NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: oldfauser on January 13, 2016, 05:26:17
-
Camera is a Df
the 400mm f/5.6 is the P.C version - not the IF one!
Intended uses - some bird pictures, some landscape, some moon shots!
(Tripod - defiantly!)
comments would be appreciated!
Art
(edited for intended uses - cost is the same - $1400 for either one - thanks!)
-
Intended use would greatly help. ;)
-
Yes, and your budget.
-
500F4 manual focus? and its heavy. I couldn't manual focus on birds... so its a no brainer for me. But that's me.
-
Art, Mongo's money would be on the 200-500mm
It is the only one of the three that can best do all aspects of your intended uses (largely due to AF capability)
It is lighter, smaller , has a more versatile range (especially for landscape), can still use converters with it, has a 2 year warranty and is just as sharp as the 500mm f4
Bokeh should be virtually as pleasing but this lens will be 1 stop slower. The latter is no real concern given the high ISO/low noise cameras of today
-
The old 500mm Ai-P is really well build and a joy to shoot, shot a lot with it on safari ;)
-
The 500P, whilst obviously not as versatile as a zoom lens like the 200-500 VR, really has a lot of points in its favour. It is pretty light weight as far as "supertelephotos" go, tipping the scales at slightly less than 3 kg, and its focusing is swift thanks to a buttery-smooth turning focusing ring and its focus preset feature. One could complain that the tripod mount isn't up amongst the best, yet it is superior to that of say the 200-500 VR. The lens hood is efficient in cutting off flare, in fact, better than seen with the 200-500.
The 500P was a favourite of many sports photographers in its heydays and I know several who swore to using it hand held.
-
Following this topic, played with the same thought about those lenses.
-
Same question for me. I have the 500P which I like a lot and the new 80-400. After a year with the 80-400 mostly handhold, I was considering the 200-500 for hand holding or AF . Thom's review http://www.dslrbodies.com/lenses/nikon-lens-reviews/nikon-200-500mm-f56-lens.html made me think again: if it is to use on a tripod, why not keep the 500P ? However, the constant reports that images are better than the 40-800, http://www.naturalart.ca/voice/blog_2015_all.html, makes me think I could also the 80-400 and the 500P but then it would mean walking with the 70-200 and 200-500.
Net net, I'm puzzled!
-
Just wanted to ask, which 400
then saw sthe poll, so the 400/5,6 (would have been different for 400/3,5)
my 3 cents:
Landscape and Moon photography one would assume that a tripod ist used
For bird photography it is important which kind of birds whether Static or BIF, work from a hide or just "on the fly" is in mind
Key issue is here how good you feel in Manual focusing skills, how good your eyes are and whether you badly need AF.
Df is not the dedicated Fast AF camera though and yes good bird photos have been achieved with MF some days ago
the 400/5,6 was the first IF-ED tele lens I ever had, not forming a too good combo with the TC14 and needs good tripod support (tends to vibrate easily) for your landscape and night plans. Not easy to get accurate focussing quickly. Sometimes LV is recommended (not during action).
It is the most lightweight lens though, so carrying and sustained handhold use is on the plus side here - no alternative to get that range for that weight and size
plus:1400$ for this lens plus TC14B sounds way too expensive!
500/4 probably will give you best IQ (never used this particular lens but the AF-S first version which still is one of my finest lenses) but is the most bulky and heavy one, good for tripod work
200-500 for the fastest workstyle, best handhold capability with AF and sometimes VR, best versatilty but not so good for tripod I'd say
-
BTW - just bought the AF-S 80-400 due to its limited weight and size (but I have bigger and better alternavies so it is not a comparable situation)
-
For those who are interested in hand held photos with the AFS 200-500mm, below is a link to full size D800E images. As said, all photos handheld, EXIF data all intact (to check for exposure times). My wife wanted to visit the local zoo. A good opportunity to use one lens and one camera. Just to explain that this time the priority was not photography :)
https://onedrive.live.com/?id=C59FEF9F04ED4A3A%211510&cid=C59FEF9F04ED4A3A
rgds,
Andy
PS:
The "problem" with the AI-P 500mm/4 is the "large" front lens :D
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pbase.com%2Fandrease%2Fimage%2F129600905%2Foriginal.jpg&hash=37a1c78d59899951e1404b539ef7a269d0a333ac)
That's why a "smaller" 500mm solution is often so much welcomed ... ;)
Here is a size comparison of the 200-500mm with the new 80-400mm and the 70-200mm VR II (for reference) - short and long
Plus another handheld example
-
"The "problem" with the AI-P 500mm/4 is the "large" front lens"
Nah. More to do with f/4 when the focal length is 500 mm ...
