"Official" Nikon 500 f/5.6E PF Discussion and Image Thread
RzrShpWdOpnAPO wrote:
However, they would have been rendered better by your 500E than your 500PF.
.
Yes the extra stop would have improved the backgrounds in the 2nd and 3rd shots. I would say the 2nd shot would still have pretty horrible background even at f/4. It is just too busy of a scene that even f/2.8 might not have been enough (especially combined with losing the 100mm of focal length which would have counteracted some of the f/stop gain).
The problem is that if I had been using the 500E, I probably would have come home with none of those shots. The warbler was perching for at most 2 seconds per spot. Deep in the bush then popping out for a second and back in. I had the 500PF up to my eye for a good 1/2 hour to try and react to the times that it did pop up without too much garbage around it. With a 500E I wouldn't have been able to keep it up to my eye long enough to wait for the moment. If I'd used a monopod or tripod I would maybe have been able to get a few shots with the 500E but I was also turning around 360deg as the bird would fly to a bush behind me and I don't think I would have been able to swivel around on the foot wide path I was standing on to get on the bird again before it moved.
For those warblers today I think the 500PF or 300PF or a zoom like 200-500 would be the only worthwhile consideration. Using the big lenses (even my 400DOII) would have been disappointing.
The interesting thing is since getting the 500PF, I rarely use my 500E anymore. I will use it when I want to shoot at 700 or 850mm in a more setup type environment....where I can plant myself and wait for what comes. But in the field walking and birding and doing BIF, the 500E is just a hinderance and again, my controlled tests, don't show anything magical with the optics on the 500E vs the 500PF.
May 24, 2019 at 08:46 PM
Previous versions of arbitrage's message #14862432 « "Official" Nikon 500 f/5.6E PF Discussion and Image Thread »
