Atlantic Puffin on Runde island in Norway. (D500/500mmPF)

Was at Runde island in Norway recently for the first time and got to see this wonderful bird finally! It was also the first real outing with the 500mm PF. I think it's a keeper!

Thanks for looking!

reg.

Lovely photos!

Excellent!

You need to get closer 

But seriously, those are wonderful images. And the poses indicate he was quite comfortable.  I've been eyeing that lens, but haven't pulled the trigger yet.

Nice!

NikonNature wrote:

You need to get closer

But seriously, those are wonderful images. And the poses indicate he was quite comfortable. I've been eyeing that lens, but haven't pulled the trigger yet.

Thanks a lot!
They were quite used to humans so they were very relaxed and just went along with their thing. You could physically reach out your hand through the fence and touch them in some instances. Don't know if that is legal but have seen pictures of it. The whole island is a nature reserve and to some degree(steep rockfaces), dangerous, if not careful and follow paths and keep behind fences.

Reg. the lens, I just sold my 200-500 and it's better in all ways except close focusing and the zoom. Really nice to use in the field.

Blufftonian wrote:

Lovely photos!

Thanks a lot!

Chuvarsky wrote:

Excellent!

Thank you! Glad you liked them

Old Greenlander wrote:

Nice!

Thank you

Outstanding!

So wonderful to have that opportunity.

I also am considering that lens, but would like to keep my 200-500.

Cheers,

Arnie

edorf_71 wrote:

NikonNature wrote:

You need to get closer

But seriously, those are wonderful images. And the poses indicate he was quite comfortable. I've been eyeing that lens, but haven't pulled the trigger yet.

Thanks a lot!
They were quite used to humans so they were very relaxed and just went along with their thing. You could physically reach out your hand through the fence and touch them in some instances. Don't know if that is legal but have seen pictures of it. The whole island is a nature reserve and to some degree(steep rockfaces), dangerous, if not careful and follow paths and keep behind fences.

Reg. the lens, I just sold my 200-500 and it's better in all ways except close focusing and the zoom. Really nice to use in the field.

So it is equal or better when tracking birds in flight? I've seen a few (not many) comments that said it struggled to track action. Of course, that could involve the user too.

NikonNature wrote:

edorf_71 wrote:

NikonNature wrote:

You need to get closer

But seriously, those are wonderful images. And the poses indicate he was quite comfortable. I've been eyeing that lens, but haven't pulled the trigger yet.

Thanks a lot!
They were quite used to humans so they were very relaxed and just went along with their thing. You could physically reach out your hand through the fence and touch them in some instances. Don't know if that is legal but have seen pictures of it. The whole island is a nature reserve and to some degree(steep rockfaces), dangerous, if not careful and follow paths and keep behind fences.

Reg. the lens, I just sold my 200-500 and it's better in all ways except close focusing and the zoom. Really nice to use in the field.

So it is equal or better when tracking birds in flight? I've seen a few (not many) comments that said it struggled to track action. Of course, that could involve the user too.

IMO, yes the 500mm PF is better than the 200-500mm when tracking birds in flight, in part because it is lighter and in part because in focusses faster. I recently went to Alaska to see the brown bears and puffins and brought both, the 200-500mm so I could zoom out when the wildlife was too close and the 500mm PF to photograph the puffins when they were flying. And unfortunately several bald eagles had moved into the puffin rookery so the puffins would fly straight into their burrows and immediately fly straight out, so no close ups with them sitting outside their burrows.

using the 500mm PF for BIF

using the 200-500mm lens when the wildlife is too close for the prime

Ricardo00 wrote:

NikonNature wrote:

edorf_71 wrote:

NikonNature wrote:

You need to get closer

But seriously, those are wonderful images. And the poses indicate he was quite comfortable. I've been eyeing that lens, but haven't pulled the trigger yet.

Thanks a lot!
They were quite used to humans so they were very relaxed and just went along with their thing. You could physically reach out your hand through the fence and touch them in some instances. Don't know if that is legal but have seen pictures of it. The whole island is a nature reserve and to some degree(steep rockfaces), dangerous, if not careful and follow paths and keep behind fences.

