NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: jhinkey on July 04, 2015, 02:07:17
-
Currently am covered at 400mm (trusty 400/5.6 ED-AI), but occasionally need something longer for my long-distance landscape shots that are my thing to do. Looking for something around 600mm. My 400/5.6 is just too slow many times when used with the TC (need to stop it down 1 stop usually to get to excellent sharpness), so the 600/5.6 ED comes to mind. The 500P+TC is an option, but it's getting a bit too long at 700mm perhaps, but if the IQ is good I can live with that.
So, any opinions on the 600/5.6 ED vs. 500P+1.4TC? I'd primarily use both stopped down to f/8 for the most part, but also, when the light gets dim f/5.6 is likely to be used.
And, just to cut off the argument, I know that atmospherics can very much limit the sharpness of a long tele, but for my locations and what I shoot, many times during the spring and fall (and winter) it's not a big factor: Reach & light gathering & flare/ghosting resistance are also very important as well as sharpness. CA, if removable in post is just fine.
Thanks for any info!
- John
-
I own the 400/5.6 Nikkor PC ('ED' without the ED inscription on it), the 400/5.6 ED-IF, 500/4 AI-P ED-IF, and the 600/5.6 ED-IF. Plus 200-400/4 Nikkor ED that I purchased specifically for landscapes (I'm not much into wildlife except for flowers, so manual focusing is fine with me). There are also the 180-600/8 ED and the 360-1200/11 ED Nikkors if you really lust for the long cannons (I got both).
My general impression is that each of these performs best without any TC added to them. For landscape use, each can do a fine service, although some lateral CA might occur with high-contrast scenes. The IF designs add a touch of axial colour (longitudinal CA) as well, but rarely to a level that requires additional processing steps to get rid of. In terms of sharpness, I'd rank the 200-400/4 ED (and the 360-1200, if you can find one) a notch above the rest of them.
You are of course well aware of the requirement for decent tripod support with such lenses, but for the benefit of others this is a critically important aspect of long lens landscape shooting. Without proper support, simply forget about getting adequate sharpness.
-
Thanks Bjorn - yes, especially with the 400/5.6 ED I know all about good technique - it's so light to carry around, but then it's too light sometimes.
-
The 500mm 4.0 Ais-P is a really nice lens size and weight gives it a super nice balance on a D3/D4 body size
Handles really well on monopod or tripod and even hand held :) And over the shoulder when not in use.
It takes converters but yes a true 600mm would do better,,,
-
Thanks Bjorn - yes, especially with the 400/5.6 ED I know all about good technique - it's so light to carry around, but then it's too light sometimes.
Beautiful image. Really loved the colors on this image, the orange, blues, blacks, and the purple.
-
Would Bjorn or Erik like to comment on any revised options, based on
- current lenses now available in the 6 years since this thread started
- what is likely to become available in Z mount by the end of 2022?
Many thanks.
Nikon's path of trying to use zooms to fill the gaps in longer Z glass is understandable
But (esp if the issue Bjorn mentioned with older TCs used with long glass is less of an issue now) I'd like to know some other options.
Personally, I won't be choosing a Z body just based on the new lens choices under 100mm make that 200mm
-
I would say the 500/5.6PF is the best option that is currently available. It has a useful increase in focal length over the AI 400/5.6 in a very compact and portable package and optical quality is very high. If more reach is required I suspect that it would perform better with a modern TC than old telephoto with old TC combinations.
Nikon also have the AFS 200-500/5.6. It is not as light or compact as the 500PF and optical quality is not quite as good, although it is at a very high level. The ability to zoom would be very useful for landscape applications, allowing you to precisely frame your scene.
In Z mount, Nikon also has a 200-600mm zoom (probably f/5-6.3) on their roadmap which is likely to be available by the end of 2022. Optical quality will probably comparable to the the AFS 200-500.
-
"Bjorn" no longer exists, but Birna concurs with the assessment of Roland Vink :)
-
I have used a lot of Nikons Superteles, neither the 600 f/5,6 nor the 500 mm f/4 P belongs to this list.
