OwlsEyes
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.2 #9 · New Sigma 500 f4 OS Sport ?'s | |
ChrisMak wrote:
We're very much in the same boat Bruce. I also intended to buy the Sigma 500S, but for my former Canon 7DII. When it became apparent that Canon was never going to make a 7DIII, I switched to the Nikon D500, and of course, got the 500PF. But great as the 500PF is, I see it more as an incredibly light and sharp 500mm to easily carry along whenever you want to be free of the burden of a heavy lens, and less as a lens that I take along when I specifically go out for bird photography.
There is the maximum f5.6 stop, which would have been absolutely fine for me at 600mm, but not at 500mm. That is why I bought the 500PF without the sense of it being my desired birding lens, I was really waiting and hoping for Nikon to make the 600/5.6 PF, but they did not, and won't likely. F5.6 at 500mm is i.m.o. a very awkward balancing of all the ingredients for a super telephoto prime, such as weight, cost, size, useablity etc. You cannot decently put a 1.4TC on to get beyond 500mm, which as a birder is virtually álways short, leading to excessive cropping. And as you say, d.o.f. is often júst about fine and also often nót. 600mm f5.6 is fine, cropping will get you a long way, there are far less shots that end up in the bin due to lack of reach, and d.o.f. is much more useable.
Which is why the 500PF is an awkward lens, next to being a brilliant lens. Having only the 500PF leaves you with a feeling you are missing crucial shots. I used the Sigma 500mm f4.5 for a few years, and although I did not like that lens optically (low contrast), it was far more useable in combo with the 1.4TC. I have been surpised how miuch I miss that d.o.f. and TC useability, even when the 500PF is optically much nicer. The 500PF downside being f5.6 is also that its sharpness tends to backfire in certain images, giving it an aura of being merely a very sharp lens without the special supertele prime sauce. I believe some 500E FL users were not that charmed by the 500PF due to its dominant sharpness.
Long story short: for me the Sigma 500S with 1.4TC has surfaced as the most reasonable companion to the 500PF, even though I somewhat fear its weight for long hikes and exclusive handheld shooting. The Nikon 500mm f4E FL is way overpriced here at 11999,- and I am not willing to or able to spend that much money on a single lens.
I am surpised though at how many shooters seem to conclude that the 500PF is all they will ever need. I would lose the drive to go on special trips, feeling too limited. Had Nikon released a 600/5.6 PF after all, things might have been very different, I would instantly trade in my 500PF against a 600PF at day of release, d**n Nikon!!
B.t.w. I also played with the idea of switching to the Sony A1 with the 200-600mm, but a thourough review of this combo by Mark Galer revealed some of the weaknesses of the 200-600 for birding, and I would again be stuck with an awkward balance of f6.3 at 560-565 mm (which is what I believe the true focal length at the long end is). But I guess we all look at the greener grass now and then...
...Show more →
Thanks for continuing the dialog Chris, as this conversation helps me to process my needs/desires in a lens.
Unlike you, I am not a bird photographer. I'd call myself an opportunistic bird photographer that will work birds that are naive (young), tame (at feeders), or don't realize I am present. While I enjoy a bit of birding and celebrate new sightings, they are a tertiary subject for me.
Photographically, I tend to focus on ecosystem stories. This has me looking at the interactions between animals and habitat. Furthermore, I am very interested in behavior studies... not so much predator-prey, but those behaviors that look at "a day in the life." I spend a lot of time hiding in cattails, physical blinds, and makeshift "bag blinds." As such, the 500mm focal length is actually very useable for me. When using my D500 its a 750mm optical perspective; on the Z6II is becomes a great wildlife landscape lens.
Because I often get physically close to my subjects, I do benefit from a zoom. I have shot with a 200-400 since 2014, enjoyed its performance on the Z6/Z6II, but found it lacking with the D500. While it was useable, it required focus adjustments at the long end that through off the focus on the short end. As a result, I could not benefit from the crop factor. The use of a 1.4x was a non-starter, as the performance wide open suffered, and I would need to stop the lens down to f/8... thus, I might as well be using the 500mm PF @ f/5.6. I sold this lens after years of enjoyment on the weekend and now use the 70-200mm f/2.8S with the 1.4x. It is a bit short, but will work until I can sort things out.
So what are my options?... Well there is the 120-300mm f/2.8FLE that is said to take the 1.4x and 2x well. This is appealing, but one needs to swap in and out converters... this fiddly process is a challenge in rain, snow, and frigid cold. There is the 180-400 FLE w/ built in converter. I've seen them used for $8800, out of my price range, but one can can always dream. Finally, there is the future 200-600 lens for the Z system. While it is likely to be closer to the 200-500 Nikon than the 180-400FLE, it could be the perfect lens for my Z6II. If I carry the zoom and keep the 500PF on my D500, I have the flexibility of a zoom on one camera and the additional speed and optical extraction on the other. While neither resolves my f-stop issue, the mix of portability, focal length, and affordability might reasonable compromise.
As I stated, the 180-400 is what I really want, but when faced with a choice of travel vs optics, I tend to choose the travel option. With a trip to South Africa planned for the summer of 2022, I doubt that I could scrape together the funds that would also allow me to buy the 180-400mm lens as well.
regards,
bruce
|
