Nikkor 500mm f/5.6 PF VR lens confirmed

[Frank Fremerey]

I do not has such a good experience with mine. My 300 PF performs much better without TC. Sharper, cleaner, more confident in focusing. I use the TC when I need to but want a 400 or 500 with better quality and AF.

maybe you ask NPS to review the interplay of your 14E3 with your 300PF?

My 17E2 reduces IQ and AF significantly.

I hear that the 14E2 and earlier have the same problem

[chambeshi]

At a length 62% of the 500 f4E, its ergonomics are the main attraction. It will be significantly shorter than the 400 f5.6AIS, so an airline friendly telephoto. But according to the latest info on NR, this 500 f5.6 PF could cost $4,300 or €4,300. At that price, I would hope for a more versatile telephoto with the specs of a 400 f4, optimized to work well with TC14E.

It's accepted the marriage of the 300 f4E PF with  TC14 is a sound one. Threads on this forum and others. Mine are rarely parted.


https://nikonrumors.com/2018/07/06/nikon-af-s-nikkor-500mm-f-5-6e-pf-ed-vr-lens-additional-information-price-and-length.aspx/

[Ilkka Nissilä]

These TC stories about no degradation in image quality or AF are seemingly never reproduced in actual measurements nor have found supportive evidence in my own real-world photography situations.

Photographylife Imatest MTF 50 measurements

300 PF + TC-14E III at f/5.6: 2337 / 1728 / 1563
300 PF                    at f/4:    2863 / 1998 / 1740
300 PF                    at f/5.6: 2973 / 2270 / 2001

Brad Hill recently compared 300 PF with TC-14E III with 180-400 at 400mm Here is a few sentences of what he said:
"With only a few very limited exceptions (at very small apertures), the Nikkor 180-400mm f4E @ 400mm easily optically outperformed both the Nikkor 300mm plus TC-14EIII ...." "At long distance the difference between the optics of the 3 lenses was even more pronounced, especially on the edges" ...

I don't have the 180-400 but in my experience, at long distances, the AF of the 300 PF + TC-14E III makes it very difficult to obtain sharp results. The usual situation with Nikon DSLR equipment is that both the combination of TCs and long distances amplify problems. At near distances the 300 PF is very good and the damage due to TC use is less than at longer distances.

In Steve Perry's map comparison images the 300 PF (no TC) was sharper than the 180-400 at 300mm in the corner areas.

Attaching a TC gives a bit better detail than cropping, perhaps half of the gain you'd expect if using a prime lens of the longer focal length.

[Frank Fremerey]

thank you. did I mix up facts and emotion?

[BruceLeventhal]

I agree with Ilkka's statements regarding the usefulness of a 500mm f/5.6 PF paired with the 300mm f4 PF. While some may think that the lens is not adequate for small bird photography and might require a converter, I suggest that you pair the lens with a D500 when shooting smaller bird species. If one works from a hide and the close focus of the new lens is less than 10 meters, you can certainly produce full frame pics with just the slightest of crops.

As a photographer who spends more time pursing mammals, animal landscapes, and larger birds, the 500mm PF would provide me with plenty of reach and the flexibility to hike without the burden of a bulky and heavy lens. Furthermore, the smaller footprint of this lens will facilitate trouble-free travel. I currently carry a 200-400VR while my wife's bag holds the 200-500VR and 300mm PF. The combination of the two lenses in her bag is 300g lighter than my one lens. If the PF comes in at a weight and length of a unextended 200-500, I gain a level of handhold-ability that I currently do not have. ...as for pricing, I'd expect something around $4000 US/Euros... but time will tell.
cheers,
bruce

[Ilkka Nissilä]

The 300 PF is exciting to shoot with, it's easy to be emotional about it.

The distances I use with mine to photograph moose and deer may be too long, the light often too dim, the subject too well camouflaged and thus results with TC not quite what I would hope. At close range (small birds at 5m in bright daylight) I too have been satisfied. It is especially in the long distance range where I hope the 500/5.6 to give a significant improvement over the 300 PF + TC-14E III.

[Macro_Cosmos]

The rumoured retail price will be $4500. I'm glad to see the lens being confirmed.

As an amateur in this nature stuff, I can't splurge $10k for the superb 500/4, and of course another $3k on a gimbal head, a high end tripod, and a fluid head. $4500 is actually reasonable! I think it's possible to get away with a Sirui gimbal head or the Wimberly sidekick on my overpriced BH-55 from RRS. Considering how much the 300PF dropped, I'm fairly optimistic here. The lens could be had for $4000 or less new probably 1 or 2 years after its release. Also copies can be obtained in the used market.

Need to really give some serious thoughts though. The 300PF with a TC-14E3 on a D500 gives 420mm, crop factor makes it the FoV of a 630mm lens. F/5.6. While the 500/5.6 PF no doubt will beat such a combination, is it worth it though?

D500: $1500 new (wow, it's that low now?)
300 PF: $1300-1500 used
And I have $1500 lying around.