Weight and dimensions do not differ much, the 500 mm gives the advantage do be equipped with a CPU, and is a bit newer designwise (a lot of photographers switched from 600/4 to 500/4 in these days) and one stop faster (not too important for landscape work) so I would chose the 500 thus far .... If you need 600 mm take the native 600 which is probably bette than a 500 with TC. I nearly ceized to use Teleconverters due to quality loss (the TC800 or the one included in the 180-400 is an exception- as well as lenses like the 400/2,8 can take TCs relatively good).
I Agreee to Roland that a 500/5,6PF is probably the better option (my old 600/4 can't compete with the newer lens designs) i- should be still available -and you get half the weight.
Birna has reported that her very old long lenses are good at infinity (the newer 200-400 VR is not)
The 200-500/5,6 is a fine and relatively cheap lens - but i havent made any good experiences in combining it with Teleconvertes.
Given the Z-system Nikon is mainly imitating the F System with quality improvements (and f/1,2 designs instead of f/1,4). No tele lens is available currently so better stick with f-mount lenses than just wait. In this logic The 100-400 appears to be a more advanced design of the AF-S 80-400 whereas i expect the 200-600 to be some follow up of the 200-500 with slightly more range and improved IQ.
-
The 200-500/5,6 is a fine and relatively cheap lens - but i havent made any good experiences in combining it with Teleconvertes.
I’ve got 200-500 and use it with 1,4x kenko - 1,7x Nikon- 2x III Nikon and the overall impression for stationary subjects is very good
I use it with Z6 where every combination is OK , but on Z50 you are on the lens limits above 1,4x
If you go for this lens check it, there is a lot of sample variation
-
thank you all
-
I’ve got 200-500 and use it with 1,4x kenko - 1,7x Nikon- 2x III Nikon and the overall impression for stationary subjects is very good
I use it with Z6 where every combination is OK , but on Z50 you are on the lens limits above 1,4x
If you go for this lens check it, there is a lot of sample variation
I am very satisfied with this lens. It is just a general development route that the more i used Teleconverters over the years the less I was convinced by the results, even with better lenses than the 200-500 is
-
A very lightweight and not very expensive solution is the 300/4 E PF with the TC-17E II. It works well on both the D500 and the Z7.
-
I’ve got 200-500 and use it with 1,4x kenko - 1,7x Nikon- 2x III Nikon and the overall impression for stationary subjects is very good
I use it with Z6 where every combination is OK , but on Z50 you are on the lens limits above 1,4x
If you go for this lens check it, there is a lot of sample variation
I often read that this lens has considerable sample variations - but what is the most easy and failsafe way to check? Sellers sometimes only offer a three day window for returns, so a no-brainer way to check would be a boon :-)
-
Check here
https://photographylife.com/good-bad-copy-of-lens (https://photographylife.com/good-bad-copy-of-lens)
It’s my general impression for teleconverters too but I have no other way to go more than 500mm
Yes I have used 300/ 4 AF-S not afp with 1.7x with good results but 200- 500 is better but the combo you mentioned must be very lightweight!
-
1000mm: TC2.0 + Nikkor 500mm f/5.6 PF, one of the best lenses I have.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51182727496_367274fe5c_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2kYQRGU)
_8525111.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2kYQRGU)
Nikon D850
Nikkor 500.0 mm f/5.6 PF + TC2.0
ƒ/11.0 1000.0 mm 1/50s ISO64
RRS TVC-34L Mark 2 Tripod + Ballhead BH-55/ E-shutter and delay
-
Comments (along with sample photos) by a friend about his new 500 f5.6 PF confirm the consensus view expressed below...it's arguably the preferred choice: resolute, effective VR, fast and accurate autofocus, moderately priced, and modest size and weight. The 500 PF approximates the size and weight of contemporary 70-200 f2.8 Nikkors.
Nonetheless, I'm rather wedded to longer MF Nikkors, despite the burden of size and weight. Among the longer lenses, the 400 f3.5 is a favorite which, as Bjorn has alluded to, is quite good wide open. The fast 400s provide considerable compression of distances and subject isolation. The 600 f5.6 AIS is also quite sharp at 5.6, at least for a 24 MP camera...there is visible axial CA under some conditions, though it is slight.
