NIkon 500 PF vs Fuji 150-600 Test

Mark Casebeer · Mar 31, 2024

Happy Easter!

I've used the Nikon 500 PF for almost two years. I've been extremely happy with the results but sometimes missed having a long zoom.

I wanted to show an example of using both lenses close to the subject. This is by no means a scientific test, I just came across this Egret sitting on the walkway near our house. I've wanted to see how the Fuji lens renders the background compared to the Nikon. In fact, after downloading the birds using the Fuji lens, I decided to grab the 500 to compare.

One thing to consider is the 600 mm has more magnification than the 500PF. The Fuji shot is almost full frame, and I had to crop more on the 500 to get a comparable image.

The images were taken about 45 minutes apart, so the light differed. They were shot in Raw and processed in Adobe Lightroom. No denoise or enhanced details were used. I used my standard processing techniques in Lightroom.

My thoughts.

Pros

The Fuji lens is sharp for a zoom.
Situations like those displayed in F8 are not much different.
The extra 100mm (600) is a plus
Being able to zoom in and out to compose is a plus
Very well built
Using a native lens without adapters

Cons

I think my 500 PF is a tad sharper
Shooting F8 in low light or cloudy situation raises ISO levels
Higher ISO can make it harder to preserve detail
The lens is longer (500 more compact)
Getting a lower POV and watching for better backgrounds.
Zoom with my feet.

I still hope Fuji will produce either a faster long zoom or prime. I'm still happy shooting Fujifilm. This is a great forum with people willing to share experiences.

Comment welcomed.

Mark

Fujifilm 150-600

Nikon 500 PF

a_c_skinner · Mar 31, 2024

I cannot see much difference, except the colour. Did the illuminant change? Was it auto WB? Is that change in colour consistent if you use manual WB and the illuminant is constant.

I'm never sold on one stop of ISO making that much difference.

Mark Casebeer · Mar 31, 2024

a_c_skinner said:
I cannot see much difference, except the colour. Did the illuminant change? Was it auto WB? Is that change in colour consistent if you use manual WB and the illuminant is constant.

I'm never sold on one stop of ISO making that much difference.

Powerdoc · Mar 31, 2024

Mark Casebeer said:
a_c_skinner said:

I cannot see much difference, except the colour. Did the illuminant change? Was it auto WB? Is that change in colour consistent if you use manual WB and the illuminant is constant.

I'm never sold on one stop of ISO making that much difference.

Click to expand...

Both were shot in Auto white balance. The Nikon 500 was about 45 minutes later and that’s why it’s a little cooler looking.

I agree in these samples there’s not a lot of difference. In lower light F 5.6 has advantages.

Thanks for the comments.
Mark

I see a difference in term of sharpness with the white feathers. They are better with the Nikon.

Mark Casebeer · Mar 31, 2024

Powerdoc said:
Mark Casebeer said:

a_c_skinner said:

I cannot see much difference, except the colour. Did the illuminant change? Was it auto WB? Is that change in colour consistent if you use manual WB and the illuminant is constant.

I'm never sold on one stop of ISO making that much difference.

Click to expand...

Both were shot in Auto white balance. The Nikon 500 was about 45 minutes later and that’s why it’s a little cooler looking.

I agree in these samples there’s not a lot of difference. In lower light F 5.6 has advantages.

Thanks for the comments.
Mark

Click to expand...

I see a difference in term of sharpness with the white feathers. They are better with the Nikon.

GMacF · Mar 31, 2024

Nice shots and an interesting comparison. I know it's not always the case, but the background (and separation thereof) looks more pleasing on the Fuji lens on account of the extra 100mm, even at f8.
Sharpness wise, the Nikon does appear sharper but I would never look at the Fuji shot and think it was soft, far from it. In fact, the Nikon is teetering on being too sharp for my own taste.