-
Nah. More to do with f/4 when the focal length is 500 mm ...
Gee, and I tried my best to use a very short focal length to demonstrate the "problem" (and to "justify" the AFS 200-500mm) :D
-
Beware: A 400/2,8 can be put in very good use for portrait-photography ;-)
-
The "problem" with the AI-P 500mm/4 is the "large" front lens :D
That's why a "smaller" 500mm solution is often so much welcomed ... ;)
Here is a size comparison of the 200-500mm with the new 80-400mm and the 70-200mm VR II (for reference) - short and long
Good point, the large diameter (due to fast f4 aperture ;) ) does require bigger bags, much bigger hood, etc.
Thanks for the comparison shot, really appreciated.
-
Wouldn't it be great if a 500/4 PF was to appear on the market?
-
Indeed the 300mm 4 PF is amazingly portable!
I shot the 500mm 4 Ai-P mostly on a monopod or a bean bag and was very happy with the images!
-
Wouldn't it be great if a 500/4 PF was to appear on the market?
Still the same size in th front as the 500/4P, but overall length would be much shorter.
Canon offers their 400/4 DO lens models for a long time, but takers apparently are few. The last version is said to be markedly improved though.
In the late '70s, using the 400 mm f/5.6 Nikkor ED for portraits and catwalk shooting was the insider's tip.
-
If the weight would drop to about 1.5 kg I wouldn't mind the size of the front at all.
Let me optimistically guess the price too, around $2.500 :)
-
A realistic estimate for the weight of a 500/4 PF would be around 2 kg, perhaps a little lower. Thus, still a sizeable chunk of glass to haul around.
-
Beware: A 400/2,8 can be put in very good use for portrait-photography ;-)
+1
-
+1
Think I actually should start saving money to buy a 400/2,8, the FL version has becom relatively lightweight now ;-)
-
I'm spoiled here... ;)
The FL version is very hand holdable (short/medium periods) and the IQ is breathtaking.
I know that some will disagree but with the two TCs (1.4 and 2x) you'll get the most versatile high quality tele.
Please do you a favor and grab one.
-
I'm spoiled here... ;)
The FL version is very hand holdable (short/medium periods) and the IQ is breathtaking.
I know that some will disagree but with the two TCs (1.4 and 2x) you'll get the most versatile high quality tele.
Please do you a favor and grab one.
Appears as if you already worked with the new one Pedro
As I am known for the Supertele-Samurai approach I prefer a long medium range combo. Currently it is the 600/4 plus 200-400VR
but 800/5,6 FL plus 400/2,8 FL would be a dream- and one always need dreams.
Would take me years still to go I guess
-
Appears as if you already worked with the new one Pedro
In fact I own one :)
-
In fact I own one :)
Congratulations! :-)
-
Congratulations! :-)
Thanks :D
But the 800 FL is on the scope...
-
Thanks :D
But the 800 FL is on the scope...
you are welcome :D
and your scope does not make me wonder
-
Fo rmy case, that's would be a dilemma as I own the 500mm AIP already.
Mostly the fear of losing sharpness.
But I can't say I would never go for the 200-500mm, Most pictures I saw on line so far are very decent.
And this zoom has 2 main assets :
# Very light;
# Vibration reduction.
However, it's versability is not a criteria for me : most of wildlife photographer will use it at its maximum focal range (500mm). So, better to have a prime, like the 500mm AIP :
# Less optical issues if you add a focal converter.
# It's heavy indeed. but still portable : I carry it miles hooked to my belt (with the Df mated on it). Hence no backache.
# You always find a support in nature, against a trunk of tree. a fence, a stoned whole (not in a desert, though !), so no tripod needed.
# No maintenance for VR or integrated AF motor which is so expensive.
# Shooting birds in flight is not impossible (if they are not too small or too close). Yet the zoom would make better job with its AF, I have to admit.
And I think the zoom will be more resalable.
So, if you haven't one of these lenses already and if you are not a specifically wildlife photographer, go for the zoom.
