jellem wrote:
finally the kingfisher came in front of my hideout !
(sat there for the 6th time with the 500PF)
shot with the D500 and 500PF, this was the first light of the day and it was so 'warm' that it looked like a carrot,
that is how orange it was XP.
have a feeling I could have bin sharper if I used a higher SS but wanted to keep ISO as low as possible.
ISO320
500mm
F5.6
1/125sec
EV -0.33
shot from a Sirui T-1204X carbon with K10X head and VR ON
Funny, I had a Belted Kingfisher fly right be me today, twice and I didn't see it until it was long gone. I swear they know I want to get the picture and just toy with me
Randolph K wrote:
Since last night I looked at the entire 300 PF thread and this 500 PF thread.
Both are great lenses.
I'm leaning towards the 300mm because:
- lower cost ... Used 300 PF + 1.7x = around $1780 vs the 500 PF $3600 (new)
- Less size / weight
I know some of you have used both the 300 PF and 500 PF with TC's.
How much of a difference in AF accuracy and detail is there between:
300 PF + 1.7x vs 500 PF?
And if you don't mind, the 300 PF + 1.4x vs 300 PF + 1.7x?
Thanks.
In my testing (I have both lenses and all three TCs) I find that 300PF/1.4TC is faster AF than bare 500PF...but only by a little and probably doesn't translate into any meaningful field differences. 300PF/1.7TC is still pretty snappy but the bare 500PF is better. The bigger issue for me is with 500PF I can still use Auto-AF mode which I use for fast BIF, with the 300/1.7 Nikon disables that mode so I use Group AF instead and Group isn't as good at very fast BIF.
I'm sure that detailed test chart testing will show 500PF has better IQ than 300/1.7 and probably better than 300/1.4...in real world results though the 300/1.4 looks as good to me as 500PF. The 300/1.7 is again still really good but 500PF has the edge.
When I was viewing the 300mm thread I really enjoyed your photographs! You're a lot of the reason why I want the 300 PF.
Also, regarding the 500mm, I'm happy you finally managed to find yourself a copy of the lens. I was reading about your troubles finding one in your neck of the woods and that Nikon seemed to focus more on other regions. Out of selfishness on my part, I was really hoping to see your 500 PF examples and sure enough, they've exceeded my expectations.
Knowing there doesn't seem to be that big of a difference in AF performance and detail, I can put my mind at ease.
Back when I shot Canon, one of my favorite lenses was the 300 F4 IS and this Nikon version seems to be a nice upgrade. Back then I also had a Sigma 150-500 which I never really got on with. I know superzooms have improved since then but I'd like to try to avoid them if I can. I've always preferred primes anyway.
Thank you again for responding and all the images you've posted.
arbitrage wrote:
... I'm sure that detailed test chart testing will show 500PF has better IQ than 300/1.7 and probably better than 300/1.4...in real world results though the 300/1.4 looks as good to me as 500PF. The 300/1.7 is again still really good but 500PF has the edge.
300/1.7 shots below...
I just wanted to respond to this last point as it applies to the images posted that demonstrate the capabilities of the 300PF + Converters...
First and most significantly, the images you posted Geoff are outstanding, as your work so often is. But... isn't there always a but ... I think that your subject to camera distance and quality of light is definitely in the sweet spot for a lens with a teleconverter. If you can manage to get that close to your subject in really good light, the 300PF + converters will be brilliant. As your subject to lens distance increases (assuming atmospheric distortion is not an issue) and the quality of light decreases, I think that you will begin to see the 500PF differentiate itself from the 300PF + converters.
This year Minnesota has seemed like a cold version of coastal BC... overcast and sunless. The 500PF has continued to allow me to produce some decent work in spite of the challenging conditions.
OwlsEyes wrote:
I just wanted to respond to this last point as it applies to the images posted that demonstrate the capabilities of the 300PF + Converters...
First and most significantly, the images you posted Geoff are outstanding, as your work so often is. But... isn't there always a but ... I think that your subject to camera distance and quality of light is definitely in the sweet spot for a lens with a teleconverter. If you can manage to get that close to your subject in really good light, the 300PF + converters will be brilliant. As your subject to lens distance increases (assuming atmospheric distortion is not an issue) and the quality of light decreases, I think that you will begin to see the 500PF differentiate itself from the 300PF + converters.
This year Minnesota has seemed like a cold version of coastal BC... overcast and sunless. The 500PF has continued to allow me to produce some decent work in spite of the challenging conditions.
It is a good point and I haven't really compared them directly over longer distances and in lower light. I did mostly use the 300PF/1.7 in good light and not shooting over too long of distance. Having a bare lens vs having a 1.7TC involved could surely make a difference in those less ideal conditions.
ChrisMak wrote:
Great shot, it's all there at 700mm. Is the AF useable overall for BIF with the D500? Meaning: are most images in a series as good as this one?
Chris
The AF is okay...in this sequence the eagle was filling a lot of the frame...the image posted is only a slight crop in from the FF. There were some frames in the sequence that weren't sharp...maybe because it caught a near wing or I moved AF point off the ideal spot.
I do notice a good hit in AF speed once the TC is on the 500PF. It can still nail shots of BIF but will miss also more than without the TC. I will continue to try and find opportunities to test the 500PF/TC for BIF to get a clearer opinion on it. The verdict is still out for me as I haven't done enough BIF with it and mostly have done floating/perched birds.
My first go with the 500PF+1.7TCii for perching bierd/squirrel.
Forgot to mention with the D850 if that matters to anyone.
Oh, buried deep in the Flickr EXIF 'Focal Length (35mm format) - 1020 mm'.
So I think that means I was shooting the D850 in crop mode ??
... I think that your subject to camera distance and quality of light is definitely in the sweet spot for a lens with a teleconverter. If you can manage to get that close to your subject in really good light, the 300PF + converters will be brilliant. As your subject to lens distance increases (assuming atmospheric distortion is not an issue) and the quality of light decreases, I think that you will begin to see the 500PF differentiate itself from the 300PF + converters.
