Nikon 500mm f/5.6 vs Olympus 300mm f/4

I have been interested to see how the new Nikon 500mm PF f/5.6 turns out as I have been wondering whether I might get better results with it on a D500, particularly for birds in flight, than with my Olympus 300mm f/4 and E-M1 MkII. Well, lenstip, have done a review - https://www.lenstip.com/index.php?test=obiektywu&test_ob=540. The review is very complementary about the new lens.

I can't say anything about birds in flight with the Nikon but there are some static shots of birds. I have some similar shots taken with my camera and the 300mm and I think the Olympus is way better!

I don't want to copy Lenstip's images but I will provide a link to their samples page - https://www.lenstip.com/540.12-Lens...AF-S_500_mm_f_5.6E_PF_ED_VR_Sample_shots.html

Compare these images taken with the new Nikon - here or here

with this image taken with the Olympus at 300mm.


This image was shot in raw but batch processed in Olympus Viewer so is effectively the same as an in-camera jpeg. I accidentally chose the option which did not include Exif data - oops.

I was a little closer to the bird than the Nikon shot. Comparing in "full-frame" terms, the Olympus is similar to 600mm at f/8 whilst the Nikon is 750mm at f/8.4, so fairly close but my bird fills slightly more of the frame. My image was taken on a sunny day in October.

I think the Olympus image is significantly sharper and has more contrast. The other Nikon images look similar to my eye. Rather soft at 100%

Whilst this is just one review and set of samples, it certainly dampens my enthusiasm for the "greener grass" of the new Nikon 500mm. Am I reading this right?

to my eye the Nikon shots look slightly misfocused, i think the lens has potential but not so much from these samples

Wu Jiaqiu said:

to my eye the Nikon shots look slightly misfocused, i think the lens has potential but not so much from these samples

Click to expand...

Quite possibly. I think it would have to be front-focused as I can't see any other part of the bird that is sharper. Lenstip did say in their review that the lens didn't require any focus adjustment though.

Tony Rogers said:

Wu Jiaqiu said:

to my eye the Nikon shots look slightly misfocused, i think the lens has potential but not so much from these samples

Click to expand...

Quite possibly. I think it would have to be front-focused as I can't see any other part of the bird that is sharper. Lenstip did say in their review that the lens didn't require any focus adjustment though.

Click to expand...

if you look at this shot of the sparrow the left foot which i presume is under the left eye of the bird is oof, yet the material of the chair further away from the left foot and slightly lower is in focus....just my thought anyways

Wu Jiaqiu said:

Tony Rogers said:

Wu Jiaqiu said:

to my eye the Nikon shots look slightly misfocused, i think the lens has potential but not so much from these samples

Click to expand...

Quite possibly. I think it would have to be front-focused as I can't see any other part of the bird that is sharper. Lenstip did say in their review that the lens didn't require any focus adjustment though.

Click to expand...

if you look at this shot of the sparrow the left foot which i presume is under the left eye of the bird is oof, yet the material of the chair further away from the left foot and slightly lower is in focus....just my thought anyways

Click to expand...

Maybe. In this one , the foot definitely looks more in focus but I still can't see a corresponding part of the bird that looks sharp.

This may, at least in part, be due to less aggressive in-camera sharpening in the Nikon. The jpeg does appear to sharpen quite well in photoshop but, to me, it still doesn't look as good as the Olympus.

Tony Rogers said:

Wu Jiaqiu said:

Tony Rogers said:

Wu Jiaqiu said:

to my eye the Nikon shots look slightly misfocused, i think the lens has potential but not so much from these samples

Click to expand...

Quite possibly. I think it would have to be front-focused as I can't see any other part of the bird that is sharper. Lenstip did say in their review that the lens didn't require any focus adjustment though.

Click to expand...

if you look at this shot of the sparrow the left foot which i presume is under the left eye of the bird is oof, yet the material of the chair further away from the left foot and slightly lower is in focus....just my thought anyways

Click to expand...

