-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Nikkor 500 f/4, Convince Me!!!
- Thread starter Rutgerbus
- Start date
JK5700
Senior Member
If you do not know why you need this lens, why should we bother?
http://kennekam.blogspot.com/
http://www.pbase.com/kennekam
--
http://kennekam.blogspot.com/
http://www.pbase.com/kennekam
Samsat
Forum Enthusiast
JK5700's reply did not warrant a reply.
I saw your previous post on the Canon vs the Nikon pricing for this lens. I am sure that you have other Nikon lenses that would make the move to Canon a lot more expensive than the difference in price of these 2 lenses!!
I have a similar dilemma about getting the expensive (for me anyway) 70-200VR and posed a similar question earlier in the week with some really useful responses. I am sure you will get the same here.
Good luck.
I saw your previous post on the Canon vs the Nikon pricing for this lens. I am sure that you have other Nikon lenses that would make the move to Canon a lot more expensive than the difference in price of these 2 lenses!!
I have a similar dilemma about getting the expensive (for me anyway) 70-200VR and posed a similar question earlier in the week with some really useful responses. I am sure you will get the same here.
Good luck.
JK5700
Senior Member
I am quite helpful myself, it is just that I get irritated by posters demanding that the group helps or convinces them. The arrogance of it gets me. Why not just ask nicely?
Looking at the OP's other post I now have context. I am in the same position. I have a 200-400 but am not happy with the sharpness of distant objects. Ideally I need a 500 or 600. The Nikon lenses are so much more expensive that I can get a decent Canon body as well as the lens for the same price of the nikon lens. I am tempted to get a Canon 50D and 500L just for birding, but will most likely just bite the bullet and get the Nikkor. Perhaps a used one if I can find one.
http://kennekam.blogspot.com/
http://www.pbase.com/kennekam
Looking at the OP's other post I now have context. I am in the same position. I have a 200-400 but am not happy with the sharpness of distant objects. Ideally I need a 500 or 600. The Nikon lenses are so much more expensive that I can get a decent Canon body as well as the lens for the same price of the nikon lens. I am tempted to get a Canon 50D and 500L just for birding, but will most likely just bite the bullet and get the Nikkor. Perhaps a used one if I can find one.
--
http://kennekam.blogspot.com/
http://www.pbase.com/kennekam
James Shum
Leading Member
Just for your reference
James
James
raymond j barlow
Senior Member
Well, if a bird is a spec in the viewfinder on a 2-400 it is probably a slightly larger spec in the viewfinder with the 500 f4. I have never used the 500, so I have no real right to comment, but my suggestion is that you learn better wildlife skills rather then spending tons of money on a new lens.
Also, huge focal lengths are great for certain shooting... a timid bird that is difficult to approach, like a hooded merganser in a pond., my feeling is to get creative, and capture the environment without worring about getting too close to the bird.
for example, you could be in a local park, shooting warblers.. walking around with a D300, 500 f4 + 1.4 tc, gitzo, and whimberly... how much? about 17k?.. now your trying to get a shot., you get as close as you can, catch a few frames, go home and do a 75% crop to have something nice.
or
You have a D300, 300 F4 = 1.4 tc, cost... 4k... and stay in your car... ride along some brushy area where the birds hang out, park it, and sit quietly until they come to you., get a full frame shot, go home and do a slight crop for composition., then print it as large as you like.
Now. if you have a Ferarri, the cost could go up a bit!
I use the 200-400 because I am into the flexability of the zoom, and for most of my photography, I do not need to get face shots of the animals or birds, as I like the more environmental images...
