OwlsEyes
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
|
 Re: "Official" Nikon 500 f/5.6E PF Discussion and Image Thread | |
Lance B wrote:
bs kite wrote:
I have been re-reading much of this thread, going back to the very beginning and doing spot readings at various random locations. One thing struck me as being funny:...
*Here is my question*:
I get very excited about shooting waterbirds taking off. I love it when it happens and I am ready. Ideally, the bird is moving tangentially toward and ultimately right past me. For that purpose I love my 200-500. Oh, it is not perfect and I know its shortcomings. But it *is* a zoom. And I enjoy the freedom of being able to pull back the focal length.
Have any of you 500 PF shooters/owners yet had the opportunity/pleasure to shoot a waterbird(s) taking to flight? It does not come often. Psychologically, how do you deal with the fact that you cannot reduce the focal length as the bird is beginning to fill the frame as it flies toward you? And how do you deal with it physically?
The only strategy I can think of is to *work farther away*, so that when the bird initiates flight, to accept a smaller subject in the frame during those initial frames in the sequence. I am confident that the 500 PF and D850 will quickly acquire and hold it for the entire sequence. The other strategy would be get the images early in the sequence and accept the cropped images later in the sequence. ...
Thanks much.
Robert
....
If you're are thinking of buying the 500 PF, I doubt whether you are going to get that much for the sale of your 200-500 and therefore I would keep it and also buy the 500 PF. 
Gary Irwin made some salient points in his post and I will reiterate them as I agree with his thoughts:
"(1) it performs better than I thought it would for the price...VR is fine, AF is fine, it's sharp wide open and I can live with f5.6 for some types of shooting;
(2) it's small size and light weight on paper doesn't do it justice -- you have to pick it up to appreciate what a "pocket rocket" it really is;
(3) it's not an expensive lens IMO;
(4) I'm doubtful that Nikon will release a 600/5.6PF or 400/4PF anytime soon, and maybe never in an f-mount.
Robert,... I've been thinking about how to reply to your questions, and see if there is anything I can offer you that has not already been said.
I'll begin with the value/price perspective. Unlike Lance and Gary Irwin, I think that the 500mmPF is very expensive. In fact, this is the most money I have ever spent on a single piece of photographic equipment. $3600 represents about a month's net salary for me; fortunately, my wife also works and encouraged me to go for it. Up until this point, my most expensive purchase was a used 200-400VR that I bought for $2800 in 2014. So, while some have the income to plunk down $10,000 to $12,000 on an FLE super-tele with little impact on their annual budget, others will find that spending $1200 on a 200-500VR is an extravagance. Regardless of the budget and capacity to buy expensive glass, it will always be the skill and opportunities made by the photographer that determines if the work is compelling. In many ways, gear obsession is a disease that often interferes with our collective capacity to make the most of what we already own. So know, there is at least one person here that does not think of the 500PF as their "cheap" super tele.
As for use... well, you have already seen that the lens is very capable of producing amazing images in skilled hands. The lens is very light, and has often made me think... "and I spent $3600 for this?" I say that, because the 200-400VR and 500G are far more substantial when considering the barrel materials and size of the elements. Photographically, I have yet to feel limited by the f/5.6 aperture, but I am willing to put the time in to do post work in order to kill the noise from high ISO images. The autofocus is faster than the 200-400VR, and feels faster than the 300PF to me. There are some low-contrast subjects where the AF hesitates, misses, or picks the wrong point... some of this is camera, some of this is shooter, and some of this is lens. The solution is to move the lens a bit and find a better point of contrast. Because the 500PF is so light, it is easily adjusted when the AF misses... your capacity to change where and what you focus on is improved because there is so little muscle needed to move the lens about.
When I pre-ordered the 500PF in August/September and made the purchase in October, the Nikon 500G lenses were still selling in excess of $4000. With the introduction of the 500PF, the f/4 500G can now be had for $3300 to $4000. Were I to make the decision today, I'd have a tough time selecting one lens over the other. The choice of light and modern optical design with electronic aperture vs the opportunity to shoot at f/4 makes the choice of the 500PF over the 500G a hard one to make. Were money no object, I'd probably have purchased the 180-400FLE or 500FLE.
As for the restrictions associated with shooting a prime, you can not make the 500PF your only lens if your shooting needs require flexibility. I have found that I need a zoom for about 70% of my wildlife work, so I will typically shoot with a tele-zoom on one body (either the 80-400G or the 200-500E) and the 500PF on the other. However, I look for the opportunities to use the PF because it is sharpest telephoto and pleasure to use.
While I don't shoot fowl "blasting off," I do shoot fly-byes and landings... I am posting a few samples here (apologies for double posts if I have made any).
cheers,
bruce
|