Maybe. In this one , the foot definitely looks more in focus but I still can't see a corresponding part of the bird that looks sharp.

This may, at least in part, be due to less aggressive in-camera sharpening in the Nikon. The jpeg does appear to sharpen quite well in photoshop but, to me, it still doesn't look as good as the Olympus.

Click to expand...

Nikon has always had a need to sharpen more from jpg or raw, but the more frontal shot just seems to lack acuity, i have no idea why other than the lens isn't performing that well or the light is interfering with the fresnel design, if you're interested as i am in this lens it's worth waiting until some people on the forums shoot with it

The sharpening seems to be set to SOFT. Given that by default the high end Nikon bodies produce soft and low contrast images and Olympus has high contrast/high saturation/high sharpness images (you can see artifacts and noise of this in the example image the OP has posted), it is expected that OOC-Jpegs (or near to such) would look worse from the Nikon than the Olympus.

Just playing a bit around with sharpness and curves in Irfan View brings out a lot of detail and pop in those birds without creating artifacts, as such, I wouldn't doubt that the a raw shot with the 500mm f5.6 PF and properly edited would more than match the Olympus 300mm f4 .

--
I hold the truth... A very specific, based on my experience and only relevant to me truth, but the truth nonetheless!

Whether it is equivalent to 600 f4 or 600 f8 or anything in between is still disputable. - Sanjay

sanjaykool said:

Whether it is equivalent to 600 f4 or 600 f8 or anything in between is still disputable. - Sanjay

Click to expand...

Let's not get into that! My point was that the two cameras would take a similar-ish image.

You are right unending discussions leads us nowhere. But on field 300 f4 with 600 mm FOV equals many of so called lenses on FF when shooting side by side. - Sanjay

sanjaykool said:

You are right unending discussions leads us nowhere. But on field 300 f4 with 600 mm FOV equals many of so called lenses on FF when shooting side by side. - Sanjay

Click to expand...

he did mention in the OP that the usage would be on a D500

Yes.. that would be interesting to see on actual usage. Non fresnel lens results are somewhat similar. - Sanjay

StefanSC said:

The sharpening seems to be set to SOFT. Given that by default the high end Nikon bodies produce soft and low contrast images and Olympus has high contrast/high saturation/high sharpness images (you can see artifacts and noise of this in the example image the OP has posted), it is expected that OOC-Jpegs (or near to such) would look worse from the Nikon than the Olympus.

Just playing a bit around with sharpness and curves in Irfan View brings out a lot of detail and pop in those birds without creating artifacts, as such, I wouldn't doubt that the a raw shot with the 500mm f5.6 PF and properly edited would more than match the Olympus 300mm f4 .

Click to expand...

I hadn't realised that Nikon were generally conservative with sharpening. I checked the raw file for my shot and found that the sharpness was set to +1 so that is the value that Olympus Viewer would have used to batch process the jpeg.

Out of interest, I modified the sharpness to -2 (in Olympus Viewer), the lowest in-camera sharpening setting and re-output the jpeg file below from the original raw file. Obviously, this isn't the same amount of processing as the Nikon. However, it is considerably softer than before.


Sharpness set to -2. Also, got the Exif this time!

I guess we need some raw files to make a valid comparison.

EDIT: I have just spotted that this image was shot at f/4.5 not f/4 as originally stated.

I just wanted to check with Nikon or Canon with FF camera 300 f4 with 2 x TC images to compare and establish whether it is equivalent to 600 f8 on ff but nobody posted any image. Unfortunately google or Flickr also has no images. It seems that the combo is not giving any satisfactory images. This leads to further conclusion that it is not 600 f8 much better than that just just short of 600 f4. Every one can google and find out any image that contradicts this. So in principle equivalence mumbo jumbo itself in doubt. - Sanjay

Looks like a very nice lens. The resolution didn't appear to be much better than the Olympus 300. Both peak at f/5.6 where the Nikon achieves 2000 l/ph on FF and 1350 l/ph on APS-C while the Olympus is 1900 l/ph (measured on the E-PL1).

