Nikon 500mm pf vr

Slugsworth said:

xPhoenix said:

larrywilson said:

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

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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)

Click to expand...

Well, if that's the case, then there is nothing to worry about. Nikon has been known to screw up in the past, so that's why I was a little panicked. OP needs to post an example image to show what's happening.

jerste said:

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.

Click to expand...

The 200-500 is both heavier and longer. From a physics point of view it's going to be less susceptible to shake. It should be pretty easy to verify this - turn off VR on both lenses and see if the 200-500 still has an edge. If it does, it makes sense that it would have an edge with VR on, too.

Slugsworth said:

briantilley said:

xPhoenix said:

jerste said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

+1 ;-)

Click to expand...

Nonsense. He has preliminary reasons to be concerned, and he's looking for help to trouble shoot his expensive purchase as rapidly as possible. There is no reason at all to suggest he's enjoying complaining or wanting to return the lens, on the contrary he is obviously hoping it can do what he needs.

Ok, here's the result of my evaluation:



The above graphs show the quality of 50 shots each, with a target at a distance of about 60-70ft and at the shutter speeds shown (green: excellent, light green: good, light red: acceptable, red: poor). The two greens mean keepers, light red you might keep if it was a once-in-a-lifetime shot, red is a definite throwaway. Take the differences with a grain of salt: green vs light green, for example, reflects very small differences and thus is subjective; the differences between a keeper and one of the other categories was much clearer, though, so the graphs allow a good comparison between the different lens setups.

Graphs on the left are lens only, on the right with a TC-14E III.

Interesting effect: the 500 PF seems to have a VR issue when shooting between maybe 1/50 and 1/125: VR works better, in fact, somewhat better than the 200-500's, outside of this range, but results are pretty disappointing within it. I initially thought I made some kind of test mistake here and even re-took a series of shots, but the pattern remained the same with and without TC, so I'm sure it exists.

I guess the OP must have run into this effect and not tested the 500 PF's VR at slower speeds, where it improves again. Bottom line: the VR on the 500 PF is not as consistent as it is on the 200-500, so I'm hoping Nikon will fix this through a firmware upgrade, but its overall performance is pretty promising.

Off to some more testing...

lokatz said:

Ok, here's the result of my evaluation:



The above graphs show the quality of 50 shots each, with a target at a distance of about 60-70ft and at the shutter speeds shown (green: excellent, light green: good, light red: acceptable, red: poor). The two greens mean keepers, light red you might keep if it was a once-in-a-lifetime shot, red is a definite throwaway. Take the differences with a grain of salt: green vs light green, for example, reflects very small differences and thus is subjective; the differences between a keeper and one of the other categories was much clearer, though, so the graphs allow a good comparison between the different lens setups.

Graphs on the left are lens only, on the right with a TC-14E III.

Interesting effect: the 500 PF seems to have a VR issue when shooting between maybe 1/50 and 1/125: VR works better, in fact, somewhat better than the 200-500's, outside of this range, but results are pretty disappointing within it. I initially thought I made some kind of test mistake here and even re-took a series of shots, but the pattern remained the same with and without TC, so I'm sure it exists.

I guess the OP must have run into this effect and not tested the 500 PF's VR at slower speeds, where it improves again. Bottom line: the VR on the 500 PF is not as consistent as it is on the 200-500, so I'm hoping Nikon will fix this through a firmware upgrade, but its overall performance is pretty promising.

Off to some more testing...

Click to expand...

Very interesting. Thanks for these detailed tests. These results are a bit worrisome. It appears VR is not very good around 1/80, which is exactly the problem the 300PF had on certain cameras. Nikon denied it at first, but then they admitted it and issued an advisory. Supposedly, it was only on the 8xx bodies, but the problem was clearly visible on my D7200 (long after the supposed fix was applied to lenses).

I guess I will see how it does on my D850. I thought this was going to be my dream wildlife lens, but we'll see. I shoot around 1/80 all the time in the woods (for semi-stationary animals) because the light is so low. The 300PF was a nice lens, but I refused to pay $2K for a lens with broken VR.

Robbo338 said:

jerste said:

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.

Click to expand...

The 200-500 is both heavier and longer. From a physics point of view it's going to be less susceptible to shake. It should be pretty easy to verify this - turn off VR on both lenses and see if the 200-500 still has an edge. If it does, it makes sense that it would have an edge with VR on, too.

