Nikon 500mm pf vr

[jerste]

I tested Nikon 500mm pf and with tc 1.4 iii attached i cannot achieve sharp pictures at 1/100 handheld.

I have no problem with 200-500 with tc 1.4 to get sharp photos. Even 1/250 looks better with 200-500mm. I know my tests are rather extreme but i would expect vr in new 500mm pf to be at least as efficient as in 200-500mm.

Can some owners compare vr in 200-500mm and new 500mm pf? I recall 300mm pf had some problems with vr in first batches.

 

[lokatz]

I have all three of them and will do some testing tomorrow.

 

[jerste]

I have all three of them and will do some testing tomorrow.

Thank you, i should add i use nikon d7500 body, without tc i can go down to 1/50 handheld, 1/40 starts to get blurry.

 

[Geomaticsman]

I tested Nikon 500mm pf and with tc 1.4 iii attached i cannot achieve sharp pictures at 1/100 handheld.

I have no problem with 200-500 with tc 1.4 to get sharp photos. Even 1/250 looks better with 200-500mm. I know my tests are rather extreme but i would expect vr in new 500mm pf to be at least as efficient as in 200-500mm.

I'm not too surprised. I've used many Nikkor lenses over the years and the VR implementation in the 200-500VR is unsurpassed in effectiveness including pro lenses. I suspect it has something to do with the design of the 200-500VR that allowed for a uniquely effective VR implementation. For example the 300PF was released about the same time as the 200-500VR and yet it is very poor in terms of VR effectiveness (relatively speaking).

--
Gary - I prefer Nikon and long primes

 

[jeminijoseph]

I tested Nikon 500mm pf and with tc 1.4 iii attached i cannot achieve sharp pictures at 1/100 handheld.

I have no problem with 200-500 with tc 1.4 to get sharp photos. Even 1/250 looks better with 200-500mm. I know my tests are rather extreme but i would expect vr in new 500mm pf to be at least as efficient as in 200-500mm.

Can some owners compare vr in 200-500mm and new 500mm pf? I recall 300mm pf had some problems with vr in first batches.

What do you think about the sharpness on tripod? I mean pure optical quality between these two?

 

[larrywilson]

Auto focus fine tuning may be required with the tc 1.4EIII. A converter can throw off the focus and have a different value than the lens without tc. I can think of any reason to use a 500mm lens at slow shutter speeds of 1/100, expecting too much.

Larry

 

[Slugsworth]

Auto focus fine tuning may be required with the tc 1.4EIII. A converter can throw off the focus and have a different value than the lens without tc. I can think of any reason to use a 500mm lens at slow shutter speeds of 1/100, expecting too much.

Larry

Larry is correct,

just doing some AF fine tune with Focus Tune (in prep for my Botswana assignment next week) and my 500PF bare required a minor adj of +4.

Now whilst I'll likely never use a 1.4tc on my 500PF but for the purpose of answering this question, I did Focus Tune 1.4tcIII which required -12 @ 100s on tripod and achieved perfect and sharp focus also @ 100s hand held.

These results were on my D850 gripped & ungripped body, and also in the process of AF tune on my D5 & D500.

So NO low 100s S/S HH (with VR) evident with my sample, at least for my gripped and ungripped D850, I suggest you AF fine tune your copy.

Image below is H/H @ 100s

Cheers

Marc

--
http://www.marcmol.com
https://500px.com/marc_mol

 

[jerste]

I tested Nikon 500mm pf and with tc 1.4 iii attached i cannot achieve sharp pictures at 1/100 handheld.

I have no problem with 200-500 with tc 1.4 to get sharp photos. Even 1/250 looks better with 200-500mm. I know my tests are rather extreme but i would expect vr in new 500mm pf to be at least as efficient as in 200-500mm.

Can some owners compare vr in 200-500mm and new 500mm pf? I recall 300mm pf had some problems with vr in first batches.

What do you think about the sharpness on tripod? I mean pure optical quality between these two?

I do not see much difference at 500mm, maybe tiny in favor of new 500mm

 

[lokatz]

I have all three of them and will do some testing tomorrow.

