cpe1991 wrote:
I bought the D500 to go on the 500PF for bird photography. I need something for shorter focal lengths for closer big birds and tried two copies of the 70-300 AFP FX this week (in a store, one used). Both were a bit soft at 300mm and one very soft on the left hand side at 70mm. Worst was that VR at 300mm was poor when examined for high level detail, although looking very stable through the viewfinder or for looking at landscapes. I had to go 1/500s - 1/1000s to get a tack sharp images at the bird feather level. Is this normal? Or, have I been unlucky with those copies.
...Show more →
Your experience sounds like copy variation in yet another Nikkor
I nearly bought a 70-300 FX after test shots etc but decided not to add another lens as already have the (heavier!) 70-200 f2.8E with TC14 but 2 friends are happy with theirs, which confirms the positive reviews
cpe1991 wrote:
I bought the D500 to go on the 500PF for bird photography. I need something for shorter focal lengths for closer big birds and tried two copies of the 70-300 AFP FX this week (in a store, one used). Both were a bit soft at 300mm and one very soft on the left hand side at 70mm. Worst was that VR at 300mm was poor when examined for high level detail, although looking very stable through the viewfinder or for looking at landscapes. I had to go 1/500s - 1/1000s to get a tack sharp images at the bird feather level. Is this normal? Or, have I been unlucky with those copies.
The 70-300 AFP FX did not stay with me but for one use. Somewhat soft and nasty vignetting. Sold it here, got my cash back.
I seldom use it but I have the older 70-300 4.5 / 5.6 G and it's very acceptable on my D500 and FX body's too.
A good lens for shooting sports such as basketball is the Sigma 50-100 F1.8 Art lens. It is also one of the best lenses I have use for portraits and some landscapes on the D500. It has superb image quality on the D500 and other DX cameras.
Charles Loy wrote:
The 70-300 AFP FX did not stay with me but for one use. Somewhat soft and nasty vignetting. Sold it here, got my cash back.
I seldom use it but I have the older 70-300 4.5 / 5.6 G and it's very acceptable on my D500 and FX body's too.
I am very surprised to hear about softness with the 70-300 AF-P (FX) but agree about the vignetting. In spite of the vignetting I have been very happy with the lens on both my D850 and Z7. Perhaps I have just been lucky with my copy. Having resently bought a 300 PF though I am considering selling the 70-300 AF-P and getting the 24-200 Z mount lens due in April - not holding my breath for that though!
The 200-500 never comes off of my D500, but that's because I always carry a D7200 with a Tammy 17-50 or Nikon 70-300 along with me. I use an extension tube for macro with the 70-300 and get pretty good results, as well.
Bsmooth wrote:
Primary use will be Birds in Flight, but I shoot macros with the occasional land and seascape as well. But primarily it will be for Birds and wildlife.
Certainly consider the 300 f/4 PF and possibly the 1.4x teleconverter, the short focal distance is great for small things. This shot was with a Z6 but similar scale can be achieved with a D500
pwschladen wrote:
The 16-80 is a wonderful lens. I used the heck out of it on my D500 and D7200. Sharp, nice range, a shade faster at the long end than the 24-120 - and more compact. Nothing not to like. Only sold mine as I sold my DX bodies. Wish the 24-70 S f4 for my Z7 had the same range.
If you need wider, I found the latest Tamron 10-24 VC very good but there are other options I have not tried that may be better.
Like the OP I would purchase a D500 mainly for nature/wildlife, with lenses like the 300PF and 500PF. However, it is convenient to have a high quality general purpose lens at hand for other subjects/conditions and I agree the 16-80 is a wonderful lens that I would definitely want with that body.
I purchased a D500 16-80VR kit last year when they were strongly discounted for one day (apart from that, price for the combo has hardly moved over the last 3-4 years here in Europe, while price for bare body has finally started to decline - but that doesn't help if you have to pay $$ for the separate kit zoom). Unfortunately my 16-80 had one very weak side, and the seller refused to exchange it so it went back including the D500. But apart from that issue it was optically a whole level above my Canon 15-85IS lens which is dimmer, bigger and heavier and roughly similar price when purchased in a kit.
Because the D500 16-80VR kit is still quite expensive I'm now considering a Z50 with 16-50 kit zoom instead as a temporary solution - that kit lens is dimmer but optically also very good, and the Z50 kit is less than half the price of the D500 combo, so plenty of room to upgrade later on to a Z70 or so. Even used D500's from e.g. camera dealers are still quite expensive over here, even with 50-100K clicks ...