Reg. the lens, I just sold my 200-500 and it's better in all ways except close focusing and the zoom. Really nice to use in the field.

So it is equal or better when tracking birds in flight? I've seen a few (not many) comments that said it struggled to track action. Of course, that could involve the user too.

IMO, yes the 500mm PF is better than the 200-500mm when tracking birds in flight, in part because it is lighter and in part because in focusses faster. I recently went to Alaska to see the brown bears and puffins and brought both, the 200-500mm so I could zoom out when the wildlife was too close and the 500mm PF to photograph the puffins when they were flying. And unfortunately several bald eagles had moved into the puffin rookery so the puffins would fly straight into their burrows and immediately fly straight out, so no close ups with them sitting outside their burrows.

using the 500mm PF for BIF

using the 200-500mm lens when the wildlife is too close for the prime

Great shots and Wow, grizzlies at 260mm?!

That's another reason I'm torn. I currently use the Tamron 150-600mm (1st gen), so I hate to give up 100mm on the long end, and I hate to lose the ability to zoom out.

NikonNature wrote:

Ricardo00 wrote:

NikonNature wrote:

edorf_71 wrote:

NikonNature wrote:

You need to get closer

But seriously, those are wonderful images. And the poses indicate he was quite comfortable. I've been eyeing that lens, but haven't pulled the trigger yet.

Thanks a lot!
They were quite used to humans so they were very relaxed and just went along with their thing. You could physically reach out your hand through the fence and touch them in some instances. Don't know if that is legal but have seen pictures of it. The whole island is a nature reserve and to some degree(steep rockfaces), dangerous, if not careful and follow paths and keep behind fences.

Reg. the lens, I just sold my 200-500 and it's better in all ways except close focusing and the zoom. Really nice to use in the field.

So it is equal or better when tracking birds in flight? I've seen a few (not many) comments that said it struggled to track action. Of course, that could involve the user too.

IMO, yes the 500mm PF is better than the 200-500mm when tracking birds in flight, in part because it is lighter and in part because in focusses faster. I recently went to Alaska to see the brown bears and puffins and brought both, the 200-500mm so I could zoom out when the wildlife was too close and the 500mm PF to photograph the puffins when they were flying. And unfortunately several bald eagles had moved into the puffin rookery so the puffins would fly straight into their burrows and immediately fly straight out, so no close ups with them sitting outside their burrows.

using the 500mm PF for BIF

using the 200-500mm lens when the wildlife is too close for the prime

Great shots and Wow, grizzlies at 260mm?!

That's another reason I'm torn. I currently use the Tamron 150-600mm (1st gen), so I hate to give up 100mm on the long end, and I hate to lose the ability to zoom out.

Thanks Jeff! Yep we were quite close to the brown bears though on the crop bodies, this is really the 35mm equivalent of 400mm.  Also bears are very big, so to get them completely in the frame, need to zoom out (not like a small bird). Sometimes the bears were so close that those people with long prime lenses couldn't focus:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/60519499@N00/51318062351/in/dateposted/

arniebook wrote:

Outstanding!

So wonderful to have that opportunity.

I also am considering that lens, but would like to keep my 200-500.

Cheers,

Arnie

Thank you!

I would also like to keep the 200-500 because of versatility and it's a very good lens, especially for the price, but had to sell to finance the PF.

NikonNature wrote:

edorf_71 wrote:

NikonNature wrote:

You need to get closer

But seriously, those are wonderful images. And the poses indicate he was quite comfortable. I've been eyeing that lens, but haven't pulled the trigger yet.

Thanks a lot!
They were quite used to humans so they were very relaxed and just went along with their thing. You could physically reach out your hand through the fence and touch them in some instances. Don't know if that is legal but have seen pictures of it. The whole island is a nature reserve and to some degree(steep rockfaces), dangerous, if not careful and follow paths and keep behind fences.

Reg. the lens, I just sold my 200-500 and it's better in all ways except close focusing and the zoom. Really nice to use in the field.

So it is equal or better when tracking birds in flight? I've seen a few (not many) comments that said it struggled to track action. Of course, that could involve the user too.

My initial feeling is that it has a little faster acquisition and a little better af-tracking. Those are just initial impressions and can't give any numbers or anything but the whole experience of using it is faster and smoother and, not at least, lighter and more mobile! The VR is about the same i think. It's sharper for sure and renders somewhat nicer.

In som months I may give you a less anecdotal answer.

Ricardo00 wrote:

NikonNature wrote:

edorf_71 wrote:

NikonNature wrote:

You need to get closer

But seriously, those are wonderful images. And the poses indicate he was quite comfortable. I've been eyeing that lens, but haven't pulled the trigger yet.

Thanks a lot!
They were quite used to humans so they were very relaxed and just went along with their thing. You could physically reach out your hand through the fence and touch them in some instances. Don't know if that is legal but have seen pictures of it. The whole island is a nature reserve and to some degree(steep rockfaces), dangerous, if not careful and follow paths and keep behind fences.

Reg. the lens, I just sold my 200-500 and it's better in all ways except close focusing and the zoom. Really nice to use in the field.

So it is equal or better when tracking birds in flight? I've seen a few (not many) comments that said it struggled to track action. Of course, that could involve the user too.

IMO, yes the 500mm PF is better than the 200-500mm when tracking birds in flight, in part because it is lighter and in part because in focusses faster. I recently went to Alaska to see the brown bears and puffins and brought both, the 200-500mm so I could zoom out when the wildlife was too close and the 500mm PF to photograph the puffins when they were flying. And unfortunately several bald eagles had moved into the puffin rookery so the puffins would fly straight into their burrows and immediately fly straight out, so no close ups with them sitting outside their burrows.

using the 500mm PF for BIF

using the 200-500mm lens when the wildlife is too close for the prime

Nice shots!

edorf_71 wrote:

Ricardo00 wrote:

NikonNature wrote:

edorf_71 wrote:

NikonNature wrote:

You need to get closer

But seriously, those are wonderful images. And the poses indicate he was quite comfortable. I've been eyeing that lens, but haven't pulled the trigger yet.

Thanks a lot!
They were quite used to humans so they were very relaxed and just went along with their thing. You could physically reach out your hand through the fence and touch them in some instances. Don't know if that is legal but have seen pictures of it. The whole island is a nature reserve and to some degree(steep rockfaces), dangerous, if not careful and follow paths and keep behind fences.

Reg. the lens, I just sold my 200-500 and it's better in all ways except close focusing and the zoom. Really nice to use in the field.

So it is equal or better when tracking birds in flight? I've seen a few (not many) comments that said it struggled to track action. Of course, that could involve the user too.

IMO, yes the 500mm PF is better than the 200-500mm when tracking birds in flight, in part because it is lighter and in part because in focusses faster. I recently went to Alaska to see the brown bears and puffins and brought both, the 200-500mm so I could zoom out when the wildlife was too close and the 500mm PF to photograph the puffins when they were flying. And unfortunately several bald eagles had moved into the puffin rookery so the puffins would fly straight into their burrows and immediately fly straight out, so no close ups with them sitting outside their burrows.

using the 500mm PF for BIF

using the 200-500mm lens when the wildlife is too close for the prime

Nice shots!

Thanks!  I was hoping to have an experience more like yours, where the puffins would be sitting outside their burrows.  In fact, one person said to bring my shorter lens since we would be so close.  They are such beautiful birds and your shots definitely show that.

Ricardo00 wrote:

edorf_71 wrote:

Ricardo00 wrote:

NikonNature wrote:

edorf_71 wrote:

NikonNature wrote:

You need to get closer

But seriously, those are wonderful images. And the poses indicate he was quite comfortable. I've been eyeing that lens, but haven't pulled the trigger yet.

Thanks a lot!
They were quite used to humans so they were very relaxed and just went along with their thing. You could physically reach out your hand through the fence and touch them in some instances. Don't know if that is legal but have seen pictures of it. The whole island is a nature reserve and to some degree(steep rockfaces), dangerous, if not careful and follow paths and keep behind fences.

Reg. the lens, I just sold my 200-500 and it's better in all ways except close focusing and the zoom. Really nice to use in the field.

So it is equal or better when tracking birds in flight? I've seen a few (not many) comments that said it struggled to track action. Of course, that could involve the user too.