Mark Casebeer · Mar 31, 2024

GMacF said:
Nice shots and an interesting comparison. I know it's not always the case, but the background (and separation thereof) looks more pleasing on the Fuji lens on account of the extra 100mm, even at f8.
Sharpness wise, the Nikon does appear sharper but I would never look at the Fuji shot and think it was soft, far from it. In fact, the Nikon is teetering on being too sharp for my own taste.

I Agree! Thanks for your comments.
Mark

ChrisGibbons001 · Mar 31, 2024

I know the extra 100mm makes a difference but the background bokeh and separation falloff looks so much better on the Fuji which I did not expect at all.

Morris0 · Mar 31, 2024

Hi Mark,

I'm glad to see you post this as a lot of people have been asking me to compare the lenses and I could not as my 500mm PF slowly developed the focing issue that made me stop using it.

I went back and looked at my early images with the 500mm PF comparing them to what I'm getting with the XF 150-600. I can't say I see a difference in sharpness or detail yet the rendering of feather detail is slightly different and can be seen in your sample images. Which is better will come down to taste.

You did not mention bokeh which both doing a great job. When it comes to specular highlights, the Nikon sometimes shows the marks of is fresnel primary element and the Fuji doesn't have this issue. Overall it's a minor difference.

Both lenses balance great on my Gripped X-H2s working well handheld and on a gimbal after a lens plate is added to both.

Both have great build quality yet the lens hood of the Fuji is meh. That said, the Nikon lens hood is known to break at the attachment point and they are getting hard to find.

I had to rearrange my bag to fit the XF 150-600 in and now I can do so with a TC attached. While the Nikon is shorter it's also wider so I gained space on the sides of the lens.

I'd seen some issues with stabilization with the XF 150-600 when panning at very slow shutter speeds. I corrected the issue by setting stabilization to continuous which is the default of Fuji bodies.

That's about all I can think of. Nice review!

Morris

Morris0 · Mar 31, 2024

a_c_skinner said:
I cannot see much difference, except the colour. Did the illuminant change? Was it auto WB? Is that change in colour consistent if you use manual WB and the illuminant is constant.

I'm never sold on one stop of ISO making that much difference.

Besides the difference in time of day that Mark points out, there is a slight difference in color caused by the lens coatings and/or glass that each manufacture uses. Both lenses are true to there brand's color.

Morris

Morris0 · Mar 31, 2024

ChrisGibbons001 said:
I know the extra 100mm makes a difference but the background bokeh and separation falloff looks so much better on the Fuji which I did not expect at all.

It may be the lighting change as the photos were taken 30 minutes apparat. Both lenses have lovely bokeh. Bill Feris posted a comparison of multiple lenses and the math behind the bokeh and it's surprising how little difference one can expect between 600mm at f8 and 500mm at f5.6.

Morris

Mark Casebeer · Mar 31, 2024

ChrisGibbons001 said:
I know the extra 100mm makes a difference but the background bokeh and separation falloff looks so much better on the Fuji which I did not expect at all.

Mark Casebeer · Mar 31, 2024

Morris0 said:
ChrisGibbons001 said:

I know the extra 100mm makes a difference but the background bokeh and separation falloff looks so much better on the Fuji which I did not expect at all.

Click to expand...

It may be the lighting change as the photos were taken 30 minutes apparat. Both lenses have lovely bokeh. Bill Feris posted a comparison of multiple lenses and the math behind the bokeh and it's surprising how little difference one can expect between 600mm at f8 and 500mm at f5.6.

Morris

Yes, I agree. I think shooting with the Nikon for so long that we have false sense of what the difference actually is at F8.

Mark

Mark Casebeer · Mar 31, 2024

Morris0 said:
Hi Mark,

I'm glad to see you post this as a lot of people have been asking me to compare the lenses and I could not as my 500mm PF slowly developed the focing issue that made me stop using it

Sorry it’s acting up.

Morris0 said:
I went back and looked at my early images with the 500mm PF comparing them to what I'm getting with the XF 150-600. I can't say I see a difference in sharpness or detail yet the rendering of feather detail is slightly different and can be seen in your sample images. Which is better will come down to taste.