Are TCs necessary: I anticipate a moderately-cropped image from a 500 to obtain resolution equivalent to that of a 600, and improve on that of a 500+TC(1.4) (for 700mm).
Robert
Robert
-
Are TCs necessary: I anticipate a moderately-cropped image from a 500 to obtain resolution equivalent to that of a 600, and improve on that of a 500+TC(1.4) (for 700mm).
Whether the lens+TC or cropping yields better results will depend on a number of factors, including:
- Quality of the lens
- Quality of the TC
- How well the lens+TC work together. Some combinations work better than others although I expect most modern lenses and TCs are well matched. If a lens+TC only gives "empty magnification", in other words does not give better quality than cropping, then it is better to not use the TC. I doubt manufacturers would make TCs if that were true :)
- Resolution of the camera. A low MP camera is likely to take lens+TC combinations better but offer less scope for cropping. The reverse is likely to be true for a high MP camera.
There is also convenience to consider. It might be better to get the shot and crop, and accept a slightly lower quality output than to fumble about trying to add a TC to your lens and miss the shot entirely :o
I suspect many newer super-telephotos from Nikon will either be zooms or have a built-in TC (or both), so the need for external TCs will be less than before.
-
I’m using exclusively the Nikon TC-20E III on the following Nikkor lenses: 500mm f/5.6E PF ED VR; 70-200mm f/2.8E FL ED VR (the latest one); and the 300mm f/2.8G ED VR II. The most extensive experience I have is with the 70-200mm; then it becomes a sort of poor man 180-400 mm 1:4E TC1,4 FL ED VR. The quality of the 70-200 mm TC combination is so outstanding that I decided to forego the very expensive 180-400mm. The latter I had for 3 weeks to cover the 24h of Le Mans in 2020. Reasons: quality difference indiscernible; weight & size; cost.
For my work - car racing tracks all over the world - I prefer my combination 70-200; 500; and TC2.0 rather than the 180-400 TC1.4. More flexibility: shorter focus to 70mm / no need for focus over 500mm; weight; no need for monopod in most cases (I have a very stable hand).
And, my experience makes me preferring TC to crop. In few occasions using the 500mm on the D850 in 18x24.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50319376822_411ce98536.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2jExXCs)
IMG_2990.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2jExXCs)
The 180-400 mm courtesy of NPS Switzerland
-
My experience on the 70-200/2.8 FL and TC-20E III is different; I found the AF was sluggish and couldn't keep up with an approaching walking subject, whereas with the 1.4X III it could and did very well. The image quality of the 2X combination was OK, not great, when the subject was stationary, but the AF was just too slow to make its use worthwhile. I was using the D5 at the time. The TC-14E III by contrast was really good stopped down 1 stop, high contrast and resolution with no obvious flaws that I could detect at the 36MP level, and I felt it was a good combination for landscape details (with the 70-200/2.8 FL and D810 at the time).
-
Would Bjorn or Erik like to comment on any revised options, based on
- current lenses now available in the 6 years since this thread started
- what is likely to become available in Z mount by the end of 2022?
Many thanks.
Nikon's path of trying to use zooms to fill the gaps in longer Z glass is understandable
But (esp if the issue Bjorn mentioned with older TCs used with long glass is less of an issue now) I'd like to know some other options.
Personally, I won't be choosing a Z body just based on the new lens choices under 100mm make that 200mm
What is the intended use Colin?
Travel, landscape, wildlife, birding, stationary use on a tripod or walking around tele, etc?
A 100-400mm is very compact and travel friendly setup and has a very versatile zoom range for portraits, wildlife and landscapes but might a little short for birds. The 200-500VR works great for almost everything but is a large and heavy plastic fantastic consumer grade lens but delivers the goods on both DSLR and mirrorless.
Attached an image of the D500+200-500VR and Sony a7RII+Canon 100-400mm, the latter combination is a kilo lighter and fits in a messenger style bag where the former needs be carried in a backpack or on a strap. The mirrorless setup should be similar in size to a Z6/7 with the new Nikkor 100-400mm which is the same length as the pictured Canon lens and adapter.
