reggieb wrote:
Got that right. I've seen it once shooting with the 300 PF (which I've put thousands of photos through since receiving my pre-order). I had to stack images with the sun in the frame to see it.
He's not kidding, it can happen. I have also seen it once in a couple thousand frames
arbitrage wrote:
I use that combo a fair amount also and get excellent IQ out of it. I would guess the 500PF would have better IQ but probably wouldn't really result in much meaningful differences. But it doesn't appear that it will be as light or as small as the 300/1.7.
For my shooting the big benefit of the 500PF would be Auto-AF mode still active and better support for the outer points, some AF improvements (I do notice AF slowdown with the 1.7TC as the light drops). I also would have a 700 f/8 combo out of it using only a 1.4TC versus having to use a 2.0TC on the 300PF and "only" getting 600 f/8. And maybe be able to stretch it to 850 f/9.5?
Still, if the NR price of $4300USD is correct then that will be a very hard sell for me and I'd likely just stick with the 300PF and all three TCs as needed.
I would have liked to see the 600PF first also but I know that one will be close to 400DOII price and that is a good chunk of change....would have to sell my 400DOII to buy that potential lens....Show more →
I also wonder how the two combo's will compare, which could partly depend on the body that is used. With the new mirrorless bodies on the way it will take some time before we know. If the difference in IQ and AF performance is minor then the 300PF + TC would be more attractive for those who have to travel light (and don't really need more than 500-600mm), but I'm guessing that for double the price they will offer better performance in the 500PF.
mike clemens wrote:
He's not kidding, it can happen. I have also seen it once in a couple thousand frames
I prefer to shoot with the sun behind me when the sun is out in full effect. When I shoot rim-light/backlit subjects into the sun it is when the sun is very low....I've never seen any abnormal flare in over 20,000 shots. The internet is full of hog-wash....nothing new here....it is too bad that people don't refrain from making opinions on products they don't regularly shoot.
arbitrage wrote:
I prefer to shoot with the sun behind me when the sun is out in full effect. When I shoot rim-light/backlit subjects into the sun it is when the sun is very low....I've never seen any abnormal flare in over 20,000 shots. The internet is full of hog-wash....nothing new here....it is too bad that people don't refrain from making opinions on products they don't regularly shoot.
Is there a consensus here that this lens will be faster than a zoom 500 5.6? I believe it will, because there is less glass to move (as you noted).
If it is faster than the 200-500, then is there reason to believe that the new 500 5.6 PF and TC14 III might be *as* fast as a 2-5 ?
Probably kidding myself, but I am dreaming how this lens might perform with the latest 1.4 on my D850....in good light of course.
I am confident the 500 5.6 PF is going to be a very sharp lens. Regarding flare, it is normally of no concern to me. I rarely shoot unless the sun is behind me (and hopefully low), or I am in diffused light.
bs kite wrote:
Is there a consensus here that this lens will be faster than a zoom 500 5.6? I believe it will, because there is less glass to move (as you noted).
If it is faster than the 200-500, then is there reason to believe that the new 500 5.6 PF and TC14 III might be *as* fast as a 2-5 ?
Probably kidding myself, but I am dreaming how this lens might perform with the latest 1.4 on my D850....in good light of course.
I am confident the 500 5.6 PF is going to be a very sharp lens. Regarding flare, it is normally of no concern to me. I rarely shoot unless the sun is behind me (and hopefully low), or I am in diffused light.
I truly believe (but of course don't know) that it will well outperform the 2-5 in AF speed. I also think that even with a 1.4TC attached it will do at least as good. My 300PF/1.4 is faster than 2-5 (however that isn't the same thing as this 500PF/1.4 as the 300 results in f/5.6 and the 500 in f/8). I find that AF speed has a strong correlation to the f-stop you end up at....of course slower AF motors like in the 200-500 and different amounts of glass to move as you mentioned play a roll.
