I have been reading and watching all the various threads about each. I recently purchased a 200-500 here from someone. I like it. It seems very sharp and handles well. I'm not a bif guy, just not that much opportunity, although I do go about once a year to Iowa for eagles. I'm more of a whatever I can find wildlife shooter. I like it all.
They are both f5.6, so what does the pf give me that I don't have with the 200-500? I surmise from my reading that the AF is faster to lock on, right? What else am I missing?
Oh, I shoot with a D500 mostly. I have a D810 but that mostly for non-telephoto stuff. Thanks
For me personally it's crucial for hiking and hand holding for extended times that the PF gives me 2lb or nearly 1kg less to tire my aged arms and legs. Others will expand on the differences in performance - the PF is the best lightweight supertele in existence (and I have a 400mm DO II as a close match). I bought a D500 just so I could use a PF.
The 200-500 is suitable as the only lens on a single body. With a 500 you really need a second body with a shorter lens, maybe a 200 or 300. The standard way of shooting using a car as a blind with a window mount or bag, or using a drape blind, will otherwise have you kicking yourself the first time wildlife wanders too close to shoot with a 500. Lens changes in the field tend to be a pain and anyone who does it regularly will strongly recommend two bodies for two lenses. The 200-500 lets you carry just one body. A 500 is a very long focal length for big animals like elk, bison or moose, especially if you want some environmental context. Having the proper tool for the job is always #1 in photography, optical quality tends to fall very far down the list; in other words, it rarely makes or breaks images.
The 500PF is faster to focus, sharper, more contrasty and takes the TC14EIII better than the zoom. VR on the zoom is better though. But the most important differences are also the most obvious; the smaller size and lower weight of the 500PF vs. the ability to shoot 200-499mm with the zoom.
Jan Brittenson wrote:
The 200-500 is suitable as the only lens on a single body. With a 500 you really need a second body with a shorter lens, maybe a 200 or 300. The standard way of shooting using a car as a blind with a window mount or bag, or using a drape blind, will otherwise have you kicking yourself the first time wildlife wanders too close to shoot with a 500. Lens changes in the field tend to be a pain and anyone who does it regularly will strongly recommend two bodies for two lenses. The 200-500 lets you carry just one body. A 500 is a very long focal length for big animals like elk, bison or moose, especially if you want some environmental context. Having the proper tool for the job is always #1 in photography, optical quality tends to fall very far down the list; in other words, it rarely makes or breaks images. ...Show more →
It depends on where you are and what you are shooting. For bird photography, I rarely need to zoom out. When on safari, I always have a zoom as well. And, as I generally travel with my wife, she often travels with the zoom and me with the prime. For the Galapagos, we both had telezooms, and left the prime behind as everything was so close. I also packed a Sony RX10IV. If you are going to have just one lens, I fully agree that a zoom is more useful.
Gary Irwin wrote:
The 500PF is faster to focus, sharper, more contrasty and takes the TC14EIII better than the zoom. VR on the zoom is better though. But the most important differences are also the most obvious; the smaller size and lower weight of the 500PF vs. the ability to shoot 200-499mm with the zoom.
This!
I recently switched from a 200-500 to the 500PF (on a D500).
90% or more of he time I was using it at 500mm and more (TC14EIII) and a this FL the zoom is no match (I shouldn't).
For shorter FL I have the 300PF or the 70-300E (on a Z6).
I recently switched from a 200-500 to the 500PF (on a D500).
90% or more of he time I was using it at 500mm and more (TC14EIII) and a this FL the zoom is no match (I shouldn't).
For shorter FL I have the 300PF or the 70-300E (on a Z6).
I am thinking of the 300PF and/or the Nikon 70-300mm f4.5-5.6E ED VR AF-P for shorter focal lengths. It seemed to me that zoom would be more useful as I have the 500 prime. How do you find it?