---------------------------------------------
cpe1991 wrote:
I bought the D500 to go on the 500PF for bird photography. I need something for shorter focal lengths for closer big birds and tried two copies of the 70-300 AFP FX this week (in a store, one used). Both were a bit soft at 300mm and one very soft on the left hand side at 70mm. Worst was that VR at 300mm was poor when examined for high level detail, although looking very stable through the viewfinder or for looking at landscapes. I had to go 1/500s - 1/1000s to get a tack sharp images at the bird feather level. Is this normal? Or, have I been unlucky with those copies.
Regarding the 70-300 performance: I have no experience with this specific lens, but maybe it's a similar problem to what I see with my Canon 55-250 IS STM. This is a very compact APS-C zoom with low price and VERY good IQ over all of its range, but with some catches. VR performance is VERY weak at the long end and with that lens too I have to use 1/500-1/1000s despite VR to be sure of perfectly sharp images. My much bigger (and 10x more expensive) 100-400 II zoom would still have sharp images at 400mm 1/30s in the same conditions ... Same problem when using the closeup function of this lens (0.3x or so), VR performance is almost zero. An additional problem is that the resulting sharpness problems do not always occur, it's maybe one in 3-4 shots that gets visible harm, and everything looks OK in the viewfinder.
Probably the VR/IS of such consumer zooms is poorly dimensioned so that it quickly reaches its limits. ON a DSLR AF adjustment can be an additional problem ... and it might depend strongly on how the lens is used (e.g. PDAF or Liveview AF focus, handheld or tripod, long or short subject distance) if you will notice problems.
rico wrote:
I recommend the 10-20 DX for the low weight, compact size, and because it performs way above its asking price (my copy was a $250 factory refurb).
Sigma and Tamron might have better lenses at acceptable prices, and Nikon also has better, though much more expensive lenses. I decided that I ultimately needed to move on to full-frame for wide-angle and for low-light performance.
cpe1991 wrote:
I bought the D500 to go on the 500PF for bird photography. I need something for shorter focal lengths for closer big birds and tried two copies of the 70-300 AFP FX this week (in a store, one used). Both were a bit soft at 300mm and one very soft on the left hand side at 70mm. Worst was that VR at 300mm was poor when examined for high level detail, although looking very stable through the viewfinder or for looking at landscapes. I had to go 1/500s - 1/1000s to get a tack sharp images at the bird feather level. Is this normal? Or, have I been unlucky with those copies.
I've had good luck with my 70-300 but I admit I haven't used it in condition that have needed extreme VR. It isn't as sharp as my 500PF but I never expected it to be. Honestly I've used it more for landscapes then I have for wildlife.
Bsmooth wrote:
How about the all around useful Nikon 18-300mm VR ? I know its not the best and its slow, but other than that it seems like a good all around lens.
I owned the 18-300 DX, but gave it to a family member together with a D5600 because it is not up to par with a D7500, let alone a D500. Main problems are general softness and chromatic aberrations that result in bleached halos around contrast edges (trees against the sky etc.) due to the correction algorithm of the D5600.
16-80 is great my Only dx lens
200-400 v 1 gets a ton of use
70-200 2.8 v2 every single game
500 5.6 pf was made for it
80-400 the list goes on.
I use my D500 instead of a 1.4 tc so it gets used on all of my len's.
You can't go wrong at the price they sell for on this site.
I tested another copy of the AF-P 70-300 f4.5-5.6e, and it was nicely centered etc on charts yesterday. Today, I tried it in the field on some birds. It wasn't quite as good at 300mm on the D500 as the very sharp Canon 100-400mm II at 300mm on the 5DSR, but more than good enough so I am keeping it. It's light enough to carry around along with the 500PF for close ups.
For macro on my D500 I use the Tamron 90mm (latest F017 model), Nikkor 45mm PC-E (1:2) and the Venus Optics 15mm f4 (1:1). All have their place and purpose but the Tamron gets used the most...
Siggy has been with me since film days and the N80. I got used to calling my Sigma 50-500 the sigmonster. Tamron goes either way depending on the phase of the moon and the Wyymin's Full Moon Drumming Cirrcle mood.
If I had to give up one lens, it would be the 16-80, not because it isn't a good lens, but because it doesn't do anything I can't do easily with my FX camera (currently a D780).