So I'm also hoping for a very useable (at least 2-5 speed) 500PF/1.4TC combo (700 f/8) and also crossing my fingers for a useable 500PF/1.7TC (840 f/9.5) combo at least for perched birds....we shall see next month or so....
If the lens is sharper, and better corrected for aberrations, this also improves autofocus as it is more clear, where the focus is and how much it needs to be changed to bring the subject into focus.
arbitrage wrote:
I truly believe (but of course don't know) that it will well outperform the 2-5 in AF speed. I also think that even with a 1.4TC attached it will do at least as good. My 300PF/1.4 is faster than 2-5 (however that isn't the same thing as this 500PF/1.4 as the 300 results in f/5.6 and the 500 in f/8). I find that AF speed has a strong correlation to the f-stop you end up at....of course slower AF motors like in the 200-500 and different amounts of glass to move as you mentioned play a roll.
So I'm also hoping for a very useable (at least 2-5 speed) 500PF/1.4TC combo (700 f/8) and also crossing my fingers for a useable 500PF/1.7TC (840 f/9.5) combo at least for perched birds....we shall see next month or so.......Show more →
Sounds great !
That's right, I forgot the 2-5 does not have Nikon's fastest focusing motor.
So, I wonder if the 300 PF has their fastest motor.
If so, then we can be optimistic the 500 PF will too.
The 500 PF will focus closer to the 500/4 speed is my guess -- in a whole other league from the 200-500.
I have the 300 PF and the 200-500 and the 300 PF has decidely snappier focus. The 500 PF will probably be 2-2.5x the price of the 300 PF. I would expect a seriously high end tele focus speed.
mike clemens wrote:
The 500 PF will focus closer to the 500/4 speed is my guess -- in a whole other league from the 200-500.
I have the 300 PF and the 200-500 and the 300 PF has decidely snappier focus. The 500 PF will probably be 2-2.5x the price of the 300 PF. I would expect a seriously high end tele focus speed.
I wouldn’t have high hopes if I were you.
A 500PF will never be in the same league as a ,if your calculations happen to be correct, double the price 500 F/4 E lens.
I’m sure Nikon is not going to commit suicide regarding the sales of the exotics.
This PF iterations are meant to be expanding sales, opening an existing larger market of photogs lusting for a better long lens but not willing to pay the premium for an exotic.
Shorter and lighter? Yes of course (500/5,6 would result in a 89,3 mm diameter for a conventional lens allready)
Optical? Good enough like the 300PF but no way on par with the exotics
Featureset? Up to date but again not on par with the exotics.
That’s what I guess to be realistic to expect
Thern wrote:
I wouldn’t have high hopes if I were you.
A 500PF will never be in the same league as a ,if your calculations happen to be correct, double the price 500 F/4 E lens.
I’m sure Nikon is not going to commit suicide regarding the sales of the exotics.
This PF iterations are meant to be expanding sales, opening an existing larger market of photogs lusting for a better long lens but not willing to pay the premium for an exotic.
Shorter and lighter? Yes of course (500/5,6 would result in a 89,3 mm diameter for a conventional lens allready)
Optical? Good enough like the 300PF but no way on par with the exotics
Featureset? Up to date but again not on par with the exotics.
That’s what I guess to be realistic to expect
My copy of the 300PF is already right up there with the 500E and 600II and 400DOII and 300II and 200-400/1.4....the exotics demand their price for aperture IMO, actual IQ that can be realized in an image is already met by lenses like 300PF and less expensive choices like 100-400GM and 100-400II.
PF design doesn't change the lens diameter....500/5.6 stays the same....PF gives a shorter lens which results in a lighter lens. But to me that is a huge benefit in getting difficult shots....an extra stop of light in my 500E and being able to reach further with more TCs because of that is a huge benefit but for fast reactive very small BIF a smaller, lighter lens like the 300PF (or 500PF) gets you more keepers hands down versus swinging the 500E around.