I've had the 200-500 and now have the 500 pf. The 200-500 is a great lens and is very sharp across the range with lovely overall IQ. The only drawback for me is it is a little slow to focus and is large and quite heavy in comparison to the 500 pf, which is fast to focus and is very light and small. These are the main issues you need to weigh up as to which best suits your needs. If the 200-500 had a pro spec AF, then I would definitely reassess my thoughts on it. I would be happy to pay a premium for pro spec AF.
You know, for whatever reason I never checked the weight on the pf. I knew it was a lot lighter than the 500G but I am surprised to learn it is even lighter than the 200-500. I'm used to the weight of a Sigma 120-300 f2.8, so the 200-500 feels pretty light to me already.
So it seems like the main difference to me would be the superior AF of the pf vs the zoom ability of the 200-500.
At this point I'm leaning toward getting a pf, keeping the 200-500 and selling the 120-300. But who knows what tomorrow will bring.
I have the Nikon 500pf and the 300pf. I had been using a Sigma 150-600 Sport. I got the sport before the 200-500 before the Nikon 200-500 came out. I'm glad I did because the Sigma is a very good lens that is weather sealed. I don't use it much anymore as I stick with the 500pf and the 300pf.
Both the 300pf and the 500pf are both weather sealed. When I go to a blind I take both the 300pf on a Nikon D850 and the 500pf on a D500. The image quality and the autofocus speed beat the Sigma. Ive gone on hikes carrying both the bodies and lenses and it is easier than carrying the Sigma.
I carry the D500 with the 500pf with me in my truck and in the tractor or sprayer all the time. Critters that are scared of the pickup but not afraid of the tractor or sprayer. The camera and 500pf are easy to get to and handhold so it is easier for me to get awkward shots from the back window or sneak around on the sprayer platform.
The 500pf is a great lens on any body and the size is one of its many attributes.
Seeing as you already have a 200-500 You can easily figure out if a 500mm prime would work for you. Just keep it zoomed to 500mm each and every time you use it, and keep notes on the positive and negative aspects of that focal length. You could also do the same with 400mm and 300mm and 200mm for that matter. If you've got the time you have a very nice lens to practice with.
So if you said you liked 300 and could use more reach then 500, you could look at a 300 2.8 and a 2x teleconverter.
cpe1991 wrote:
I am thinking of the 300PF and/or the Nikon 70-300mm f4.5-5.6E ED VR AF-P for shorter focal lengths. It seemed to me that zoom would be more useful as I have the 500 prime. How do you find it?
I both have the 300PF and 70-300E.
The 70-300E is quite a nice lens for its price, but it's not in the same league as the 300PF.
The 70-300E is for me a substitute until Nikon comes with a S-version in that range. I'll probably keep the 300PF.
The PF is sharper than the zoom faster to focus and can also give you good results with the TC. With the body you are using the AF with TC is going to be slow but for perched birds it can give tack sharp images. It is also significantly lighter and smaller
speedmaster20d wrote:
The PF is sharper than the zoom faster to focus and can also give you good results with the TC. With the body you are using the AF with TC is going to be slow but for perched birds it can give tack sharp images. It is also significantly lighter and smaller
You were somewhat more critical in your actual review of the 200-500mm where you ended with:
"Working pros and those who demand critical sharpness and/or AF performance worth of BIF photography, need to look elsewhere, at the Nikon AF-S 500mm f/5.6 PF and can skip this lens. After acquiring the 500 PF, I quickly sold the 200-500 and I haven’t looked back since."
cpe1991 wrote:
You were somewhat more critical in your actual review of the 200-500mm where you ended with:
"Working pros and those who demand critical sharpness and/or AF performance worth of BIF photography, need to look elsewhere, at the Nikon AF-S 500mm f/5.6 PF and can skip this lens. After acquiring the 500 PF, I quickly sold the 200-500 and I haven’t looked back since."
yes I am critical when it comes to sharpness and the 200-500 just didn't cut it for me. keep in mind I shoot BIF primarily which means I have to crop my files. nevertheless I think 500PF over 200-500 is a no brainier and comes down to $$$ only. I am sure you will agree when you try one.
speedmaster20d wrote:
yes I am critical when it comes to sharpness and the 200-500 just didn't cut it for me. keep in mind I shoot BIF primarily which means I have to crop my files. nevertheless I think 500PF over 200-500 is a no brainier and comes down to $$$ only. I am sure you will agree when you try one.
best
I bought one, partly based on your review! It's by far my favourite lens and the 400mm DO II has been relegated.