Few images with the 500mm AIP :
# 1 Cranes on the field. Very, very shy birds. Taken from my car, the lens resting on the window;
# 2 Stilt, hand held;
# 3 Stilt chick '' ''
# 4 Snipe.
-
Thanks :D
But the 800 FL is on the scope...
//Sorry for the OT in this thread
Please check the MFD of the lens :D
AFS 800mm/5.6 VR, TC 1.25, D7100, ISO 400, f7.1, 1/40s
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pbase.com%2Fandrease%2Fimage%2F149718952%2Foriginal.jpg&hash=a17447630a3c69f11d0f33b7c150cb67eb936503)
100% crop
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pbase.com%2Fandrease%2Fimage%2F149719423%2Foriginal.jpg&hash=fa7b4d7982d160b3346b04f7343362dec94c9bbe)
Just kidding. MFD is not that bad ....
Distance > 1000m, D7100, no special tripod, Gitzo + Wimberly
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pbase.com%2Fandrease%2Fimage%2F149743499%2Foriginal.jpg&hash=1cca07bb927c8dbd0a24dcd87aa5a463e91e75b4)
100%
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pbase.com%2Fandrease%2Fimage%2F149743498%2Foriginal.jpg&hash=2f5f47214c2dc57a88b2b553efa6fcef9f116370)
One of the better shots handheld.
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pbase.com%2Fandrease%2Fimage%2F149719425%2Foriginal.jpg&hash=041d3442decc46238c1f26f308fbc2504d29c08e)
100% crop, D7100
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pbase.com%2Fandrease%2Fimage%2F149719426%2Foriginal.jpg&hash=494ddaff0c39bf9fcca5ff26cde33a573d9d7baa)
Had the lens only for a weekend. While I really liked the lens, the needed level of investment is just too high to keep it in the bag.
Group picture with its silblings, anno 2013. Do you see the mathematical order of the tripod mounts Nikon applied ? :D
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pbase.com%2Fandrease%2Fimage%2F149710974%2Foriginal.jpg&hash=188236b1e4f68ed423a46cbc085eab91c331be00)
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pbase.com%2Fandrease%2Fimage%2F149710973%2Foriginal.jpg&hash=6f954fec5261ac9e1d1f147f6038c9c27140edbc)
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pbase.com%2Fandrease%2Fimage%2F149710975%2Foriginal.jpg&hash=ad1679821b73aac064f635eb8e813e6312b69b3f)
rgds,
Andy
-
back to the 200-500
A few images from the very first trip with this lens. All with the D800E, handheld. First the full image resized to 1200x800, second a 100% crop of the original file
1) 200mm, f7.1, 1/200s
2) 500mm, f5.6, 1/1000s (approx 10 meter distance)
3) 200mm, f8, 1/640s, a few hundred meters
4) 500mm, f5.6, 1/250s, close to MFD
rgds,
Andy
-
Andy, regarding your big-glass parade i strongly recommend to supply at least the 600/4 and the 400/2,8 with replacement feet coming from third party manufacturers (like Wimberley, RRS, Kirk) - this significantly contributes to vibration reduction
-
Adding to the main topic of the thread (regarding prizing):
I bought my AIS- Nikkor 400/5,6 IF-ED in 1991 for 19800 ATS which would convert to approx 1400 Euro using the 2002 ratio.
In 2007 I could achieve the faster and higher prized AI-S Nikkor 400 mm f/3,5 IF-ED for approx 1200 Euro (some 1300 $).
Buying a 400/5,6 now should be significantly cheaper.
-
Andy, regarding your big-glass parade i strongly recommend to supply at least the 600/4 and the 400/2,8 with replacement feet coming from third party manufacturers (like Wimberley, RRS, Kirk) - this significantly contributes to vibration reduction
+1
I would say all of them...
-
+1
I would say all of them...
Yes, Pedro
I just mentioned the two where it hurts the most
-
Thank you Andy for the samples from the zoo. I just looked closely at one of them, the Pelican, and it is certainly sharp enough! I'm going to use this lens (200-500) for birds.