Click to expand...

I need to see a sample image from the OP to determine if it's simply missing focus, or if it's VR motion blur.

xPhoenix said:

larrywilson said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

Don't return it! I'll buy it off you. No joke.

SkySpades said:

xPhoenix said:

larrywilson said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

Don't return it! I'll buy it off you. No joke.

Click to expand...

I hope I don't have to, but it if does have problems with the VR that I can't live with, I'll let ya know

xPhoenix said:

lokatz said:

Ok, here's the result of my evaluation:



The above graphs show the quality of 50 shots each, with a target at a distance of about 60-70ft and at the shutter speeds shown (green: excellent, light green: good, light red: acceptable, red: poor). The two greens mean keepers, light red you might keep if it was a once-in-a-lifetime shot, red is a definite throwaway. Take the differences with a grain of salt: green vs light green, for example, reflects very small differences and thus is subjective; the differences between a keeper and one of the other categories was much clearer, though, so the graphs allow a good comparison between the different lens setups.

Graphs on the left are lens only, on the right with a TC-14E III.

Interesting effect: the 500 PF seems to have a VR issue when shooting between maybe 1/50 and 1/125: VR works better, in fact, somewhat better than the 200-500's, outside of this range, but results are pretty disappointing within it. I initially thought I made some kind of test mistake here and even re-took a series of shots, but the pattern remained the same with and without TC, so I'm sure it exists.

I guess the OP must have run into this effect and not tested the 500 PF's VR at slower speeds, where it improves again. Bottom line: the VR on the 500 PF is not as consistent as it is on the 200-500, so I'm hoping Nikon will fix this through a firmware upgrade, but its overall performance is pretty promising.

Off to some more testing...

Click to expand...

Very interesting. Thanks for these detailed tests. These results are a bit worrisome. It appears VR is not very good around 1/80, which is exactly the problem the 300PF had on certain cameras. Nikon denied it at first, but then they admitted it and issued an advisory. Supposedly, it was only on the 8xx bodies, but the problem was clearly visible on my D7200 (long after the supposed fix was applied to lenses).

I guess I will see how it does on my D850. I thought this was going to be my dream wildlife lens, but we'll see. I shoot around 1/80 all the time in the woods (for semi-stationary animals) because the light is so low. The 300PF was a nice lens, but I refused to pay $2K for a lens with broken VR.

Click to expand...

What is your thrown up level for iso settings? The 1/80 shutter speed seems excessively slow especially for small birds that are hardly ever fully static. Post processing is also important in photography.

Larry

lokatz said:

Interesting effect: the 500 PF seems to have a VR issue when shooting between maybe 1/50 and 1/125: VR works better, in fact, somewhat better than the 200-500's, outside of this range, but results are pretty disappointing within it. I initially thought I made some kind of test mistake here and even re-took a series of shots, but the pattern remained the same with and without TC, so I'm sure it exists.

Click to expand...

Interesting results, it's seems that the lens does suffer the same fate as the 300pf. This won't really stop me from a purchase as I'm rarely in that shutter speed range. I wonder if results are better if you put a beanbag or something atop the lens above where the tripod collar foot is. I'd give the test a try but unfortunately Nikon Canada has dropped the ball and very few 500pf lenses have made their way up here, but that is a whole other topic.

larrywilson said:

xPhoenix said:

lokatz said:

Ok, here's the result of my evaluation:

The above graphs show the quality of 50 shots each, with a target at a distance of about 60-70ft and at the shutter speeds shown (green: excellent, light green: good, light red: acceptable, red: poor). The two greens mean keepers, light red you might keep if it was a once-in-a-lifetime shot, red is a definite throwaway. Take the differences with a grain of salt: green vs light green, for example, reflects very small differences and thus is subjective; the differences between a keeper and one of the other categories was much clearer, though, so the graphs allow a good comparison between the different lens setups.

Graphs on the left are lens only, on the right with a TC-14E III.

Interesting effect: the 500 PF seems to have a VR issue when shooting between maybe 1/50 and 1/125: VR works better, in fact, somewhat better than the 200-500's, outside of this range, but results are pretty disappointing within it. I initially thought I made some kind of test mistake here and even re-took a series of shots, but the pattern remained the same with and without TC, so I'm sure it exists.