I love the dependability of the D500 + 200-500VR combo but on the road prefer the more compact 100-400 setup.
-
For me 400 mm often is too short, so I never did try to use the 70-200 with converters (as it was a late aquisitions and the longer lenses came first).
Havent gained too much experience with it but so far I really like the 180-400 with TC. It is the most convenient thing to put a TC in use or remove it, it is likewise better than an external TC and it extends the range to 560 mm - and it does not extend its length while zooming.
I never got a 500 PF in my hands because I already had the 200-500 when it came out.
For landscape work older cheaper MF lenses might do a good job and be the right choice, good results at infinity are more important here than at the usual bird shooting distances.
-
My experience on the 70-200/2.8 FL and TC-20E III is different; I found the AF was sluggish and couldn't keep up with an approaching walking subject, whereas with the 1.4X III it could and did very well. The image quality of the 2X combination was OK, not great, when the subject was stationary, but the AF was just too slow to make its use worthwhile. I was using the D5 at the time. The TC-14E III by contrast was really good stopped down 1 stop, high contrast and resolution with no obvious flaws that I could detect at the 36MP level, and I felt it was a good combination for landscape details (with the 70-200/2.8 FL and D810 at the time).
Here some images with D5 + 70-200 + TC2.0 III
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51712960091_560fbf5291_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2mMGroc)
_D560243.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2mMGroc)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51713823635_20f82c4d1f_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2mMLS5T)
_D539340.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2mMLS5T)
At around 300km/h sluggishness wouldn’t forgive.
Please click on the images for HR
-
What is the intended use Colin?
I use my current 300mm PF with a D500 and sometimes a TC14 for wildlife & birding. This setup allows me to handhold. I sometimes take a monopod but rarely use it.
Increasingly I find myself taking landscape shots/joiners with this setup
I'm often at the limit for acceptable quality/magnification with this combo.
The 500mm PF would help but is out of my price range.
Notwithstanding your observations Jan, ive seen such good results with some people using the 200-500mm that might be something I'd consider.
But it appears the 100-400mm will also be a premium product
So if I eventually move to a Z body, I'd be using F mount lenses still :(
(https://pbase.com/celidh/image/170529877.jpg)
-
An acquaintance, a long-time Nikon user, has recently committed to Canon, including the fairly new 6R and Canon's fixed aperture 600mm F11. It is small and light, and the improved high ISO performance of contemporary cameras allow for sufficient shutter speeds, despite the small aperture. Photos look good...not surprising as the correction of chromatic aberrations associated with refraction are significantly mitigated with smaller apertures. While we haven't discussed it, I expect viewfinder darkness, common to OVF cameras at F11, is less of an issue with EVF technology. Regardless, slow fixed-aperture lenses would seem to give up flexibility, with only limited capability to isolate subjects from background.
Robert
-
I use my current 300mm PF with a D500 and sometimes a TC14 for wildlife & birding. This setup allows me to handhold. I sometimes take a monopod but rarely use it.
Increasingly I find myself taking landscape shots/joiners with this setup
I'm often at the limit for acceptable quality/magnification with this combo.
The 500mm PF would help but is out of my price range.
Notwithstanding your observations Jan, ive seen such good results with some people using the 200-500mm that might be something I'd consider.
But it appears the 100-400mm will also be a premium product
So if I eventually move to a Z body, I'd be using F mount lenses still :(
The 200-500mm is an awesome pairing with the D500 and also future proof as it is a E lens with an electronic aperture for which less complex adapters can be used. It works great on the Z6 for the slow AF or high ISO shots so its a perfect lens for the DSLR to mirrorless transition as it works on both platforms equally well.
Nikon has a Z 200-600mm on the roadmap as a dedicated mirrorless alternative to the 200-500, the one from Sony is priced around 25% above the Nikon. As the size seems to be the same as the Sony lens it will offer 100mm more range with probably less weight than the 200-500VR and hopefully also with internal zooming design.