Some great responses in this thread. The OP and I got together back in January to photograph eagles along the Iowa River. We both own the Sigma 120-300 Sport which is much too short for properly photographing eagles. I did let Ernie, the OP, use my Sigma 150-600 Sport, but it weighs a ton and takes some getting used to as most of that weight is way out front when zoomed to 600. Neither of us were pleased with our results which led me to rent the 500PF. And that would be my advice to anyone considering the lens. Just be warned, the $200 rental fee will probably lead to you spending $3500 to purchase the lens.
Yeah Chris, this is all your fault you know. After seeing all the great eagle shots you posted with that lens it got me to thinking about it and wanting one.
I really do want one, but I'm having a hard time deciding if I need one. AAARRGH!!!
Lance B wrote:
I've had the 200-500 and now have the 500 pf. The 200-500 is a great lens and is very sharp across the range with lovely overall IQ. The only drawback for me is it is a little slow to focus and is large and quite heavy in comparison to the 500 pf, which is fast to focus and is very light and small. These are the main issues you need to weigh up as to which best suits your needs. If the 200-500 had a pro spec AF, then I would definitely reassess my thoughts on it. I would be happy to pay a premium for pro spec AF. ...Show more →
My thoughts are pretty much the same as Lance's. I own both, but have to say the 200-500 sits in a case 99% of the time. The 500pf is so darn good that the only time I even think about the 200-500 is if I know the action distance will vary greatly. In that case I might remember to bring it along, but it will still sit with my gear until I am 200% positive I need a shorter focal length than the 500 can provide.
cpe1991 wrote:
For me personally it's crucial for hiking and hand holding for extended times that the PF gives me 2lb or nearly 1kg less to tire my aged arms and legs. Others will expand on the differences in performance - the PF is the best lightweight supertele in existence (and I have a 400mm DO II as a close match). I bought a D500 just so I could use a PF.
Intersting, I also bought a Nikon D500 with the sole purpose of being able to use the 500PF, while already owning the Canon 400DOII. But at the same time, you could turn this around the other way as well: I bought the 500PF to be able to use the D500.
The thing is that I have tried with the 400DOII the: 7DII, 90D and EOS-R, and none of these bodies paired with the 400DOII as well as the Nikon D500 pairs with the 500PF. In other words: if Canon had had a D500 level body that truly gets every drop of IQ out of the 400DOII, I would have never added the Nikon combo.
I haven't decided on which lens is best, simply because Canon has yet to make a crop camera or 45mp FF camera that can show the real capabilities of this lens IQ wise. Personally, I feel that the 400DOII may have the ultimate edge in IQ.
That does not mean a lot though, as the 500PF is 500mm and the 400DOII needs at least the 1.4TC or is otherwise too short, and the 1.4TC hardly affects the sharpness of the 400DOII, but it sure does affect the bokeh, so in that regard the 500PF is superior.
The 500PF is one of the breakthrough innovations in recent (super tele) lens technology i.m.o., especially for hiking and cycling, and turns all other super telelenses into heavy bricks (although I don't always mind a heavy brick). This is only augmented by the level of IQ they have managed to put into this lens.
I really hope Nikon pushes through and releases an even more groundbreaking lens: a 600mm f5.6PF, and eventually even finishes the family with a 400mm f4PF. They would then have a hugely solid wildlife/birding/sports lens line for portable use (although they may have to re-enigineer the 300PF for flare performance?).
As to the 400DOII, if Canon releases a R7, it may beat the 500PF at AF, and possibly at sheer IQ, it is razor sharp and clear even with the 1.4TC, and gets you to 560mm at f5.6, which is still a significant difference to 500mm i.m.o.