Thank you, i should add i use nikon d7500 body, without tc i can go down to 1/50 handheld, 1/40 starts to get blurry.

Well, it's all relative. When you say 'starts to get blurry', I'm sure you realize we're talking statistics here: out of XX shots you take, so many will be blurry, so many will be decent, so many will be excellent. I sort of developed a 'standard' test I've already conducted several times, where I take 50 shots each at 1/20s, 1/40s, ... 1/1250s and track how many of them are poor/fair/good/excellent. My "usability margin" is the point where 80+ percent are good or excellent, but different people will view this differently. Curious to see how well the 500 PF with and without TC performs - will know more tomorrow.

I test on a D500, by the way, so we should be getting similar results.

Where I already do see quite a bit of difference is in how much the image 'jumps' after the shot. The 200-500 has been critiqued by several users because while its VR works well, there is a substantial 'jump' of the image in the viewfinder as soon as you release the capture button. My impression is that the 500 PF shows far less of this effect.

 

[jeminijoseph]

I tested Nikon 500mm pf and with tc 1.4 iii attached i cannot achieve sharp pictures at 1/100 handheld.

I have no problem with 200-500 with tc 1.4 to get sharp photos. Even 1/250 looks better with 200-500mm. I know my tests are rather extreme but i would expect vr in new 500mm pf to be at least as efficient as in 200-500mm.

Can some owners compare vr in 200-500mm and new 500mm pf? I recall 300mm pf had some problems with vr in first batches.

What do you think about the sharpness on tripod? I mean pure optical quality between these two?

I do not see much difference at 500mm, maybe tiny in favor of new 500mm

Well, 200-500 is a great lens optically. Even marginal difference is great. I'm not sure we will see much difference even for 500/4. AF and weight are two reasons to get new 500.

 

[Ricardo00]

I tested Nikon 500mm pf and with tc 1.4 iii attached i cannot achieve sharp pictures at 1/100 handheld.

I have no problem with 200-500 with tc 1.4 to get sharp photos. Even 1/250 looks better with 200-500mm. I know my tests are rather extreme but i would expect vr in new 500mm pf to be at least as efficient as in 200-500mm.

Can some owners compare vr in 200-500mm and new 500mm pf? I recall 300mm pf had some problems with vr in first batches.

What do you think about the sharpness on tripod? I mean pure optical quality between these two?

I do not see much difference at 500mm, maybe tiny in favor of new 500mm

This is just an impression (not sure how you can test it), but at least with the limiter on for both, it seems like the 500mm f/5.6 grabs focus faster for a flying bird. Maybe it is because it is lighter and less bulky I can swing it around better? Frankly, when I tried to compare my 500mm f/4G with the 200-500mm when both were set up on a tripod and shot at a static object (ie. a sign) a ways away, I didn't see that much difference in sharpness. So, at least in my opinion, the main difference is not which lens is sharper, but which lens can you use to grab focus of a rapidly moving object (ie. BIF). And this could vary between people, depending on their strength, expertise, eyesight, etc. Just some thoughts.

Peregrine falcon shot with the 500mm f/5.6 with the 1.4TC on a D500

 

[Bing Chow]

I have all three of them and will do some testing tomorrow.

Thank you, i should add i use nikon d7500 body, without tc i can go down to 1/50 handheld, 1/40 starts to get blurry.

Well, it's all relative. When you say 'starts to get blurry', I'm sure you realize we're talking statistics here: out of XX shots you take, so many will be blurry, so many will be decent, so many will be excellent. I sort of developed a 'standard' test I've already conducted several times, where I take 50 shots each at 1/20s, 1/40s, ... 1/1250s and track how many of them are poor/fair/good/excellent. My "usability margin" is the point where 80+ percent are good or excellent, but different people will view this differently. Curious to see how well the 500 PF with and without TC performs - will know more tomorrow.

I test on a D500, by the way, so we should be getting similar results.

Where I already do see quite a bit of difference is in how much the image 'jumps' after the shot. The 200-500 has been critiqued by several users because while its VR works well, there is a substantial 'jump' of the image in the viewfinder as soon as you release the capture button. My impression is that the 500 PF shows far less of this effect.