I guess my point is that there is a lot more to photography then giant lenses... but, for sure I wish I had the 500 f4!
good luck.
http://www.raymondbarlow.com
Also, huge focal lengths are great for certain shooting... a timid bird that is difficult to approach, like a hooded merganser in a pond., my feeling is to get creative, and capture the environment without worring about getting too close to the bird.
for example, you could be in a local park, shooting warblers.. walking around with a D300, 500 f4 + 1.4 tc, gitzo, and whimberly... how much? about 17k?.. now your trying to get a shot., you get as close as you can, catch a few frames, go home and do a 75% crop to have something nice.
or
You have a D300, 300 F4 = 1.4 tc, cost... 4k... and stay in your car... ride along some brushy area where the birds hang out, park it, and sit quietly until they come to you., get a full frame shot, go home and do a slight crop for composition., then print it as large as you like.
Now. if you have a Ferarri, the cost could go up a bit!
I use the 200-400 because I am into the flexability of the zoom, and for most of my photography, I do not need to get face shots of the animals or birds, as I like the more environmental images...
I guess my point is that there is a lot more to photography then giant lenses... but, for sure I wish I had the 500 f4!
good luck.
--
http://www.raymondbarlow.com
Bruce kendall
Senior Member
Thats a great shot by the way,Ray!.I think the OP should just get used to the 300/4 with a TC 1.4/1.7,its a great lens at a greatly reduced price.
Best Wishes
Bruce
Johannesburg
SA
D300
70-200VR
35MM AFS 1.8
300 F4 AFS (+ 1.4TC)
18-200VR
SB800
http://www.pbase.com/gouws
Best Wishes
Bruce
Johannesburg
SA
D300
70-200VR
35MM AFS 1.8
300 F4 AFS (+ 1.4TC)
18-200VR
SB800
http://www.pbase.com/gouws
lajaro
Forum Enthusiast
+1
And if that doesn't cut it, then revisit / reconsider the 500
Small price to pay in comparison.
And if that doesn't cut it, then revisit / reconsider the 500
Small price to pay in comparison.
James, sorry to say so, but if those pics are from the 500/4 (no EXIF) you either have to work on post processing, LLT, AF fine tune, better support and/or better lighting.
I agree that the 300/4 AF-S and TC17EII is a good combo, but if you want good sharpness you also need to stop down a bit. You end up at around f8, which is not enough to isolate the subject many times. Ronnie G did a great job with this and the TC14EII-combo, but as he stated, the 500/4 is sharper.
You can also add a TC to the 500/4 and get some more mms. But of course the combo is much more expensive and heavy! Still one of my dream lenses, sigh.
Look at e.g. Ronnie Gaubert's new pics, Jim Fenton's posts etc (sorry for leaving out all the rest of you marvellous photogs).
http://fling.zenfolio.com
I agree that the 300/4 AF-S and TC17EII is a good combo, but if you want good sharpness you also need to stop down a bit. You end up at around f8, which is not enough to isolate the subject many times. Ronnie G did a great job with this and the TC14EII-combo, but as he stated, the 500/4 is sharper.
You can also add a TC to the 500/4 and get some more mms. But of course the combo is much more expensive and heavy! Still one of my dream lenses, sigh.
Look at e.g. Ronnie Gaubert's new pics, Jim Fenton's posts etc (sorry for leaving out all the rest of you marvellous photogs).
http://fling.zenfolio.com
jahern
Leading Member
Looking at Jay's gallery think he is doing fine on the wildlife skills. I had the pleasure of being on safari in South Africa once, and would love some of my images to be as good as Jay's, there is one of a leopard with a pure black background from Elephant plains 2008 that is stunning.
I also agree a bit with his opening comments, when asking for advice you should spend some time to give a bit more information on what equipment you have, what you want to photograph, why you think the current equipment is limiting you.
If you want people to spend the time posting images, writing down their experience you should put an equal amount of effort in.
Before I moved to Nikon I had a Canon 500mm, all these lenses, Canon or Nikon, 300mm f/2.8, 200-400mm, 500mm, 600mm are all stunning and the VR and extra reach will make life easier for you. I found going from a 300mm to a 500m did not make that big a difference in term of filling the frame as I though it would. But when you have a more expensive lens you tend to go out and use it more, and the better IQ and VR mean the trips are more rewarding so you get better quicker and it is more enjoyable.