Not sure what feature set the 500E has that the 500PF wouldn't. Compared to the 300PF the only thing that comes to mind is no lens buttons. The 500PF has them looking at the leaked images. What other features are you referring too?
AF between my 300PF and 500E is equal...I can't notice any difference and if they have to go for a big distance change the 300PF works faster with smaller stuff to move inside.
Wouldn't give up my 500E as it is the king of my Nikon glass collection and serves a very big purpose in my kit but it isn't IQ and feature set that set it apart for my use....it is the stop of light and what that gives me....
I can understand where Geoff is coming from as the 300PF is a very, very good lens. But it’s no supertele when it comes to “edge of the envelope” performance in my experience. In comparison to my 600E (ignoring the difference in focal lengths) the 600E clearly outperforms my 300PF at intermediate and distance shots, especially with the TC14EIII AT THE PIXEL LEVEL. The differences won’t be as noticable at close ranges or when down rezzing or shooting with fat pixels (i.e. D5). As far as AF performance, the 300PF racks from MFD to infinity and back about as fast as my 600E, but the 600E is much faster (like 50% faster) when making small focus adjustments, especially with the TC14EIII where it literally “snaps” to focus which comes in handy when trying to track erratic objects. The AF module in the 300PF is very good for a “prosumer” lens, but it’s not quite in the pro class. (If you ever get a chance to try the new 180-400 you’ll know what I mean.) And don’t get me started on the 300PF’s VR performance.
That’s my opinon and i’m sticking to it.
Anyway, regardless of what AF module Nikon sticks in the 500PF, it’s an f5.6 lens so don’t expect miracles. Recently I’ve been shooting dragonflies in flight with my D850+600E and had to abandon TC14EIII because the camera simply couldn’t keep up @f5.6.....shooting at f4 was doable — still tough but doable.
I agree with arbitrage here.
Optical companies charge a premium for that extra stop of light (...note, due to the added expense of the actual glass), but other than this and the inherent benefits of faster glass with teleconverters, I think the 500mm PF should be pretty close to the 500FLE. A fair comparison might be the 70-200mm f/4VR vs 70-200mm FLE. The latter is 2x the price, but the former is almost as sharp throughout the range. There is so little separating these lenses that unless you need to shoot between f/2.8 and f/4, or you need to add a 1.4x converter to the lens, save the money and buy the slower zoom.
I suspect that the PF lens will exhibit a bit lower contrast than the 500E in low light situations, as I have found this to be true with the 300mmPF, but I suspect that there will be little separating the two lenses in good light.
Sorry to say but when I tried this 300PF it was absolutely not delivering what you’re stating, I tried two other copies then gave up.
I consider the 300PF to be the worst performing tele prime Nikon ever made even the old poorman’s tele outperforms this lens.
I know quite some guys shooting the old lens with a 1.7TC glued to it regretting they traded it for the sake of VR heavily regretting this.
Of course one can achieve better results nowadays with high resolution sensors and modern software able to extrapolate detail but that’s not a lensproperty...
Btw I took a look at Lensscore and they confirmed my own experience.
For the featureset I was referring at focusmemory, lensbarrellbuttons, slipinfilters, instanteaneous AF, double the lighttransmission, the bokeh and better BG separation.
Nonetheless I’m sure people are going to say the 300PF is better than the old 300 F/4 even on par with the 300 F/2.8
Well let me say it this way you’re entitled to your opinion
Now to quote Morris I’m going to clean my sensors....
arbitrage wrote:
My copy of the 300PF is already right up there with the 500E and 600II and 400DOII and 300II and 200-400/1.4....the exotics demand their price for aperture IMO, actual IQ that can be realized in an image is already met by lenses like 300PF and less expensive choices like 100-400GM and 100-400II.
