My first post here.....
Been using the 200-500 since 2015 and for value it has been an excellent purchase. I however been frustrated by its slow focus acquisition on occasions. It is very difficult to use with very fast birds except you see the bird well ahead....when focus is acquired though it tracks and holds on very well and for my amateur use sharp enough. I also love the very close focusing and the vr is amazing yielding with good hand-holding technique sharp images of perched birds with shutter speeds as low as 1/50s. Because of the slow-ish focus acquisition, I have been lusting after a 500pf and GAS got the better of me during the month of February and I acquired the PF. I intend to use both over the next 3-6 months then decide which to keep.
From my first three weeks of use I see that I would have adjust my hand holding technique using the 500PF; as the 200-500 is still hard wired in my brain. But CLEARLY, it does acquire focus much much faster and takes the 1.4III TC much better. Its also has better contrast. I do however find that once focus has been acquired the 200-500 seems to track and hold a shade better ....yielding more consistent sharp and in focus pictures. This may be due to my observed need to refine my hand holding technique and I suspect the 500pf may need some AF adjustment.....still need to use the PF a bit more till I am very comfortable holding/ using it.... below are two sample shots.. the 1st, one of the first shorts with the lens and the 2nd, taken last week . CHU_9242 by [url=https://www.flickr.com/photos/74752281@N00/] CHU_9990-5 by [url=https://www.flickr.com/photos/74752281@N00/]
The breakthrough sadly was the original 40mm DO, followed by its refinement in the version II, but sadly because they didn't follow it up. Nikon had a stroke of inspiration when they made the 500mm PF as lighter weight lens at just over half the price. I had the DO II for several years and tested it on my 5DIV, 5DSR and 90D ± TCs vs the 500PF on the D500, my first Nikon body. Optically, I think the two lenses are identical. In practice, the D500 + 500PF outresolves the 400mm DO II + 1.4xTC + 5DSR, and the Nikon with the 1.4xTC is significantly better than the Canon with the 2xTC on the 5DSR, because of the degradation of IQ, slight with 1.4xTCs and more with the 2x. YMMV. In addition, the D500 is what the 7DIII should be if Canon gets round to it - incredible AF in terms of locking on for moving subjects and consistency with still ones. However, I still prefer Canon for zooms and you would have to wrench my 100-400mm II out of my hands because of its excellent fast AF and quality from edge-to-edge as well as being lighter than the Nikon.
I sold all my Canon equipment including the 100-400II, just so I could get the D500 and 500PF, however the money came up slightly short, so for now no camera at all. I'm definitely getting the D500, now I just can't figure what lens to put with it for Birds in Flight.
CEBlueclouds wrote:
But CLEARLY, [500PF] does acquire focus much much faster... I do however find that once focus has been acquired the 200-500 seems to track and hold a shade better
See, to me, that sounds like the 500PF is definitely technically superior but may be happiest at different AF tracking settings. Not sure which body you're using, but if it's the D850 have you played around with Custom Setting A3?
I had a lot of situations where 200mm was too long with the D500 and its DX sensor making it like using a 300-750mm lens. For small birds it was not a problem but for larger birds and mammals the view angle was too small and I found myself grabbing the 80-400mm lens instead where I had the view angle of a FX 120-600mm lens - quite a difference between 120mm and 300mm as the shortest focal length.
Now I often have the 500mm PF on one FX camera and the 80-400mm on the other one and the weight if very manageable for shooting hand held.
elkhornsun wrote:
I had a lot of situations where 200mm was too long with the D500 and its DX sensor making it like using a 300-750mm lens. For small birds it was not a problem but for larger birds and mammals the view angle was too small and I found myself grabbing the 80-400mm lens instead where I had the view angle of a FX 120-600mm lens - quite a difference between 120mm and 300mm as the shortest focal length.
Now I often have the 500mm PF on one FX camera and the 80-400mm on the other one and the weight if very manageable for shooting hand held. ...Show more →
One of the big advantages of using a D850 over a D500....essentially equivalent pixels for when subjects are far and/or small and yet a true FF FOV for subjects that are large and/or close. That was one reason I found myself usually grabbing the D850 over the D500 even though I enjoy the shooting experience (dampened/quieter shutter, 10FPS without grip, unlimited buffer) of the D500 much more than the D850.
Lee Saxon wrote:
See, to me, that sounds like the 500PF is definitely technically superior but may be happiest at different AF tracking settings. Not sure which body you're using, but if it's the D850 have you played around with Custom Setting A3?
Thank you Lee....I haven’t played with the custom setting A3.... I use a D850... your suggestion is well noted.....regards
After reading how some of you guys use both the fx and dx cameras that seems like the best route to go. I'm pretty sure I'll sell my 120-300 Sigma and get a 500 pf. Then I'll carry my D810 with me and can mix and match according to conditions. It's not an 850, but it still takes beautiful pictures.
Of course there will be times when a subject pops up just when I have the wrong combo on, but that's life.
arbitrage wrote:
One of the big advantages of using a D850 over a D500....essentially equivalent pixels for when subjects are far and/or small and yet a true FF FOV for subjects that are large and/or close. That was one reason I found myself usually grabbing the D850 over the D500 even though I enjoy the shooting experience (dampened/quieter shutter, 10FPS without grip, unlimited buffer) of the D500 much more than the D850.