I guess the OP must have run into this effect and not tested the 500 PF's VR at slower speeds, where it improves again. Bottom line: the VR on the 500 PF is not as consistent as it is on the 200-500, so I'm hoping Nikon will fix this through a firmware upgrade, but its overall performance is pretty promising.

Off to some more testing...

Click to expand...

Very interesting. Thanks for these detailed tests. These results are a bit worrisome. It appears VR is not very good around 1/80, which is exactly the problem the 300PF had on certain cameras. Nikon denied it at first, but then they admitted it and issued an advisory. Supposedly, it was only on the 8xx bodies, but the problem was clearly visible on my D7200 (long after the supposed fix was applied to lenses).

I guess I will see how it does on my D850. I thought this was going to be my dream wildlife lens, but we'll see. I shoot around 1/80 all the time in the woods (for semi-stationary animals) because the light is so low. The 300PF was a nice lens, but I refused to pay $2K for a lens with broken VR.

Click to expand...

What is your thrown up level for iso settings? The 1/80 shutter speed seems excessively slow especially for small birds that are hardly ever fully static. Post processing is also important in photography.

Larry

Click to expand...

I just use auto-ISO most of the time. As long as I don't need to crop a lot, high ISO looks fine on the D850, but if I can keep it low, I will try.

I will drop down to 1/80 or even slower if something isn't moving, but yeah, birds usually require faster. The tests above were done on a D500, so hopefully the D850 fares better.

xPhoenix said:

... The tests above were done on a D500, so hopefully the D850 fares better.

Click to expand...

Where do you get that hope? It's the lens that has all the relevant parts for VR, not the camera...

Thanks a lot for this well explained and performed test.

Was this test for a D500 with MB-D17 Battery Grip?

Regards
Ole Thorsen
OMNISCIENCE
Knowing what
thou knowest not
is in a sense
omniscience.
(Grook by Piet Hein)

xPhoenix said:

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.

Click to expand...

Just curious, what animals are you shooting at 1/80? I know I tend to shoot with too high a shutter speed, but am always worried that my subject (a bird, etc) will move. I do find that my ISO are quite high, even with a fair amount of light.

OleThorsen said:

Thanks a lot for this well explained and performed test.

Was this test for a D500 with MB-D17 Battery Grip?

Regards
Ole Thorsen

Click to expand...

No, I prefer to use my bodies without the extra grip.

lokatz said:

lokatz said:

... The tests above were done on a D500, so hopefully the D850 fares better.

Click to expand...

Where do you get that hope? It's the lens that has all the relevant parts for VR, not the camera...

Click to expand...

With the 300PF, it worked OK on some bodies, but not others. Some say it worked OK with the tripod foot, but not without. There are a lot of what ifs.

Ricardo00 said:

xPhoenix said:

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.

Click to expand...

Just curious, what animals are you shooting at 1/80? I know I tend to shoot with too high a shutter speed, but am always worried that my subject (a bird, etc) will move. I do find that my ISO are quite high, even with a fair amount of light.

Click to expand...

Deer, squirrels, some birds...anything that's still, really. I always fire off several quick shots and pick the sharpest. I try to stay at 1/200 minimum, but sometimes in late evening, there's just not enough light.

There is this test from Lenstip.com, but they used a D3x

labalaba said:

Slugsworth said:

briantilley said:

xPhoenix said:

jerste said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

+1 ;-)

Click to expand...

Nonsense. He has preliminary reasons to be concerned, and he's looking for help to trouble shoot his expensive purchase as rapidly as possible. There is no reason at all to suggest he's enjoying complaining or wanting to return the lens, on the contrary he is obviously hoping it can do what he needs.

Click to expand...

You need to check out xPhoenix's posting history.

Some time ago he bought a D850, which was going to be the best all-round camera ever. Then, he realised it was too big and heavy for him, so sold it again in anticipation of the rumoured Nikon FX mirrorless camera(s). But those turned out to have a single card slot so - guess what - he bought another D850. And (wait for it...) XQD cards are too expensive, so he uses it with just a single SD card. And that's just a part of it...

xPhoenix said:

There is this test from Lenstip.com, but they used a D3x

Click to expand...

Okay I did a 1/80 shoot, handheld (had the 1.4TC on) with my D500. This was by no means a scientific test. Maybe it also depends on the person? But the VR (shot 3 times, then VR off, then VR back on) definitely helped (these are the JPG straight from the camera, tried to pick representatives of each):


VR on




VR off