You sir, deserve a door prize. Although I'm not a long lens shooter, I found my results from such a test invaluable for when I do use my Sigma 150-600. I tested at various FLs too, so I know what's the minimum SS I can get away with, for static subjects, while standing with elbows tucked in and OS engaged. That would be my least stable position so it would be worse case scenario.

I've learned that I get can't go slower than 2 stops under the 1/FL rule and get good-excellent results 75+% of the time. If I was kneeling and supporting my elbow on my other knee, naturally, I can go slower.

 

[Leo3]

Auto focus fine tuning may be required with the tc 1.4EIII. A converter can throw off the focus and have a different value than the lens without tc. I can think of any reason to use a 500mm lens at slow shutter speeds of 1/100, expecting too much.

Larry

-- was going to recommend af fine tune as well. I ran into this issue with 200-500 and 1.4 tc, it made a huge difference.
-Leo3

Leo McKillop

Explore Leo McKillop’s 1,502 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

 

[xPhoenix]

I tested Nikon 500mm pf and with tc 1.4 iii attached i cannot achieve sharp pictures at 1/100 handheld.

I have no problem with 200-500 with tc 1.4 to get sharp photos. Even 1/250 looks better with 200-500mm. I know my tests are rather extreme but i would expect vr in new 500mm pf to be at least as efficient as in 200-500mm.

Can some owners compare vr in 200-500mm and new 500mm pf? I recall 300mm pf had some problems with vr in first batches.

Uh oh! I was just going to post to the other 500PF asking about VR performance. What worries me with your observation is the 300PF VR was very flaky. On certain cameras, it didn't work around certain shutter speeds, namely 1/80 - 1/160 or so. In fact, it was not possible to get sharp shots with VR on in this range of speeds. Man, I hope the 500PF doesn't have this same issue.

My 200-500's VR is flawless at all shutter speeds. I shot today at 1/80 due to low light in the woods, and got perfectly sharp shots (as long as the animal didn't move). The 500PF had better be able to handle this, especially for $3600. I'm getting mine tomorrow, so we'll see.

 

[xPhoenix]

Auto focus fine tuning may be required with the tc 1.4EIII. A converter can throw off the focus and have a different value than the lens without tc. I can think of any reason to use a 500mm lens at slow shutter speeds of 1/100, expecting too much.

Larry

The 200-500 can do it for $1300. I don't think it's expecting too much for a $3600 lens to do it, too. There are many reasons to shoot slow speeds. I do it all the time for stationary animals because the evening light is low under a tree canopy. Even in broad daylight, the light is low in the woods. I was shooting at 1/100 this evening, and ISO was 2000. The other day, it was overcast, and I was over ISO 4000 at 1/80 in the woods. All I can say is the 500PF better be able to do this, or it's getting returned.

 

[xPhoenix]

I tested Nikon 500mm pf and with tc 1.4 iii attached i cannot achieve sharp pictures at 1/100 handheld.

I have no problem with 200-500 with tc 1.4 to get sharp photos. Even 1/250 looks better with 200-500mm. I know my tests are rather extreme but i would expect vr in new 500mm pf to be at least as efficient as in 200-500mm.

Can some owners compare vr in 200-500mm and new 500mm pf? I recall 300mm pf had some problems with vr in first batches.

What do you think about the sharpness on tripod? I mean pure optical quality between these two?

I do not see much difference at 500mm, maybe tiny in favor of new 500mm

How is it at 1/100 without the TC? Also, do you have an example shot with the TC at 1/100? If it needs AF fine tuning, it'll look blurry, but if the VR is not working, the image will look smeared due to motion.

 

[Slugsworth]

Auto focus fine tuning may be required with the tc 1.4EIII. A converter can throw off the focus and have a different value than the lens without tc. I can think of any reason to use a 500mm lens at slow shutter speeds of 1/100, expecting too much.

Larry

. All I can say is the 500PF better be able to do this, or it's getting returned.

Before you go into a panic......Did you not see my post?

