 |
|
|
Igor Sotelo
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 27, 2020
Location: Canada
Posts: 52
|
|
Review Date: Feb 14, 2021
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,400.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast AF, extremely sharp, solid built quality, at 3.4 kg not too heavy to carry around or hand hold, uses inexpensive 52mm filters, nice one piece carbon fibre hood, good quality carrying case, will AF with the TC20e III.
|
|
Cons:
|
Nothing.
|
|
|
It would have been nice to have VR, but I think Nikon started installing VR with the 200-400mm 4.0G VR lens, introduced few years later.
The next iteration of the 500mm f/4G VR had a second generation VR and focused to 4.0 m (vs 4.5 m) but it was also 0.5 kg heavier, probably closes to it’s minimal aperture when used with a planetary or DSO camera for astrophotography and DXO didn’t give it a very high sharpness score.
The AF is extremely fast. Good balance, not that hard to keep steady. Extremely sharp lens, right from 4.0.
|
|
 Feb 14, 2021
|
|
martyn.
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 29, 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 350
|
|
Review Date: Feb 17, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp wide open, works well with 1.4 and 1.7 TC's, Lightweight, great optics.
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
|
Must admit I amazed at that low score review, especially as the reviewer states that he does not own the lens.
I picked up one of the last brand new stock of these, I do not need VR and preferred the lighter weight of this model.
This is one sharp lens wide open, and I see no improvement when stopping down only an increase in DOF, this is the same when using the 1.4 or 1.7 TC's.
The images this lens produces are superb.
|
|
|
Feb 17, 2010
|
|
jimgrif
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 20, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 107
|
|
Review Date: Dec 15, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 15, 2007
|
|
ZX7R
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 20, 2004
Location: Portugal
Posts: 148
|
|
Review Date: Aug 16, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Superb optics ; very fast AF ; built like a tank ; works well with Nikon 1.4 TC ; super-sharp even at F4
|
|
Cons:
|
none
|
|
I got the AF-S I version a couple of years ago to shoot mostly surf and never looked back, my other option was the Sigma 300-800 since the 400 2.8 and 600 F4 are too expensive and heavier.
The image quality i get at F4 ( or F5.6 with 1.4TC) is great, and at F5.6 it's super-sharp up to F8. It focuses really fast with the D200 and even better with the D2Hs, the only significant difference is when the 1.4 TC is used and then it works better and consistently with the D2Hs.
It's usually mounted on a heavy-duty Manfrotto tripod and gymbal-type head which is a must to get absolute sharpness, specially on higher-res bodies like the D200 or D2X. On a monopod it can be used with good results, if the light is there to keep the shutter speeds up.
It fits nicely on a Lowepro 600 AW bag with a camera attached, making it easy to carry on walks or when travelling by plane.
Most of the photos on these links were taken with the 500 F4 :
http://www.pbase.com/slbravo/quicksilver_pro_france_2006
http://www.pbase.com/slbravo/surf&page=all
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2007
|
|
dale keith
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 10, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 222
|
|
Review Date: Jan 16, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
I have looked at the lens as a potential buyer. The glass is great, the AF-S fast, the weight is expected.
|
|
Cons:
|
In today's state of technology a non-VR lens is myopic. This lens cannot compare to a Canon IS. The cost is not worth a non-VR model as today's market place demands parity with Canon. Potential buyers should demand a VR model.
|
|
|
As a long time Nikon user I wish Nikon USA would step up their VR conversion to the Super Tele line. In today's era of technology Nikon needs to meet the demands of the market place. The D2X is a major tech step for Nikon and very appreciated in the photo world. The line of "look at all those white lenses," is one huge justification to adding the VR function to the Super Tele line (the 400mm, 500mm, and 600mm). They have the VR function on the 200 F2.0, the 300 F2.8, and the 200-400 F4.0. When will the executives in Nikon's product development department observe the market place? Again, I say, "look at all those white lenses at every major sporting event."
|
|
|
Jan 16, 2006
|
|
Stripper
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 11, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 6381
|
|
Review Date: Dec 4, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Light in weight - Very fast and positive focusing - Sharp from edge to edge - Color rendition is amazing.
|
|
Cons:
|
I wish it let in 1 more stop of light....but then it would not be as light and would cost more.
|
|
|
For me this is the ultimate long motorsport lens. It is not a good a lens for football or other "Dome" work because of the max f-4 aperture, but at the race track it is a great length and it is much easier to carry around than the 400 2.8 or the 600 4.
As far as performance is concerned, I think it captures and locks onto a really fast car as well and probably better than any lens I have used. It is difficult to get an out-of-focus shot due to any fault of the lens. I am not sure that it is any better from the standpoint of color rendition than the 400 or the 600, but I think that it is better edge to edge.
If you do not need f-2.8 and want to save a little money and weight, you can not go wrong with this baby.
|
|
|
Dec 4, 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
6
|
59906
|
Feb 14, 2021
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
100% of reviewers
|
$1,400.00
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
10.00
|
8.40
|
10.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