There is a big difference in terms of using the 300mm and 500mm, the 500mm required more kit to go with it, suitable tripod (one of the Gitzo carbon fibre ones are great), support head (Wimberley are excellent), bag to carry it in, lens coat, so add nearly another grand onto the cost if you don't have these already. The size and weight is another thing, you can't just go for a walk and throw the 500mm over your shoulder, there is more planning on a day out required.
If you need to convice yourself, try and rent the lens, I was able to rent the Canon 500mm before I got it and it made a huge difference.
The big price hike means I can't afford yet to get a Nikon lens to replace the 500mm I had when I had Canon gear, but I will not be getting the 500mm, but instead the 200-400mm as I can zoom out and get something different.
John
I also agree a bit with his opening comments, when asking for advice you should spend some time to give a bit more information on what equipment you have, what you want to photograph, why you think the current equipment is limiting you.
If you want people to spend the time posting images, writing down their experience you should put an equal amount of effort in.
Before I moved to Nikon I had a Canon 500mm, all these lenses, Canon or Nikon, 300mm f/2.8, 200-400mm, 500mm, 600mm are all stunning and the VR and extra reach will make life easier for you. I found going from a 300mm to a 500m did not make that big a difference in term of filling the frame as I though it would. But when you have a more expensive lens you tend to go out and use it more, and the better IQ and VR mean the trips are more rewarding so you get better quicker and it is more enjoyable.
There is a big difference in terms of using the 300mm and 500mm, the 500mm required more kit to go with it, suitable tripod (one of the Gitzo carbon fibre ones are great), support head (Wimberley are excellent), bag to carry it in, lens coat, so add nearly another grand onto the cost if you don't have these already. The size and weight is another thing, you can't just go for a walk and throw the 500mm over your shoulder, there is more planning on a day out required.
If you need to convice yourself, try and rent the lens, I was able to rent the Canon 500mm before I got it and it made a huge difference.
The big price hike means I can't afford yet to get a Nikon lens to replace the 500mm I had when I had Canon gear, but I will not be getting the 500mm, but instead the 200-400mm as I can zoom out and get something different.
John
raymond j barlow
Senior Member
thanks Bruce... well, there is a lot of issues that we don't know about.. budjet, location relating to general shooting opportunities, and various species that are available / desired., etc. It is impossible for someone to say... 'this is what you need", but suggestions and some helpful knowledge will work.
http://www.raymondbarlow.com
--
http://www.raymondbarlow.com
raymond j barlow
Senior Member
very good points.,
Another consideration is the minimum focal distance.. 200-400 works well at just over 6 feet... I think the 500 f4 is around 13 feet?., the ratio for the 200-400 is excellent for small targets up close. It is amazing how many times I have been in my hide, and made good use of this feature.
--
http://www.raymondbarlow.com
Another consideration is the minimum focal distance.. 200-400 works well at just over 6 feet... I think the 500 f4 is around 13 feet?., the ratio for the 200-400 is excellent for small targets up close. It is amazing how many times I have been in my hide, and made good use of this feature.
--
http://www.raymondbarlow.com
JK5700
Senior Member
I love my 200-400, but find that I get sharper images at 380mm than at 400mm as well as sharper images at 100 feet than at 200 feet. I shoot from the car using a window mount and a Wimberley 2. I have been able to compare with a 500 prime and find that I get sharper images at 200 feet. Of course the object is bigger, but it is also sharper. Note that I am being hypercritical here, the 200-400 is good, but the 500 is better at distance. And it takes converters a bit better.
I will not get rid of my 200-400 for shooting leopards and lions, but will add a 500 or 600 for birds.
RBFresno
Forum Pro
I have the 500mm vr and 200-400mm.