I agree, the examples show both lenses are sharp. Everyone has a different take on that. Just like noise reduction.

Morris0 said:
You did not mention bokeh which both doing a great job. When it comes to specular highlights, the Nikon sometimes shows the marks of is fresnel primary element and the Fuji doesn't have this issue. Overall it's a minor difference.

i didn’t mention this as I was not trying to influence viewers. Let them look and give there feedback. I’ve seen the fresnel effect also, it bothers some more than others.

Morris0 said:
Both lenses balance great on my Gripped X-H2s working well handheld and on a gimbal after a lens plate is added to both.

The zoom being a little longer feels different, but again I’ve been handholding the Nikon a long time. It’s starting to feel more natural.

Morris0 said:
Both have great build quality yet the lens hood of the Fuji is meh. That said, the Nikon lens hood is known to break at the attachment point and they are getting hard to find.

For sure. I wish the hood was white. Fuji is probably saving that for the faster long prime.

Morris0 said:
I had to rearrange my bag to fit the XF 150-600 in and now I can do so with a TC attached. While the Nikon is shorter it's also wider so I gained space on the sides of the lens.

I'd seen some issues with stabilization with the XF 150-600 when panning at very slow shutter speeds. I corrected the issue by setting stabilization to continuous which is the default of Fuji bodies.

That's about all I can think of. Nice review!

Morris

That’s for adding your views. Always enjoy our conversations.

SimonV · Mar 31, 2024

Comparisons like this are always interesting, thanks for posting! I do however think that it's ultimately quite difficult to compare them if the samples are only 1920x1280. Would love to see some full resolution samples to really see the details and be able to compare more closely!

Mark Casebeer · Mar 31, 2024

SimonV said:
Comparisons like this are always interesting, thanks for posting! I do however think that it's ultimately quite difficult to compare them if the samples are only 1920x1280. Would love to see some full resolution samples to really see the details and be able to compare more closely!

These should give a good idea of the quality. Full res images from Raw are rather large for people looking on there mobile devices.

Mark

RWN Photo · Mar 31, 2024

Hard to say which is better, but one of the cameras exposes more to warmer colors than the other, which makes comparisons harder. I think the Nikon 500 PF looks better as far as details, and color is more pleasing to me (but it might have been sunset).

But, in the end, it still comes down to a zoom vs a prime and that typically is more important for some than clinically sharp.

baobob · Mar 31, 2024

You could add too that the Fuji can connect to TC extenders

As you know i use them for shooting moon and I tried for birds when they are very far. The results I get are very good (not excellent ) with some weaknesses a bit too harsh contrast and transitions precisely wiyhout ytansition ! But you get a good phoyo that you could not have with the 500 alone. (altogethet it gives a kind of a bit unnatural aspect, not smooth enough as soon as you sharpen at taste)

Last but not least of course, the price tag can remain abig obstacle...

But "quand on aime, on ne compte pas"..

best

Bob

Samuraidog · Mar 31, 2024

Interesting. Thank you for posting.

Morris0 · Mar 31, 2024

baobob said:
You could add too that the Fuji can connect to TC extenders

As you know i use them for shooting moon and I tried for birds when they are very far. The results I get are very good (not excellent ) with some weaknesses a bit too harsh contrast and transitions precisely wiyhout ytansition ! But you get a good phoyo that you could not have with the 500 alone. (altogethet it gives a kind of a bit unnatural aspect, not smooth enough as soon as you sharpen at taste)

Last but not least of course, the price tag can remain abig obstacle...

But "quand on aime, on ne compte pas"..

best

Bob

The 500 PF works great with Nikon 1.4x and 1.7x TCs. I have not tried it with a 2x Nikon TC. The 500 PF also works with the Fuji TCs with great quality using the 1.4x TC. I have not tried it with the Fuji 2x TC. When the 500 PF is used with Fuji TCs and adapted via a Fringer adapter, the EXIF data will not reflect the use of the TC.

Morris

NIkon 500 PF vs Fuji 150-600 Test

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts