Re: "Official" Nikon 500 f/5.6E PF Discussion and Image Thread
PrecisionPhoto wrote: OwlsEyes wrote: PrecisionPhoto wrote:
Why not the Nikon 300mm 2.8 and a 1.4, definitely would be better then the 500 5.6 or the 300 PF with a teleconverter
I am curious about what prompted this post...
Are you suggesting that the 300 f/2.8 + 1.4x (@420mm f/4) would be... sharper? focus faster? have better bokeh? than the 500 f/5.6PF? It certainly is not as compact, easy to use handheld or lighter?
From what I am seeing w/ my 500PF (used for a year now), it is much sharper than my 300mm f/2.8 AFS II (nonVR) w/ 1.4x ever was. In addition, I find that the 500PF has a more pleasing bokeh at f/5.6 than my 300mm f/2.8 + 1.4x when shot at f/4.
Now it might be reasonable to suggest that the 500mm f/4G might be a better choice when compared to the PF lens, but many shooters have sold their G's because the weight & size was not worth the added stop of light.
With all that said, I would love to see a head to head comparison between the 300mm f/2.8 + 1.4x, 500G, and 500PF. I could be wrong, but I think I know which lens would be sharpest at f/5.6.
cheers,
bruce
I'm sure your right with your experience, but I wager the 300 2.8 would win without a teleconverter in the way and sure would be faster
I think there's limits to what you can do with a slow 5.6 over a 2.8
I too would love to see a head to head comparison between the 300mm f/2.8 + 1.4x, 500G, and 500PF
Did you experience problems with the foot like Steve Perry did when the lens fell in the ground?
&t=662s
I'll have to read this entire thread to get a better understanding of your joy of the lens, thanks
There is absolutely no doubt that the 300mm f/2.8 will be ultra sharp without converter. As to which is sharper... well I think that this might be difficult to determine, as the charm of the 300mm f/2.8 is in the shooting at f/2.8 to f/3.5. I'm not one to compare MTF curves, but I do recall checking them out prior to the 500PF's availability. If I recall, these curves suggest that the 500PF would be as sharp as the 500mm f/4 FLE, which is only bested by the 400mm FLE and 600mm FLE.
As for the tripod foot, I replaced mine first w/ a RRS and later with the Hejnar long before Steve's video appeared. This is a very long thread, but you will see that this was a discussion back in the early days.
In the end, if you want to shoot at 500mm more than 300mm, then you are better off w/ either the PF or one of the various 500mm f/4 lenses. On the other hand, if you want to shoot more often at 300mm, then you can't beat Nikon's 300mm f/2.8's... that is until the new 120-300mm f/2.8 is on the market... a lens that I doubt will be in my budget .
cheers,
bruce
Sep 15, 2019 at 06:39 AM
Previous versions of OwlsEyes's message #14980819 « "Official" Nikon 500 f/5.6E PF Discussion and Image Thread »
.