The 200-400mm is very flexible and had enough reach when using a D2h or D2x. With the D3 it just didn't have the reach, so I added the 500mm (600mm was too big and heavy).
I believe my 200-400mm is an excellent copy as it was a very early copy (if you hold to the theory that the first ones out get the most attention in order build a reputation -- not sure I agree, but it suits my experience here ...), and in static testing it performs very comparably to the 500mm. I know this is bound to be controversial, but it is what I see with my gear based on thousands of real world photos along with a lot test chart photos.
Out in the field it is easier to get sharper photos with the 200-400mm simply because it has less magnification, is easier to handle, and requires less support. This makes the lens most often my first choice for the sports photography that I do.
The 500mm takes more support and better technique to produce the equivalent quality of the 200-400mm.
Comparing the best photos from each lens (real world sports photos, not lens test charts), I would say the 200-400mm is slightly sharper when pixel peeping, but the print quality difference at sizes up to 13x19 (using a D3) would be hard to see. The real difference is the shallower DOF of the 500mm which can be used to create much more isolation.
Here is a 500mm vr photo that I could not get with the 200-400mm because 1) it would not be safe to be closer and 2) even if I could get closer and still fill the frame, the OOF area would not be nearly as pleasing.
Whenever I need the reach or the subject would benefit from the shallow DOF, then the 500mm is an easy (but heavy) choice.
Deven
The 200-400mm is very flexible and had enough reach when using a D2h or D2x. With the D3 it just didn't have the reach, so I added the 500mm (600mm was too big and heavy).
I believe my 200-400mm is an excellent copy as it was a very early copy (if you hold to the theory that the first ones out get the most attention in order build a reputation -- not sure I agree, but it suits my experience here ...), and in static testing it performs very comparably to the 500mm. I know this is bound to be controversial, but it is what I see with my gear based on thousands of real world photos along with a lot test chart photos.
Out in the field it is easier to get sharper photos with the 200-400mm simply because it has less magnification, is easier to handle, and requires less support. This makes the lens most often my first choice for the sports photography that I do.
The 500mm takes more support and better technique to produce the equivalent quality of the 200-400mm.
Comparing the best photos from each lens (real world sports photos, not lens test charts), I would say the 200-400mm is slightly sharper when pixel peeping, but the print quality difference at sizes up to 13x19 (using a D3) would be hard to see. The real difference is the shallower DOF of the 500mm which can be used to create much more isolation.
Here is a 500mm vr photo that I could not get with the 200-400mm because 1) it would not be safe to be closer and 2) even if I could get closer and still fill the frame, the OOF area would not be nearly as pleasing.
Whenever I need the reach or the subject would benefit from the shallow DOF, then the 500mm is an easy (but heavy) choice.
Deven
RBFresno
Forum Pro
Hi!
That's a great ski image!
I've been thinking about the 500VR for a while now, and am starting to regret holding off on it. The price has gone up considerably in the last 6 months!
RB
http://www.pbase.com/rbfresno/profile
That's a great ski image!
I've been thinking about the 500VR for a while now, and am starting to regret holding off on it. The price has gone up considerably in the last 6 months!
RB
http://www.pbase.com/rbfresno/profile
I bought mine at K&S (who I believe you are familiar with) the day before the price increase (which gave me some motivation to get off the fence).
Deven
JRD200
Well-known member
all 500vr nikion lens
peterclark55
Senior Member
the Nikon 500 is really a sharp lens:
but in close to similar parameters, the Sigma 150-500, although not as crips but much easier to handle, holds its own:
Of course, the Sigma costs 7 times less, so if you are not happy with Nikon prices, here is one answer.
--
http://www.pbase.com/peter55/galleries
but in close to similar parameters, the Sigma 150-500, although not as crips but much easier to handle, holds its own:
Of course, the Sigma costs 7 times less, so if you are not happy with Nikon prices, here is one answer.
--
http://www.pbase.com/peter55/galleries
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum