Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1              3       4       end
  

Archive 2018 · My Review of the 500PF

  
 
speedmaster20d
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · My Review of the 500PF


this is me wrote:
They don't have to do anything but they do need to keep up with competitor. As of today, Canon's has the lightest 400mm f/2.8 and 600mm f/4. Significantly lighter actually. Lighter enough to make some of us 600mm user lusting for an updated version of the FL.
Nikon 600mm f/4 FL is 8.4lbs.
Canon 600mm f/4 ISIII is 6.7lbs.


Yes the weight is definitely in favor of Canon and their 2X TC's certainly performs better than Nikon's. But that is not everything. I have no problem hand-holding the Nikon 600 FL day in and day out, heck I used to hand hold the old Canon 600 MKI before the MKII came out, and that was a beast of a lens!

What made almost all of the best BIF photographers in the world to switch to Nikon overnight is the AF system in their bodies, a 1-lb 600mm lens is not worth a penny if it is not backed by a solid AF system. I'd own both systems in a heart beat if I felt the new Canon 600 MKIII would make a difference to the end result.... but it doesn't.



I am sure Nikon will respond to the new light lenses, not a matter of if but when....



Dec 06, 2018 at 03:25 PM
this is me
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #2 · p.2 #2 · My Review of the 500PF


speedmaster20d wrote:
Yes the weight is definitely in favor of Canon and their 2X TC's certainly performs better than Nikon's. But that is not everything. I have no problem hand-holding the Nikon 600 FL day in and day out, heck I used to hand hold the old Canon 600 MKI before the MKII came out, and that was a beast of a lens!

What made almost all of the best BIF photographers in the world to switch to Nikon overnight is the AF system in their bodies, a 1-lb 600mm lens is not worth a penny if it is not backed by
...Show more

Thanks for the input. We don't know when Nikon will response to the ISIII. But it took them 2 years to response to the ISII with the FL. In two years, will the F mount be relevant? Nobody knows.




Dec 06, 2018 at 04:11 PM
Christian H
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #3 · p.2 #3 · My Review of the 500PF


Are the weight weenies the same folks who obsess about not having enough reach? Lol


Dec 06, 2018 at 07:48 PM
RoyC
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #4 · p.2 #4 · My Review of the 500PF


this is me wrote:
They don't have to do anything but they do need to keep up with competitor. As of today, Canon's has the lightest 400mm f/2.8 and 600mm f/4. Significantly lighter actually. Lighter enough to make some of us 600mm user lusting for an updated version of the FL.
Nikon 600mm f/4 FL is 8.4lbs.
Canon 600mm f/4 ISIII is 6.7lbs.


While I have no personal experience with anything Canon, a Canon user I see every couple of years in YNP during fall trips told me this year that the reason he was shooting the older version of the Canon 600 f4 was that the new one is to light. He bought the new lens (latest 600 f4) used it a couple of weeks and then bought his older lens back. He spoke to the it having an issue with internal vibrations that a long lens stability device could not resolve. A Canon shooter's words.





Edited on Dec 07, 2018 at 08:40 AM · View previous versions



Dec 07, 2018 at 08:28 AM
arbitrage
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #5 · p.2 #5 · My Review of the 500PF


RoyC wrote:
While I have no personal experience with anything Canon, a Canon user I see every couple of years in YNP during fall trips told me this year that the reason he was shooting the older version of the Canon 600 f4 was that the new one is to light. He bought the new lens (ISIII) used it a couple of weeks and then bought his older lens back. He spoke to the ISIII's having an issue with internal vibrations that a long lens stability device could not resolve. A Canon shooter's words.



The 600 IS III hasn't even shipped yet (the 400 shipped two days ago). So unless this guy was a Canon Explorer of Light and had early access I'd call his story BS.



Dec 07, 2018 at 08:31 AM
RoyC
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #6 · p.2 #6 · My Review of the 500PF


arbitrage wrote:
The 600 IS III hasn't even shipped yet (the 400 shipped two days ago). So unless this guy was a Canon Explorer of Light and had early access I'd call his story BS.

.
MY bad on the model numbers, as I said I am not a Canon guy.






Dec 07, 2018 at 08:41 AM
arbitrage
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #7 · p.2 #7 · My Review of the 500PF


RoyC wrote:
.
MY bad on the model numbers, as I said I am not a Canon guy.



So if he was talking about the Mk II vs the Mk I then I'd also call his story BS as myself and many, many others have had no issues shooting the 600II (since 2012) handheld without vibration issues. Also the Nikon 600 FL is essentially the same weight as the 600II and no one claims issue with that one either.



Dec 07, 2018 at 08:47 AM
RoyC
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #8 · p.2 #8 · My Review of the 500PF


arbitrage wrote:
So if he was talking about the Mk II vs the Mk I then I'd also call his story BS as myself and many, many others have had no issues shooting the 600II (since 2012) handheld without vibration issues. Also the Nikon 600 FL is essentially the same weight as the 600II and no one claims issue with that one either.



Leaving the world of Canon lenses, where I know nothing, and going to the general world of image sharpness, just how in the world would you see any issues with shutter shock vibrations (as an example) when you are hand holding the darn lens? Come on, give us a break, I am not buying that you or anyone else is as steady as a tripod and fluid head.

Bye...Now I know I am done with this silly topic..





Dec 07, 2018 at 09:05 AM
arbitrage
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #9 · p.2 #9 · My Review of the 500PF


RoyC wrote:
Leaving the world of Canon lenses, where I know nothing, and going to the general world of image sharpness, just how in the world would you see any issues with shutter shock vibrations (as an example) when you are hand holding the darn lens? Come on, give us a break, I am not buying that you or anyone else is as steady as a tripod and fluid head.

Bye...Now I know I am done with this silly topic..



Yes of course shooting on a tripod gimbal will result in the ultimate image quality. I never said anything of the sort. I said that many, many of us on this forum alone have been handholding and getting sharp images with the Mk II Canons and FL Nikons at that weight category. And I've used my 600 a lot on gimbal/tripod also. What I haven't done is used it locked down on a tripod.

If the guy was using his 600 locked down on a gimbal or video head on a tripod only and shooting landscapes or very still wildlife then I don't know if there is some sort of shutter shock vibration difference through the two different lenses. Maybe there is?

There is truth to some lenses getting too light and having these issues...the most notorious culprit is the Nikon 300PF. That one I experience in my everyday use, thankfully the 500PF doesn't have that issue after testing it for a week.



Dec 07, 2018 at 09:24 AM
ilkka_nissila
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #10 · p.2 #10 · My Review of the 500PF


Although I haven't done thorough testing on it, I notice a difference in sharpness when using Qc and EFCS on the D850 when hand holding in many cases, the chances of "wow!" results is higher that way. The mechanical shutter does damage image sharpness even when hand-holding the lens at certain shutter speeds.

Lighter weight, high magnification lenses are more likely to vibrate, leading to blur, than heavier lenses of the same focal length. EFCS is more important for lightweight lenses than heavy ones.



Dec 07, 2018 at 01:49 PM
arbitrage
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #11 · p.2 #11 · My Review of the 500PF


I certainly noticed an improvement with the 300PF and Qc on the D850 when down in the 1/100-1/250 range. My 500PF has been fine in that range in normal Ch mode.

ilkka_nissila wrote:
Although I haven't done thorough testing on it, I notice a difference in sharpness when using Qc and EFCS on the D850 when hand holding in many cases, the chances of "wow!" results is higher that way. The mechanical shutter does damage image sharpness even when hand-holding the lens at certain shutter speeds.

Lighter weight, high magnification lenses are more likely to vibrate, leading to blur, than heavier lenses of the same focal length. EFCS is more important for lightweight lenses than heavy ones.




Dec 07, 2018 at 07:31 PM
henry albert
Online
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #12 · p.2 #12 · My Review of the 500PF


arbitrage wrote:
The 600 IS III hasn't even shipped yet (the 400 shipped two days ago). So unless this guy was a Canon Explorer of Light and had early access I'd call his story BS.


I was told there was one on the sidelines of the last Vikings-Packers game a couple weeks ago.



Dec 07, 2018 at 07:46 PM
speedmaster20d
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #13 · p.2 #13 · My Review of the 500PF


The Canon 600 MKIII has just begun to ship in the US to select customers and I had the opportunity to shoot with one the other day. Definitely can feel the 2 lbs and is razor sharp as the old one. All of this talk about it perhaps not being optically stellar is a big fat BS. The only thing I didn't like is that the lens is not any smaller than the old one, it's virtually the same shell... would love to see a 600 that is shorter and easier to maneuver when shooting from a truck...not this one.

However after being used to Nikon's AF there is no going back, the lens is super but the AF is all over the place and struggles mightily compared to Nikon, even the D850 without the grip beats the 1DXII hands down. It's a shame... the photographer has to work much harder in the field and in post to come up with the same shots on the C side...sometimes not possible




Dec 17, 2018 at 03:40 AM
MatthewK
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #14 · p.2 #14 · My Review of the 500PF


I'm not doubting that Nikon and their AF isn't great, but all of you born again Nikon shooters made incredible images for years with your Canon gear, regularly extolling its virtues in blog posts and videos, and now the same exact gear is barely able to make usable images without a hope and a prayer? "AF is all over the place and struggles mightily". Come on, man... if that were the case, how did you or any of these other shooters ever get anything remotely usable? And if it were such a struggle, why was it never mentioned?










Dec 17, 2018 at 05:28 AM
Christian H
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #15 · p.2 #15 · My Review of the 500PF


MatthewK wrote:
I'm not doubting that Nikon and their AF isn't great, but all of you born again Nikon shooters made incredible images for years with your Canon gear, regularly extolling its virtues in blog posts and videos, and now the same exact gear is barely able to make usable images without a hope and a prayer? "AF is all over the place and struggles mightily". Come on, man... if that were the case, how did you or any of these other shooters ever get anything remotely usable? And if it were such a struggle, why was it never mentioned?



Canon shooters had no idea. We've had fantastic AF since the release of the D3/D700, and the current generation bodies make you forget it's even there.



Dec 17, 2018 at 06:09 AM
MatthewK
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #16 · p.2 #16 · My Review of the 500PF


Christian H wrote:
Canon shooters had no idea. We've had fantastic AF since the release of the D3/D700, and the current generation bodies make you forget it's even there.


The thing is, the Canon bodies I shoot (1DX2, 5D4, 80D) seem to be able to AF on just about anything I point them at, so I'm just not seeing what you all seem to take as gospel. I have a D800 at home that just needs a lens; do you think I'll see the light and have my own come to Jesus moment? I wish I could afford to invest in a whole new Nikon ecosystem and grab a 500 PF, I know 100% that I'd love this lens, but my budget is tapped out for the foreseeable future.

I get that people have their preferences and biases, be it with cameras, cars, guitars, chili, whatever, and that's all perfectly fine. It's just a little tough to fathom that something which was so solid and effective for years is suddenly just not capable anymore; you all are stopping just short of saying that Canon users are better off manual focusing because the AF is so bad. It's fatiguing because personal bias and these extreme platitudes are starting to taint what was otherwise insightful comparison of the systems.

I also get that Arash and other BIF photographers switched because Nikon's AF is better for BIF. No argument, they're the authorities on that. But non BIF? I see new Nikon converts regularly claim that AF for even still photography is light years better, Canons can't AF, etc... I get it, your new system is awesome and you 100% made the right choice; it'd look stupid if you spent all of that money and proclaimed you made the wrong choice, but just stop with the BS that the Canon AF/lack of MPX/DR/backlit buttons/whatever was what was holding back your photography.