IMO, yes the 500mm PF is better than the 200-500mm when tracking birds in flight, in part because it is lighter and in part because in focusses faster. I recently went to Alaska to see the brown bears and puffins and brought both, the 200-500mm so I could zoom out when the wildlife was too close and the 500mm PF to photograph the puffins when they were flying. And unfortunately several bald eagles had moved into the puffin rookery so the puffins would fly straight into their burrows and immediately fly straight out, so no close ups with them sitting outside their burrows.

using the 500mm PF for BIF

using the 200-500mm lens when the wildlife is too close for the prime

Nice shots!

Thanks! I was hoping to have an experience more like yours, where the puffins would be sitting outside their burrows. In fact, one person said to bring my shorter lens since we would be so close. They are such beautiful birds and your shots definitely show that.

I was asking around other photographers before I left for the island and was recommended the 200-500 and also the 70-200. I had just sold the 200-500 so I took the 500PF on the D500 and the 70-200 f4 on a D750. The '750 is no 'actioncam' so the D500 and 500PF was used on appr.95% of the shots.
The Puffins were both very close and at half-distance and alot of erratic/high-speed flying going on. I had to back up on several occasions. I struggled to get any decent BIF at all but got some just ok from a distance. This is user-operator 'errors' and not the lens/camera-combo! Got some slower moving seabirds though.

Atlantic Puffin

Northern Gannet

Cormorant

Northern Gannet

edorf_71 wrote:

Ricardo00 wrote:

edorf_71 wrote:

Ricardo00 wrote:

NikonNature wrote:

edorf_71 wrote:

NikonNature wrote:

You need to get closer

But seriously, those are wonderful images. And the poses indicate he was quite comfortable. I've been eyeing that lens, but haven't pulled the trigger yet.

Thanks a lot!
They were quite used to humans so they were very relaxed and just went along with their thing. You could physically reach out your hand through the fence and touch them in some instances. Don't know if that is legal but have seen pictures of it. The whole island is a nature reserve and to some degree(steep rockfaces), dangerous, if not careful and follow paths and keep behind fences.

Reg. the lens, I just sold my 200-500 and it's better in all ways except close focusing and the zoom. Really nice to use in the field.

So it is equal or better when tracking birds in flight? I've seen a few (not many) comments that said it struggled to track action. Of course, that could involve the user too.

IMO, yes the 500mm PF is better than the 200-500mm when tracking birds in flight, in part because it is lighter and in part because in focusses faster. I recently went to Alaska to see the brown bears and puffins and brought both, the 200-500mm so I could zoom out when the wildlife was too close and the 500mm PF to photograph the puffins when they were flying. And unfortunately several bald eagles had moved into the puffin rookery so the puffins would fly straight into their burrows and immediately fly straight out, so no close ups with them sitting outside their burrows.

using the 500mm PF for BIF

using the 200-500mm lens when the wildlife is too close for the prime

Nice shots!

Thanks! I was hoping to have an experience more like yours, where the puffins would be sitting outside their burrows. In fact, one person said to bring my shorter lens since we would be so close. They are such beautiful birds and your shots definitely show that.

I was asking around other photographers before I left for the island and was recommended the 200-500 and also the 70-200. I had just sold the 200-500 so I took the 500PF on the D500 and the 70-200 f4 on a D750. The '750 is no 'actioncam' so the D500 and 500PF was used on appr.95% of the shots.
The Puffins were both very close and at half-distance and alot of erratic/high-speed flying going on. I had to back up on several occasions. I struggled to get any decent BIF at all but got some just ok from a distance. This is user-operator 'errors' and not the lens/camera-combo! Got some slower moving seabirds though.

Atlantic Puffin

Northern Gannet

Cormorant

Northern Gannet

Some great BIF shots! I find it too hard to jump from one camera (with one lens) to another camera with a different lens. I actually had brought my 300mm PF on a second D500 body in my backpack but never bothered to take it out since the puffins were circling from far to close in a few seconds. Unfortunately your trip (like mine) looks like it was too early in the season to have chicks and have the moms and dads bringing fish in to feed them? Last time I went was a bit later and there were some puffins with food:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/60519499@N00/36318584091/in/album-72157684829119473/