PF design doesn't change the lens diameter....500/5.6 stays the same....PF gives a shorter lens which results in a lighter lens. But to me that is a huge benefit in getting difficult shots....an extra stop of light in my 500E and being able to reach further with more TCs because of that is a huge benefit but for fast reactive very small BIF a smaller, lighter lens like the 300PF (or 500PF) gets you more keepers hands down versus swinging the 500E around.
Not sure what feature set the 500E has that the 500PF wouldn't. Compared to the 300PF the only thing that comes to mind is no lens buttons. The 500PF has them looking at the leaked images. What other features are you referring too?
AF between my 300PF and 500E is equal...I can't notice any difference and if they have to go for a big distance change the 300PF works faster with smaller stuff to move inside.
Wouldn't give up my 500E as it is the king of my Nikon glass collection and serves a very big purpose in my kit but it isn't IQ and feature set that set it apart for my use....it is the stop of light and what that gives me.......Show more →
Gary Irwin wrote:
I can understand where Geoff is coming from as the 300PF is a very, very good lens. But it’s no supertele when it comes to “edge of the envelope” performance in my experience. In comparison to my 600E (ignoring the difference in focal lengths) the 600E clearly outperforms my 300PF at intermediate and distance shots, especially with the TC14EIII AT THE PIXEL LEVEL. The differences won’t be as noticable at close ranges or when down rezzing or shooting with fat pixels (i.e. D5). As far as AF performance, the 300PF racks from MFD to infinity and back about as fast as my 600E, but the 600E is much faster (like 50% faster) when making small focus adjustments, especially with the TC14EIII where it literally “snaps” to focus which comes in handy when trying to track erratic objects. The AF module in the 300PF is very good for a “prosumer” lens, but it’s not quite in the pro class. (If you ever get a chance to try the new 180-400 you’ll know what I mean.) And don’t get me started on the 300PF’s VR performance.
That’s my opinon and i’m sticking to it.
Anyway, regardless of what AF module Nikon sticks in the 500PF, it’s an f5.6 lens so don’t expect miracles. Recently I’ve been shooting dragonflies in flight with my D850+600E and had to abandon TC14EIII because the camera simply couldn’t keep up @f5.6.....shooting at f4 was doable — still tough but doable. ...Show more →
Exactly Gary same experience here! (And I hope to get my copie of the 180-400 this month delivered, might take 3-4 weeks according to my dealer)
Well I can only report my own experience with a single copy of the 300PF. LensScore tested a single copy of each lens (clearly stated if you dig into the fine print), you tested three copies. It is unfortunate you didn’t find a good copy. I use mine up to a 2xTC with amazingly sharp results and fairly good AF considering the light loss at f/8.
I use mine on D850/D500. I have owned a fair number of chart topping superteles including 600II, 400DOII, 300/2.8II, 200-400/1.4EXT and the 500E FL.
So all I can do is compare my single copy of 300PF to those present and past experiences.
I’m always happy to share RAW files from the 300 PF with any and all TCs if anyone wants.
But I also am not discounting your experience or opinion. Just have to state mine for the record. I have very little bias as I shoot all systems. Also I don’t need to defend my purchase of one of my less expensive lenses so hopefully others will consider my experience when deciding on the 300PF.
Thern wrote:
Sorry to say but when I tried this 300PF it was absolutely not delivering what you’re stating, I tried two other copies then gave up.
I consider the 300PF to be the worst performing tele prime Nikon ever made even the old poorman’s tele outperforms this lens.
I know quite some guys shooting the old lens with a 1.7TC glued to it regretting they traded it for the sake of VR heavily regretting this.
Of course one can achieve better results nowadays with high resolution sensors and modern software able to extrapolate detail but that’s not a lensproperty...
Btw I took a look at Lensscore and they confirmed my own experience.
For the featureset I was referring at focusmemory, lensbarrellbuttons, slipinfilters, instanteaneous AF, double the lighttransmission, the bokeh and better BG separation.