Have found my 500PF is perfectly capable of producing sharp handheld images on all of my 4 bodies at +/-1/100s for the D5, D850 (gripped & ungripped), D500 (gripped & ungripped) and D810 (gripped & ungripped)

--
http://www.marcmol.com
https://500px.com/marc_mol

 

[chambeshi]

Auto focus fine tuning may be required with the tc 1.4EIII. A converter can throw off the focus and have a different value than the lens without tc. I can think of any reason to use a 500mm lens at slow shutter speeds of 1/100, expecting too much.

Larry

. All I can say is the 500PF better be able to do this, or it's getting returned.

Before you go into a panic......Did you not see my post?

Have found my 500PF is perfectly capable of producing sharp handheld images on all of my 4 bodies at +/-1/100s for the D5, D850 (gripped & ungripped), D500 (gripped & ungripped) and D810 (gripped & ungripped)

Thanks for your rational feedback here. After similar experiences, a couple of years back, getting erratic AF sharpness on Nikkor telephotos, I've learnt AF tuning is time very well spent. YES! with all the relevant TCs. And on each camera. The D500 and D850 make this exercise so much simpler :-D I have found each TC has needed adjustment on 300 f2.8, 300 f4E PF, 200 f2G, 400 f2.8E....

I follow Steve Perry's advice [his Nikon AF ebook] to run off a statistically valid sample keeping an eye on outliers. Then run practical tests with each combination - on a rough tree trunk then birds visiting a feeder - focusing "right on the eye" on a robust tripod rig

AF Tuning will be the very first exercise when I have the 500 PF in my paws!

I foresee the facility for extra reach on smaller subjects (birds etc), that the feasibility to attach the TC14 III to the 500 PF will be a strategic ace in one's pocket

 

[briantilley]

I tested Nikon 500mm pf and with tc 1.4 iii attached i cannot achieve sharp pictures at 1/100 handheld.

I have no problem with 200-500 with tc 1.4 to get sharp photos. Even 1/250 looks better with 200-500mm. I know my tests are rather extreme but i would expect vr in new 500mm pf to be at least as efficient as in 200-500mm.

Can some owners compare vr in 200-500mm and new 500mm pf? I recall 300mm pf had some problems with vr in first batches.

Uh oh! I was just going to post to the other 500PF asking about VR performance. What worries me with your observation is the 300PF VR was very flaky. On certain cameras, it didn't work around certain shutter speeds, namely 1/80 - 1/160 or so. In fact, it was not possible to get sharp shots with VR on in this range of speeds. Man, I hope the 500PF doesn't have this same issue.

My 200-500's VR is flawless at all shutter speeds. I shot today at 1/80 due to low light in the woods, and got perfectly sharp shots (as long as the animal didn't move). The 500PF had better be able to handle this, especially for $3600. I'm getting mine tomorrow, so we'll see.

It's as though you're hoping the lens will need to be returned - so that you'll be able to complain loudly about it.

 

[Slugsworth]

I tested Nikon 500mm pf and with tc 1.4 iii attached i cannot achieve sharp pictures at 1/100 handheld.

I have no problem with 200-500 with tc 1.4 to get sharp photos. Even 1/250 looks better with 200-500mm. I know my tests are rather extreme but i would expect vr in new 500mm pf to be at least as efficient as in 200-500mm.

Can some owners compare vr in 200-500mm and new 500mm pf? I recall 300mm pf had some problems with vr in first batches.

Uh oh! I was just going to post to the other 500PF asking about VR performance. What worries me with your observation is the 300PF VR was very flaky. On certain cameras, it didn't work around certain shutter speeds, namely 1/80 - 1/160 or so. In fact, it was not possible to get sharp shots with VR on in this range of speeds. Man, I hope the 500PF doesn't have this same issue.

My 200-500's VR is flawless at all shutter speeds. I shot today at 1/80 due to low light in the woods, and got perfectly sharp shots (as long as the animal didn't move). The 500PF had better be able to handle this, especially for $3600. I'm getting mine tomorrow, so we'll see.

It's as though you're hoping the lens will need to be returned - so that you'll be able to complain loudly about it.

+1 ;-)