That is one reason why I favor it too (for now anyway). If an animal is in close to me I want the most pixels I can get into the frame.
Today (for the first time) I shot a couple of my American Goldfinches (on a sock of nijer seeds) through the window, by pressing/holding the fn1 button and rotating the rear dial to DX image area. I would have cropped the image anyway.
Here, it is shaping up to be another early spring. Males will be yellowing shortly.
Hoping to purchase the 500 5.6 PF soon. 200-500 weight and slowness-to-acquire is wearing on me. I think the 500 5.6 will be my new go-to, as it has become with most of you. Quite sure I'll be keeping the 200-500.
bs kite wrote:
Quite sure I'll be keeping the 200-500.
I kept mine to but it hasn't even been mounted since I got my 500PF over a year ago. Makes me think about selling it and putting that money into something I'll actually use more.
palmor wrote:
I kept mine to but it hasn't even been mounted since I got my 500PF over a year ago. Makes me think about selling it and putting that money into something I'll actually use more.
Your images in Fakahatchee are great. That lens is sharp!
You can't go wrong with the 500PF. I've shot with the 200-500 (sold), 500 f/4G (sold) and 400 f/2.8E (still got it). The 500PF is the lens I grab for longer hikes and trips and so does my wife. It's so lightweight and yet a PRO lens. It's sharp wide open at f/5.6 while with the 200-500 I always felt like shooting at f/8 or at f/6.3. I think the VR is about the same which is excellent.
The best part with the 500 PF is it's fast focus! Sell the 200-500 if you still got one. It's easy to sell for a decent price. I sure did and do not miss it at all.
After a trip last year to Costa Rica with the D850 and the D500 I realized that if I had a problem with the D850 camera the D500 was not a suitable backup camera. I sold the D500 and bought a second D850 when I got back home.
I use the D850 100% of the time in FX mode and like having the extra space around a subject and knowing I can crop later. With fast moving subjects it is difficult to get the best framing with a DX camera or crop and I found I would clip wings and other problems with images.
The D500 is a great value and it was great having its 21MP sensor file output sizes. When I open a D850 Raw file it averages 70MB in size and that has a very real and negative impact on my workflow and processing productivity. I wonder how many new computers have been bought to compensate for owning a D8xx camera.
elkhornsun wrote:
After a trip last year to Costa Rica with the D850 and the D500 I realized that if I had a problem with the D850 camera the D500 was not a suitable backup camera. I sold the D500 and bought a second D850 when I got back home.
I use the D850 100% of the time in FX mode and like having the extra space around a subject and knowing I can crop later. With fast moving subjects it is difficult to get the best framing with a DX camera or crop and I found I would clip wings and other problems with images.
The D500 is a great value and it was great having its 21MP sensor file output sizes. When I open a D850 Raw file it averages 70MB in size and that has a very real and negative impact on my workflow and processing productivity. I wonder how many new computers have been bought to compensate for owning a D8xx camera. ...Show more →
I find it interesting that you felt that the D500 was not up to Costa Rica's conditions. I have the exact opposite opinion about the D500. I have taken it and shot it in Costa Rica in 2017 and 2019. I have also used it in the dark forests of British Columbia and Washington. I am attaching a few high ISO images from these more challenging low light conditions.
elkhornsun wrote:
After a trip last year to Costa Rica with the D850 and the D500 I realized that if I had a problem with the D850 camera the D500 was not a suitable backup camera. I sold the D500 and bought a second D850 when I got back home.
I use the D850 100% of the time in FX mode and like having the extra space around a subject and knowing I can crop later. With fast moving subjects it is difficult to get the best framing with a DX camera or crop and I found I would clip wings and other problems with images.
The D500 is a great value and it was great having its 21MP sensor file output sizes. When I open a D850 Raw file it averages 70MB in size and that has a very real and negative impact on my workflow and processing productivity. I wonder how many new computers have been bought to compensate for owning a D8xx camera. ...Show more →
I didn't think the D850 was up to the task in Costa Rica. The light there, IMO, requires nothing less than a D5. A D500 would have been a huge mistake, after 1600 ISO on either body I'm not happy. So this comes down to what we want.
When I see images where the subjects were too tighly cropped I suspect that the lens was too long or a DX camera was used. I like to leave breathing space around a subject and show it in its habitat.
A D500 is good for many situations but when I photographed a Quetzal nest in Monte Verde with the D850 I was barely far enough away to get the entire bird in the frame and I was not allowed to back away further and even if I had there would have been a crowd of 20 people in front of me and blocking my view. I would have not been able to take the shot at all with a D500 and that was when it became obvious that it was not a good backup for the FX D850.
A D5 has lower DR than the D850 and requires a 600mm lens to provide the same image size as I can get with a 500mm lens on the D850 with it 50% greater resolution. I shot ospreys for a week with the D5, D500, and D850 and at the end of that time the D850 was the one that provided the best results. 5% more in focus shots with the D5 but that was not enough of a gain to offset the 50% decrease in image resolution.
It is a very big deal for me to be able to take the 500mm PF lens instead of the 600mm f/4 with its tripod and gimbal head to many destinations. It greatly simplifies the logistics when traveling by air and often in less than full size aircraft.