Nonetheless I’m sure people are going to say the 300PF is better than the old 300 F/4 even on par with the 300 F/2.8
Well let me say it this way you’re entitled to your opinion
Now to quote Morris I’m going to clean my sensors....
My experience with two AF-S 300/4D's was that the autofocus was poor in tracking approaching subjects (people) and that focus keeper rate was very low in such situations, a bit better with static subjects. The optical quality was excellent in the close range, quite soft at infinity wide open. The long distance image quality was always very disappointing to me. Close range it was close to the quality of a Micro Nikkor lens.
The 300 PF is in some ways better optically (the colors are nicer in my opinion) and in some ways worse (lower contrast especially evident in dim/dull light). However, the AF performance in tracking approaching people subjects is dramatically better, and the dramatic drop of resale value of the D version is justified based on AF grounds. The 300 PF holds up sharpness in the center a bit better towards long distances wide open but not to the standards of the faster supertele primes. Stopped down the corners are also very good, much better than the 200-500 for example.
The 300/4D AF-S was a lens I didn't use in practice for many years because of lack of VR and poor AF. Before I sold it I shot several months intensely with it to find if there is any way to get good results from it, and I did achieve that, but with a very, very low keeper rate. No, it's not the shutter speed (I use very fast shutter speeds) but the AF.
Also the flare of the AF-S D is not that pleasing, lack of nano coating is apparent. The 300 PF isn't the most flare resistant lens, either; neither lens is at its best when the light is hitting the front element. However, if the light is behind the subject but outside the image area and the hood is on, the 300 PF handles this kind of backlit situations very well in my experience.
I would say that ergonomically and autofocus-wise the 300 PF is by far the better lens, but optically both lenses have advantages and disadvantages.
Interesting how people photograph with such different lighting. I would never consider direct sunlight from the direction of the photographer to be acceptable light for my subjects. People tend to squint in such light and that's a near 100% rejection rate scenario. With a lot of cloud cover, or reflecting surfaces, diffuse frontal light can be okay. Diffuse light is great, with some directionality (sun slightly peaking between clouds) is even better, and backlight (sun behind the subjects) can be excellent. But different subjects and shooting environments may lead to different preferences regarding photographic lighting. And personal taste, as well.
I do think the 500E is likely better at long distance than the 300PF but I see no use shooting a 300mm lens at long distance unless I’m going for some sort of birdscape or using it for landscapes. All my 300PF shots are at short to mid range...maybe 10-50 feet. Of course I naturally shoot the 500 at longer distances as I frequently use it at 700 and 850mm. I think it is an amazing lens, matching my best lens in the Canon 600/4II.
Gary Irwin wrote:
I can understand where Geoff is coming from as the 300PF is a very, very good lens. But it’s no supertele when it comes to “edge of the envelope” performance in my experience. In comparison to my 600E (ignoring the difference in focal lengths) the 600E clearly outperforms my 300PF at intermediate and distance shots, especially with the TC14EIII AT THE PIXEL LEVEL. The differences won’t be as noticable at close ranges or when down rezzing or shooting with fat pixels (i.e. D5). As far as AF performance, the 300PF racks from MFD to infinity and back about as fast as my 600E, but the 600E is much faster (like 50% faster) when making small focus adjustments, especially with the TC14EIII where it literally “snaps” to focus which comes in handy when trying to track erratic objects. The AF module in the 300PF is very good for a “prosumer” lens, but it’s not quite in the pro class. (If you ever get a chance to try the new 180-400 you’ll know what I mean.) And don’t get me started on the 300PF’s VR performance.
That’s my opinon and i’m sticking to it.
Anyway, regardless of what AF module Nikon sticks in the 500PF, it’s an f5.6 lens so don’t expect miracles. Recently I’ve been shooting dragonflies in flight with my D850+600E and had to abandon TC14EIII because the camera simply couldn’t keep up @f5.6.....shooting at f4 was doable — still tough but doable. ...Show more →