-
Wolfgang,
you don't want to see which tripod I sometimes use :D
Taken with the 1kg Gitzo Traveller, D800, AFS 300mm/2.8 VR II (Still, a small tripod is often better than no tripod at all :) )
D800 full size (http://www.pbase.com/andrease/image/142349748/original.jpg)
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pbase.com%2Fandrease%2Fimage%2F142349746%2Foriginal.jpg&hash=853a817cfcd3ac50ed283934273aeb8a087d7f1b)
D800 full size (http://www.pbase.com/andrease/image/142352348/original.jpg)
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pbase.com%2Fandrease%2Fimage%2F142352287%2Foriginal.jpg&hash=e2c56d8f71ff8a04431d9838dcda0b62255a0903)
But of course I agree on your point. :D
rgds,
Andy
-
(Note2self:I need to find a server space to upload more recent photos)
Shot in 2012. Sorry, one more tripod violation ...
I know it could probably have been better, but it was sufficient for me.
Gitzo 3-series, AFS 600mm/4 with standard handle, D800E, f4, 1/500s
D800E, full resolution (http://www.pbase.com/andrease/image/144411656/original.jpg)
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pbase.com%2Fandrease%2Fimage%2F144411653%2Foriginal.jpg&hash=4776c68ac62669206a42c7f57c2a7280534a8c35)
100% crop
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pbase.com%2Fandrease%2Fimage%2F144411654%2Foriginal.jpg&hash=cd4202c9deb2500b2dd4ff99363015ece65be3d7)
rgds,
Andreas
-
thanks Andy :) Got me thinking about the other MF "big" guns - the 600mm f/5.6 ED-IF AI-s, 600mm f/4 ED-IF AI-s, 400mm f/3.5 AI-s.
the 600mm f/5.6 is going for around $1000 US !!!
just thinking....
Art
-
Bigger is better, I have also gone this path but in the end returned back to smaller.
I used the 300/4D AFS with TC-14E II for nature photography and was looking for more reach.
So was able to buy the 500/4P and was happy with its performance, also in combination with the TC-14E II
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8290/7874734520_bbd64a379e_o.jpg)
But to get good results I needed good light or often times a solid tripod (e.g. these roe deers show up in the evenings). So although it is the lightest 500/4, I still had to carry substantial stuff. Also was regularly off focus despite using a Katz Eye screen (my limitation).
Too that I am more a "wandering around" nature photographer instead of sitting on one spot. So I tried the Tamron 150-600 for a short time and that certainly could not match the 500/4P.
Then the 300/4E VR was announced and bought that with the TC-14E III. I am now a very happy camper (outside the VR issues between 1/60 - 1/200s that were not solved for me in the firmware update).
Just to say in my case bigger was not better, YMMV.
In the end you have to ask yourself if you really need the extra reach and are willing to pay and carry for that.
-
People tend to associate a "good" tripod with something heavy, which is far from the truth. My standard Sachtler (100 mm class head) weighs a little over 2 kg and easily holds an 800 mm lens. One needs torsional rigidity and handling versatility, not weight. The smaller Sachtler (75 mm class) used on trips where weight is a constraining factor for air travel weighs 1.2 kg. Still able to hold 600 mm lenses with ease.
-
Bjørn, you are right on tripods and long lens technique.
The viewfinder tells you very quickly how sturdy your combination of tripod and steadying technique is and for me that meant I had to use a relatively heavy tripod (not owning Sachtler).
-
the weight issue also concerns me - the 500mm f/4p is 3 kg; the new 200-500mm f/5.6 is 2.3 kg; my current 400mm f/5.4 Nikkor-P.C is 1.4 kg. When I purchased my tripod 4 years ago, the longest lens I had (and was thinking about) was a 300mm f/4.5, so i went with a smaller, lighter tripod. It has served me well as i carry it everywhere!
So for fun, i tried the "tap test" with the my 400mm on the tripod - Jello in a 4.0 earthquake would do better! I began to think something was not right as I had much better results in the field using this combination - mental note: DO NOT DO "tap test" on carpet! Tried again on a hard surface - less than 2 seconds to settle (using "live view" at full magnification! Much better.
not sure what a 3 kg lens would do on it though as I think I'm at the limit of what my current tripod will handle.
So the 300mm f/4pe sounds interesting - just wish Nikon would come with a 400mm f/5.6 PE lens
Art
-
Of course it is better not to chose an overweighted tripod but rather those with the best ratio of weight and stability (sometimes compactness is an issue as well)
But there are indeed situations where it is better to go withoud tripod support
Having a lightweight tele and no tripod gives you agility and/or hiking range