Obviously DOF is different at these apertures and so is FOV. Wide open the Olympus achieves 1800 l/ph and drops (marginally) to 1700 l/ph at f/8. Both lenses drop off pretty dramatically at f/11 but given their intended purpose this is a non-issue.

While compact for a FF lens it remains 38% larger (by volume), 15% heavier and 44% more expensive than the Olympus. I suspect given the breadth of the Nikon market, the Nikon will outsell it though ;-)

sanjaykool said:

I just wanted to check with Nikon or Canon with FF camera 300 f4 with 2 x TC images to compare and establish whether it is equivalent to 600 f8 on ff but nobody posted any image. Unfortunately google or Flickr also has no images. It seems that the combo is not giving any satisfactory images. This leads to further conclusion that it is not 600 f8 much better than that just just short of 600 f4. Every one can google and find out any image that contradicts this. So in principle equivalence mumbo jumbo itself in doubt. - Sanjay

Click to expand...

any teleconverter degrades images, some much much more than others, i would simply go for a 600mm lens over a 300mm with a TC anyday, or get something smaller and lighter that gives me the same AOV and put up with and negatives that have

Thanks for the review link! I have been curious about that new 500 5.6 release, and even briefly considered the economics of it for me.

I love what Nikon is thinking with it, but in practical terms I have a hard time believing that lens will be anything more than an incremental improvement at best to my 300 F4 and mk2 setup, for a crazy amount of cash and a separate system. And I’d be surprised if the the Oly doesn’t still do some things better, like warblers in tight in poor light, which has been my bread and butter lately.

If my primary goal was high keeper rates for BIF, I would see it a little differently. Nikon does seem to have done well with the fresnal concept, and if I ever did go 35mm format, I’d have to get one.

https://www.lenstip.com/126.1-article-Frequently_asked_questions.html#5

"It is also worth noticing that all sample photos are taken with the noise reduction switched off and sharpening set on minimum or low, depending on a given camera, in order to make the comparison between them easier. As most of users don’t set the sharpening so low in their cameras our sample shots might seem weak to them."

That said, you sample is wonderfully sharp, amazing! The Zuiko 300mm is a heck of a lens, for sure!

--
Cheers,
Frederic
http://www.azurphoto.com/

MEDISN said:

Looks like a very nice lens. The resolution didn't appear to be much better than the Olympus 300. Both peak at f/5.6 where the Nikon achieves 2000 l/ph on FF and 1350 l/ph on APS-C while the Olympus is 1900 l/ph (measured on the E-PL1).

Click to expand...

It is a shame that they tested the Olympus on the E-PL1. I wonder what a 20mp m43 sensor would give? Also, 1350 l/ph on APS-C seems a bit disappointing does it not, given that the D500 sensor is 3728 pixels high?

EDIT: Actually, I think they only tested it on the D3x so your calculated 1350 l/ph probably wouldn't be what you would get on a D500 because of the lower pixel pitch. No they did both!

MEDISN said:

Obviously DOF is different at these apertures and so is FOV. Wide open the Olympus achieves 1800 l/ph and drops (marginally) to 1700 l/ph at f/8. Both lenses drop off pretty dramatically at f/11 but given their intended purpose this is a non-issue.

While compact for a FF lens it remains 38% larger (by volume), 15% heavier and 44% more expensive than the Olympus. I suspect given the breadth of the Nikon market, the Nikon will outsell it though ;-)

Click to expand...

The Olympus is an outstanding lens!

Pixnat2 said:

https://www.lenstip.com/126.1-article-Frequently_asked_questions.html#5

"It is also worth noticing that all sample photos are taken with the noise reduction switched off and sharpening set on minimum or low, depending on a given camera, in order to make the comparison between them easier. As most of users don’t set the sharpening so low in their cameras our sample shots might seem weak to them."

Click to expand...

That would explain StefanSC's observation then.

Pixnat2 said:

That said, you sample is wonderfully sharp, amazing! The Zuiko 300mm is a heck of a lens, for sure!

Click to expand...

Indeed!