Attached a few screenshots from the CameraVille review of the two lenses to see the size difference with the 200-500 collapsed and extended.
-
Yes, but photographing people approaching in close range at a few meters' distance (2-10 m) is a different problem than cars at longer distances such as 50 m. The 70-200 FL + 2X + D5 is notably too slow to keep up with my situation and most photos turn out out of focus (when camera and lens are correctly calibrated for static subjects). No such problem with the same lens with 1.4x or the lens without TC.
With the cars it appears the depth of field covers about one half of the car's length. In the case of my subjects', the depth of field would be around 2 inches. Nevertheless, this is not a problem for the same subjects, camera and lens when the 2X is not being used.
-
Yes, but photographing people approaching in close range at a few meters' distance (2-10 m) is a different problem than cars at longer distances such as 50 m. The 70-200 FL + 2X + D5 is notably too slow to keep up with my situation and most photos turn out out of focus (when camera and lens are correctly calibrated for static subjects). No such problem with the same lens with 1.4x or the lens without TC.
With the cars it appears the depth of field covers about one half of the car's length. In the case of my subjects', the depth of field would be around 2 inches. Nevertheless, this is not a problem for the same subjects, camera and lens when the 2X is not being used.
Different experiences. But never experienced slow focus, be it with a D850, D5, or D6. My working distance is rather between 5 and 15m. And I never used a TC for photographing people in the 2-10m range.
The 200-500mm is a definitive NO GO for my practice (optical quality, ruggedness).
-
Whether the lens+TC or cropping yields better results will depend on a number of factors, including:
- Quality of the lens
- Quality of the TC
- How well the lens+TC work together. Some combinations work better than others although I expect most modern lenses and TCs are well matched. If a lens+TC only gives "empty magnification", in other words does not give better quality than cropping, then it is better to not use the TC. I doubt manufacturers would make TCs if that were true :)
- Resolution of the camera. A low MP camera is likely to take lens+TC combinations better but offer less scope for cropping. The reverse is likely to be true for a high MP camera.
There is also convenience to consider. It might be better to get the shot and crop, and accept a slightly lower quality output than to fumble about trying to add a TC to your lens and miss the shot entirely :o
I suspect many newer super-telephotos from Nikon will either be zooms or have a built-in TC (or both), so the need for external TCs will be less than before.
I suspect that we all concur with Roland's comments per above...good/bad lens and TCs, whether the combinations works well together, and convenience are relevant factors. Not mentioned is the difference in expenditures: TCs obtain varying reach at dramatically reduced costs...e.g., one long lens or zoom plus TC in lieu of two long telephotos.
Comparing image quality of a moderate crop to that of the lens + TC may well favor the lens + TC, measured in technical, absolute terms. However, my experience suggests that image quality often holds up well - should I say, well enough - with a moderate crop. The image quality differences between lens + crop and lens + TC are sufficiently minor that it simply doesn't matter, at least with the modern gear made available by major manufacturers. But this reflects my experience using moderate density sensors (24 MP) combined with photo viewing no larger than 16 x 20 inches.
-
.
Sorry Jan, I realised I never replied to your well-reasoned post above.
I think you understand my particular (hobbyist) use cases and your suggestions are indeed practical.
I also quite understand why others who need professional standard gear to support their business will choose gear that's appropriate to that & the budgets available to them.
Who knows, I may even be able to buy some this "used" gear when they upgrade in the future! :P
-
Well, my 200-500VR will probably go up for sale soon when things go as planned ;)
Decided to go all mirrorless again and ordered the Sony 200-600mm for the Z6 with the Megadap adapter or the a7S for the low light photos. Will sell the D500 and 200-500VR and accept the slower AF performance for now as I won’t be shooting fast action anytime soon but really want to know if a 200-600mm with an internal zoom design is the best telelens for my style of shooting.
In the meantime I will patiently wait for the Nikon 200-600mm offering and Z9 lite cameras and update my kit accordingly for the next roadtrip (whenever that might be), preferably with an all Nikon dual camera setup like the old days but might also decide to beef up my hybrid Nikon / Sony set with an a9(II).