So is the extra IQ worth it? We're talking about nature here, and to me the centre is all I care (please don't give me stares, I'm admittedly an amateur) I'll have to wait till real world reviews are out. Steve Perry is almost definitely going to do one.

[Ilkka Nissilä]

Sharpness in the outer areas can be important for "animals in landscape" type shots. Also sometimes the eyes may have to be placed close to the edge even in a portrait, if the frame is tight. I guess it is more common that the animal is small in the frame and the image has to be cropped. But with a prime lens you sometimes run into the situation where the framing is tight and in that case it is good to have the image quality hold up to the edges.

I sometimes photograph landscape and architectural details with long lenses and there I would prefer sharpness to be even across the frame at least when the lens is stopped down.

[rs]

A real one, spotted in the wild...

https://nikonrumors.com/2018/07/14/the-new-af-s-nikkor-500mm-f-5-6e-pf-ed-vr-lens-spotted-at-a-nikon-world-cup-party.aspx/

[richardHaw]

this is a game changer for many Nikon tele shooters 

your back will complain less and you won't need a big bag to carry this one around! well done, Nikon!

[Frank Fremerey]

question: what wil be the size/weight/IQ comparsion to the 5.6/200-500 that is only a tad more than a quarter in price

[gryphon1911]

I can understand Frank's emotional statements about the 300/4PF and TC14E3.  I too have the same feelings.  In real world use for my particular use cases...I have no issues IQ or performance wise with the combo.   However, I do and can concede that the combo will not always work for everyone in every situation.   Some people have more demanding  standards for acceptability than perhaps Frank and I do.

What I do find exciting is the size reduction while still keeping the high IQ we have come to expect.  i welcome the lenses that Nikon is bringing out.   My gut is telling me that this is a first step into what we can expect from Nikon to give us a great set of lenses for our existing gear and a stepping stone into what we can hope to expect for what they will release in their new mirrorless caeras to be announced here soon.   I'm saving up my pennies and anticipation of that.

For the 500/5.6PF....even at $4300...that is still more manageable for someone like me....more so than the 500/fg (size, weight,portability)...although we do have alternatives like the much loved 200-500/5.6VR for around $1000.    I still consider that lens from time to time when shooting sports...plunked onto a monopod.    That has me thinking....I might need to rent one of those and give it a whirl on the D500 and see how it works.    I'll need to research and see if it works with the TC14EIII.     In good light I can work with f/8! 

[richardHaw]

who knows, this may work very well with another TC combo 

in my experience, the 1.4 TC won't degrade the image by much. but that's just me shooting birds at the beach.

[chambeshi]

Judging from responses to the 500 PF, and no lack of forum threads on the 300 PF, Many of us share similar interests in the ergonomics of these dinky primes. Equally on the benefits and uses of TCs. As with the lenses they extend, not everyone couples that well with a TC. The tests on Photography Life, and elsewhere, put numbers on the IQ penalty.

The real questions are how much the TC detracts in photos in actual use. With the TC14, and TC2 III, the 300 f4E PF on the D500 and D850 are well worth the penalties. IME, I find the impacts more in AF performance. In my experience shooting birds and other wildlife, these TCs make possible what would otherwise be impossible. Again, the 400 f2.8, 300 f2.8 and 200 f2 work even better with TCs.

Here's a photo - Appended - of the 500 f5.6E PF, recent leak via NR... Note the Gold Ring

https://nikonrumors.com/2018/07/14/the-new-af-s-nikkor-500mm-f-5-6e-pf-ed-vr-lens-spotted-at-a-nikon-world-cup-party.aspx/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NikonRumors+%28NikonRumors.com%29

I can understand Frank's emotional statements about the 300/4PF and TC14E3.  I too have the same feelings.  In real world use for my particular use cases...I have no issues IQ or performance wise with the combo.   However, I do and can concede that the combo will not always work for everyone in every situation.   Some people have more demanding  standards for acceptability than perhaps Frank and I do.

What I do find exciting is the size reduction while still keeping the high IQ we have come to expect.  i welcome the lenses that Nikon is bringing out.   My gut is telling me that this is a first step into what we can expect from Nikon to give us a great set of lenses for our existing gear and a stepping stone into what we can hope to expect for what they will release in their new mirrorless caeras to be announced here soon.   I'm saving up my pennies and anticipation of that.

For the 500/5.6PF....even at $4300...that is still more manageable for someone like me....more so than the 500/fg (size, weight,portability)...although we do have alternatives like the much loved 200-500/5.6VR for around $1000.    I still consider that lens from time to time when shooting sports...plunked onto a monopod.    That has me thinking....I might need to rent one of those and give it a whirl on the D500 and see how it works.    I'll need to research and see if it works with the TC14EIII.     In good light I can work with f/8! 

[Macro_Cosmos]

That looks about the size of a standard 70-200 zoom. Terrific.

So the 300/4 PF is the size of a 24-70, the 500 is the size of a 70-200. This is really pleasing to see! I can handhold the 70-200 all day.