii, 100-400ii, 400 5.6. I can say that without question the 500 PF is as sharp as any of the other lenses that I own or owned. It is a remarkable little lens and one that I can never see myself parting with. That being said it is only 500mm and often times for my area is not enough lens. But for what it does it does it better than any lens I have ever used. Here are 2 shots from Barnegat since I see that you post from there. For the Black Scoter I was lying down in the rocks and it was so easy to get into position and climb with the 500 as opposed to the 600f4 which I had with me but did not use. It was high tide and I wanted to get as close to an eye level shot as possible so I got as low as possible and avoided getting too wet from the splashing waves. I simply do not think I could have achieved the same result with the 600 and have hardly ever seen more detail in a shot of a black bird than this photo. The was shot with the d850 and downsized a ton. On my 5k imac the quality in the blacks is just fantastic. . And tracking a fast flying Long-tailed Duck with the 500 is a joke as compared to with the 600. Felt like playing a kids game.
aboutthelight wrote:
I currently own the Nikon 600f4E, the 80-400 ii and the 500 PF. Prior to that I owned the following Canon lenses, 600 f4 ii, 500f4ii, 100-400ii, 400 5.6. I can say that without question the 500 PF is as sharp as any of the other lenses that I own or owned. It is a remarkable little lens and one that I can never see myself parting with. That being said it is only 500mm and often times for my area is not enough lens. But for what it does it does it better than any lens I have ever used. Here are 2 shots from Barnegat since I see that you post from there. For the Black Scoter I was lying down in the rocks and it was so easy to get into position and climb with the 500 as opposed to the 600f4 which I had with me but did not use. It was high tide and I wanted to get as close to an eye level shot as possible so I got as low as possible and avoided getting too wet from the splashing waves. I simply do not think I could have achieved the same result with the 600 and have hardly ever seen more detail in a shot of a black bird than this photo. The was shot with the d850 and downsized a ton. On my 5k imac the quality in the blacks is just fantastic. . And tracking a fast flying Long-tailed Duck with the 500 is a joke as compared to with the 600. Felt like playing a kids game. ...Show more →
Hypothetical question: If you could only have ONE lens (for birds), what would it be? This new 500 PF is indeed awesome, but given how well the 500 f/4 II (and I assume the latest Nikon 500 f/4) works with 2X extenders, I wonder if that might ultimately be the best choice considering we often need that reach.
If I had to choose only one lens for birds it would without question be a 600f4. I live in New York City and reach is always an issue as you say. I sold my 500 f4 ii because it was not enough reach and bought the 600. I still almost always need the converter on the 600 anyway with most birds. The other problem with the 500PF is having a 2 or in my case 3 lens system. Which one do you take with you, do you take both or all 3? For working with tame birds or in close the 500PF is just without equal as far as I am concerned. But if I were to only have 1 lens it would be the 600 every time. Knowing full well of course that I would be leaving some shots on the table where I need to react super fast or to get into a position that I could not get into with the 600 and a tripod. I am relatively young (46) and in good shape at 5'10" and 150 pounds. But I am not strong enough to hand hold the 600 for long periods of time or at super low shutter speeds. So photography is always about compromises. I have plenty of other examples with the 500PF that show that it is a fantastic lens with excellent sharpness and creates beautiful blurred backgrounds. I have been taking the 600 and 500 with me when I go out now. Still have not used my 80-400 but I will in certain situations. I guess I should add that if I could not afford the 600 or it was too heavy to carry then I would certainly get the 500f4 if I only needed one lens. I have used my friends Nikon 500f4ii and it is light, crazy sharp and much easier to hand hold than the Canon version. Guess that will change with the 500 f4 iii coming out eventually. So my long winded asnwer is the 600 f4 for when you need reach and the extra stop of light. Here is another shot that I would have had a problem with with the 600. First off it would have been too much lens for what I wanted and secondly, I had to climb down some rocks to get to the bird. It was raining and slippery and would have been very hard to do with the 600 and a tripod. But this is a situation where the 500PF shines. Ability to maneuver, and hand hold in awkward positions.
Scarcity creates value. I'm covered up with Blue Jays, Cardinals, and Thrashers every day; but can't ever get close enough to a Bufflehead or Goldeneye to put 1120MM on them.
If you come down to Mobile, AL I'll make sure you get sick of them.... especially if you'll return the favor on the ducks up your way.
aboutthelight wrote:
"I suppose it's that the gap between claims to greatness and actual results seems wider than usual in this case. (The cases you mention "get a pass" because I've hidden the photographers in question; I rarely see their work, such as it is.)" Sorry but not sure how to reply with the above at the top of the reply so I just cut and pasted it.
I currently own the Nikon 600f4E, the 80-400 ii and the 500 PF. Prior to that I owned the following Canon lenses, 600 f4 ii, 500f4ii, 100-400ii, 400 5.6. I can say that without question the 500 PF is as sharp as any of the other lenses that I own or owned. It is a remarkable little lens and one that I can never see myself parting with. That being said it is only 500mm and often times for my area is not enough lens. But for what it does it does it better than any lens I have ever used. Here are 2 shots from Barnegat since I see that you post from there. For the Black Scoter I was lying down in the rocks and it was so easy to get into position and climb with the 500 as opposed to the 600f4 which I had with me but did not use. It was high tide and I wanted to get as close to an eye level shot as possible so I got as low as possible and avoided getting too wet from the splashing waves. I simply do not think I could have achieved the same result with the 600 and have hardly ever seen more detail in a shot of a black bird than this photo. The was shot with the d850 and downsized a ton. On my 5k imac the quality in the blacks is just fantastic. . And tracking a fast flying Long-tailed Duck with the 500 is a joke as compared to with the 600. Felt like playing a kids game. ...Show more →
I would agree that the 500PF gives up nothing in IQ compared to other lenses I've owned including the Nikon 500E and Canon 600II, 400DOII, 300/2.8II, 200-400/1.4TC etc....I'm sure there are small differences if you shoot detailed test charts but once we introduce all our other variables like handholding and AF systems, I don't think the final product looks much different.
Of course DOF considerations with faster apertures will come into play.
Colin F wrote:
Hypothetical question: If you could only have ONE lens (for birds), what would it be? This new 500 PF is indeed awesome, but given how well the 500 f/4 II (and I assume the latest Nikon 500 f/4) works with 2X extenders, I wonder if that might ultimately be the best choice considering we often need that reach.
It is a tough choice....as you know I still haven't answered that question when you asked me two weeks ago!!....and I still don't know the answer....D850 and either 500E or 500PF....hhhmmmmmm
?
