Brad Hill on 500 f5.6E PF

[chambeshi]

Brad Hill first impressions - they concur with my experiences with the 500 f5.6E PF for African wildlife (since early October). This is such an Excellent optic and especially at the price

http://www.naturalart.ca/voice/blog.html#500PF_FirstImpressions

[chambeshi]

Brad Hill has posted Part 4 of his Musings - a summary of his impressions and opinions on the 500 PF about 12 months since purchase

http://www.naturalart.ca/voice/blog.html#Musing4

[Erik Lund]

Thanks for the update!Indeed, there is nothing like being confident in shooting some types of lenses wide open and getting the image quality you like.That is, not having to stop down the aperture at all  This lens really has some fantastic features going for it !

[chris dees]

The lens is "on sale" in Germany. €300,00 discount.
It's the first time I see this lens discounted and I couldn't resist.

[Ilkka Nissilä]

I also like the 500 PF. It's the only lens I kept among long lenses that have such a small aperture, and to be honest it's more often than not been fast enough for outdoor wildlife photography applications. The key is that it's perfectly fine wide open, no excuses.

It focuses fast and accurately, produces always very sharp results and the contrast is good as well. However, I get a little bit more harsh feeling from the images from the 500 PF than conventional refractive optics. The sharpness is a bit over the top and perhaps the out of focus areas don't feel quite as smooth. It's just a subtle thing and maybe subjective. I was convinced of this but happened to have VR 200/2 II and 500 PF with me when photographing deer one day, and then when I looked at the images side by side, I had to conclude that the 500 PF images looked perhaps a bit better. That wasn't what I had expected to conclude. ;-) Of course the 200 was shot at f/2 and the 500 at f/5.6 so maybe it's not a completely fair comparison.

Looking at Brad Hill's comparison images, at 27 meter distance I would still pick the 500/4 Sport as giving higher contrast than the 500 PF. The 180-400 with TC more clearly behind the primes and the Sigma 150-600 Sport looks right blurry. But the 500 PF holds up very well nevertheless, much closer to the 500/4 Sport than the zooms.

In practical use I have been happy with the 500 PF, it gives good results and is positively fun to shoot with. It would be really difficult to motivate myself to carry a 3-4kg tele now that this lens exists, even though I recognize the conventional fast supertele primes may be a little better. It's so close and so lightweight.

[MFloyd]

I bought this lens end April 2019. As of today 10'726 registered pictures. This rather indicates that I'm more than happy with this lens,

[Frank Fremerey]

My Teles get hardly any use. Only the 4/300PF is a keeper. I use it on extension to capture insects in flight. The 2/200VR sits idle in the corner and collects dust.

A 2.0/200PF could be something that would interest me though.

Good to know about the longer options, should I one day have time to get into songbird shooting...

[Ilkka Nissilä]

A 2.0/200PF could be something that would interest me though.

According to Nikon, the weight savings from PF in the fast teles (as well as zooms) would be lower (than in a 300/4) and the users of the fast teles tend to be finicky about bokeh. Nikon say they can make these lenses better using other methods. Likely this means FL and now also SR. Also, they say the PF lenses are not quite as rugged. I'd be happy if they make an FL 200/2, but then again I'm happy with the current version as well. ;-) I would like a more modern focus motor in the lens, though.

Nikon could make an FL 200/2 but who knows, it is a lens with a rather small market. On the other hand, Nikon now have a rather small market as a whole, so maybe it would be a good fit. ;-)

It seems the race is up for the maddest collection of wide-aperture lenses, with Canon being very active. They seem to have patents for 18/1.0, 135/1.4, etc. A 135/1.4 might actually be an easier-to-handle way to get 200/2 -like results.

