Christian H wrote: sum1sgrampa wrote:
Viewing the photos on these pages kind of confirms the thoughts I've been having when viewing the images on the 500 PF thread. So much talk about "sharpness". The 500 PF seems to be sharp enough. But I feel it's sharp in the same way the 300 AF-P's are sharp. There's just a "crispiness" or edge to the images that lacks character. There's just something missing. Yeah, I know. What's missing is the weight. I get it. This doesn't diminish the value of the 500 PF in terms of portability and weight. I can only imagine it's a pure joy to shoot with. Does it make any sense to say the images of the 500 5.6 look more 200-500 ish than they do 500 f4 ish ? Anyways, comparing a 5.6 lens to a f4 lens that's 3x the cost is probably silly anyways. But then, what do I know ? I'm still shooting an old AF-I
Based on images shared on this forum so far, image quality is not a good reason to retire your f/4 500 or, indeed, your 200-500 in exchange for the PF. Old age and/or limited mobility and convenience are among the top reasons people have cited, which makes sense in an aging society of couch potatoes. Some folks have even said they don't really care about image quality (crispness, detail, bokeh, or however people define that for themselves.)
Very true. However, looking at your images of the (Coywolf), possibly ? Your buck. and Arbitrage's ducks makes me want to go out and rob a bank in order to upgrade my old 500.
Oct 21, 2018 at 09:40 AM
Previous versions of sum1sgrampa's message #14637657 « The Nikon 500mm F4 Official thread »
I get it. This doesn't diminish the value of the 500 PF in terms of portability and weight. I can only imagine it's a pure joy to shoot with. Does it make any sense to say the images of the 500 5.6 look more 200-500 ish than they do 500 f4 ish ? Anyways, comparing a 5.6 lens to a f4 lens that's 3x the cost is probably silly anyways. But then, what do I know ? I'm still shooting an old AF-I