Dec 17, 2018 at 07:30 AM
arbitrage
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #17 · p.2 #17 · My Review of the 500PF


MatthewK wrote:
I'm not doubting that Nikon and their AF isn't great, but all of you born again Nikon shooters made incredible images for years with your Canon gear, regularly extolling its virtues in blog posts and videos, and now the same exact gear is barely able to make usable images without a hope and a prayer? "AF is all over the place and struggles mightily". Come on, man... if that were the case, how did you or any of these other shooters ever get anything remotely usable? And if it were such a struggle, why was it never mentioned?



You have a very valid point....there is a little too much hyperbole out there comparing Nikon and Canon's current AF systems. I might be somewhat guilty of that also.

Take a read through the AF section of Arash's 1DXII review and compare that with his post above. http://arihazeghiphotography.com/blog/eos-1d-x-mark-ii-field-review/

I guess things are always relative and opinions change but still....one quote from that review in regards to shooting Peregrine falcons:
"Situations like these are as tough as it gets for BIF."
"What I noticed immediately was the consistency and the stability of the AI servo tracking. I have many sequences of 30+ in-flight frames that are all tack sharp. It almost feels too easy capturing the ideal frame with the EOS-1D X Mark II."



Dec 17, 2018 at 10:06 AM
speedmaster20d
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #18 · p.2 #18 · My Review of the 500PF


MatthewK wrote:
I'm not doubting that Nikon and their AF isn't great, but all of you born again Nikon shooters made incredible images for years with your Canon gear, regularly extolling its virtues in blog posts and videos, and now the same exact gear is barely able to make usable images without a hope and a prayer? "AF is all over the place and struggles mightily". Come on, man... if that were the case, how did you or any of these other shooters ever get anything remotely usable? And if it were such a struggle, why was it never mentioned?







I did make good images but what you have no idea about is what the keeper ratio was. Any camera even an iphone can make incredible award-wining images in the right condition and if you tried a million times. For every incredible image you saw, there were maybe 3-4 more incredible ones that were missed and we never saw. There were many opportunities that were lost....

For many years before D5D/D850 Nikon AF sucked, Canon wasn't perfect but there wasn't anything better at the time. It was the best. With D5/D850 Nikon showed us what is possible and what the expectation should be.

Regards



Edited on Dec 17, 2018 at 11:16 AM · View previous versions



Dec 17, 2018 at 11:06 AM
speedmaster20d
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #19 · p.2 #19 · My Review of the 500PF


arbitrage wrote:
You have a very valid point....there is a little too much hyperbole out there comparing Nikon and Canon's current AF systems. I might be somewhat guilty of that also.

Take a read through the AF section of Arash's 1DXII review and compare that with his post above. http://arihazeghiphotography.com/blog/eos-1d-x-mark-ii-field-review/

I guess things are always relative and opinions change but still....one quote from that review in regards to shooting Peregrine falcons:
"Situations like these are as tough as it gets for BIF."
"What I noticed immediately was the consistency and the stability of the AI servo tracking. I have many sequences of 30+ in-flight frames
...Show more


I stand but what I said, please read the entire review, I said the 1DXII had improved compared to the 1DX. There was no Nikon D5 at that time.




Dec 17, 2018 at 11:13 AM
MatthewK
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #20 · p.2 #20 · My Review of the 500PF


speedmaster20d wrote:
I stand but what I said, please read the entire review, I said the 1DXII had improved compared to the 1DX. There was no Nikon D5 at the time.



That's what I'm trying to convey, sir. You were able to make fine images using the gear you had at hand, and that same gear is still able to capture those same images, it's just that the current Nikon offerings do it more effectively. That's fair, and not in dispute. Nikon's AF is better for BIF at the present, but to say Canon's is an unusable shambles is disingenuous, especially to users/readers who are all jumping ship over a perceived AF advantage that 99% of photographers (outside of BIF) will probably never appreciate in their normal use.




Dec 17, 2018 at 11:25 AM
1              3       4       end




FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1              3       4       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.