Apart from birds (where 500mm might be seen as a little short sometimes), I've found the 500 PF to be great for mammals. Mammals tend to be spooked if I set up a tripod so this lens permits freehand shooting from car easily, and also on foot. I can walk in the forest and sometimes get a shot that way as well. With birds I actually prefer to use a tripod (also with this lens) and wait for them to come to a suitable spot. But maybe I'm the only photographer who mounts this lens on a tripod. :-D

[elsid]

I bought the 500PF in December 2018 and, since then, it is permanently attached to the D500. I, also, agree that it is a very good lens, excellent, if you consider  its cost. I have used with the TC 1.4 III and I was surprised by the results. Of course you need light for AF to work decently. I am attaching 2 photos taken with the D500+TC 1.4 III+500mm PF.

[Frank Fremerey]

I love the D500 and the 500PF is sure a great match, elsid. But f/8 is close to the dark side of the force. Yet. If you expose for max details and tonality in the RAW, even 20.000 ISO is still OK on the D500! Please show more examples and tell us which AF settings are right and how rare shots like 8508 are compared to shots like 8708...

[Bill De Jager]

Mammals tend to be spooked if I set up a tripod

I missed a great shot because I insisted on setting up a tripod first.  The deer silhouetted on a nearby hill took off immediately.  If only I had grabbed my camera first to get a handheld shot...

[MFloyd]

D850 with 500mm f/5.6E PF and TC-20E III:


_8513335.jpg
Subject is 19km distant
ƒ/11.0  1000.0 mm 1/60s ISO 320

focus on Live View with focus peaking.

[Ilkka Nissilä]

I love the D500 and the 500PF is sure a great match, elsid. But f/8 is close to the dark side of the force. Yet. If you expose for max details and tonality in the RAW, even 20.000 ISO is still OK on the D500! Please show more examples and tell us which AF settings are right and how rare shots like 8508 are compared to shots like 8708...

If using the 500 PF with TC-14E III, I recommend using the center point for focusing (single point, 9-point dynamic (not on the D500), or group area). I think for perched birds this setup works OK, although if the bird is close, sometimes the AF has difficulty picking up the subject. For moving subjects, at long distances the setup can work ok (e.g., airplanes in the sky,, it seems to work well) but at close distances it can't focus very well if the subject is moving quickly and sometimes even if the subject is not moving.

I did some lunar eclipse shots with it and it turned out that the TC did provide more detail on the moon than no TC. I used LVAF to focus.

While I have used the 500 + 1.4X a fair bit, I have been sufficiently disappointed with the AF that I don't use this combination often. However, in some circumstances (static subject etc.), the TC can help you pull off extra detail out of the lens. But when working with moving subjects, the AF works much better without the TC. I hope this helps and doesn't discourage those who need 700mm from trying this combination. It is probably the case that in Finland I tend to photograph wildlife often in rather dim light compared to many photographers in more southern latitudes and this may have influenced my assessment.

[Frank Fremerey]

Ilkka: eye detection works good on humans and horses, does is work on birds?

[elsid]

I love the D500 and the 500PF is sure a great match, elsid. But f/8 is close to the dark side of the force. Yet. If you expose for max details and tonality in the RAW, even 20.000 ISO is still OK on the D500! Please show more examples and tell us which AF settings are right and how rare shots like 8508 are compared to shots like 8708...

Dear Frank, Forgive me for being a bit late in responding to you. First, let me state that I agree with what Ilkka mentions in his last post. I use the 500 PF mainly for wildlife, but also for close ups and mush less for landscape. Occasionally for portraits too. I use single point AF for static subjects and group AF for BIF. I use the lens mostly without the TC 1.4 III. AF is faster and better. With the TC you need the sun. So far I have used the lens in hand held shooting, But I will start using it with a monopod and tripod (possibly in a hide). Some info on the settings for the two photos I posted. 1st photo 8508: ISO 640 f 8 shutter 1/500. sec photo 8708 ISO 320 f 8 shutter 1/1000. For wildlife I try not to go below 1/500 for speed (for handheld shooting).
Below are 4 more photos 2 close ups and 2 lanscapes taken without the TC. The first is with the D850 the rest with the D500.