I currently have a Sigma 150-600mm contemporary lens which I use on a Nikon D500 camera. I am considering purchasing a Nikon 500mm F5.6 PF lens. Most of my photography is for birds where I tend to walk around a lot. I believe the Nikon lens would provide a superior image and would be more comfortable to hand hold, but would I miss the extra reach that the 600mm lens provides? And if so if I use a 1.4 teleconverter with it, is it going to degrade the image so much that I lose the perceived benefits of an improved image?
nikon 500 pf
- Thread starter LenP
- Start date
- Messages
- 5,812
- Name
- Mike
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Hi Len, welcome to TP.
There was a recent discussion over this lens on these boards - https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/nikon-500mm-pf.695145/page-3#post-8778167 might be worth a read.
In a nutshell, and this is just my take, the 500pf is a superb lens, works well with the D500. TC works fine, may struggle a little with BiF, but image quality will remain excellent when you nail it.
The Sigma is also a good bit of kit, if you're only shooting for web, then I'm not sure if you'll see £3000 worth of improvements, if you print, display large or are a perfectionist, then yes, the 500pf is better.
Mike
There was a recent discussion over this lens on these boards - https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/nikon-500mm-pf.695145/page-3#post-8778167 might be worth a read.
In a nutshell, and this is just my take, the 500pf is a superb lens, works well with the D500. TC works fine, may struggle a little with BiF, but image quality will remain excellent when you nail it.
The Sigma is also a good bit of kit, if you're only shooting for web, then I'm not sure if you'll see £3000 worth of improvements, if you print, display large or are a perfectionist, then yes, the 500pf is better.
Mike
Thanks Mike, that seems to confirm most posts that I have read. My primary objective is to be able to leave the tripod at home for most of my birding. The 500 pf would be lighter (and shorter than my sigma at 600mm) making it more usable and less stress on my aging limbs. Also it is fully weather sealed and would improve (I hope) my images to provide the wow factor on at least some of them. I tend to shoot at F7.1 on the sigma lens to provide a bit better sharpness so 2 stops of light (without the TC) would also help in poorer light conditions.
- Messages
- 7,499
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Hi Len, welcome to the forum.
I'm having the exact same dilemma, I did say if they came down below £3000 I'd buy one........if I'm being honest, I didn't expect them too
I'm using the same set up as you, my biggest problem being, I've been too impressed with the Sigma. I'm concerned if I spend 3 grand on a lens I'm going to feel underwhelmed and disappointed.
So the positives, smaller, lighter, an improvement in IQ?? Hopefully! The fact it seems to work well with a tele giving 720mm
The negatives, spending 3 grand instead of £750, loosing 100mm of reach, spending another £450 on a tele then being concerned it won't track bif as well as the Sigma.
I very rarely disagree with our learned friend above @pooley , having met him in person on a few occasions I know he's a very knowledgeable chap
but I'm not convinced with his argument for better IQ for larger prints. I've got quite a few photos printed, not massive but A3 and at ISO up to 8000, if I say it meself , they look great So to buy or not to buy, I'd ask how happy are you with the Sigma?
For me, everytime I feel me finger hovering over the 'buy it now' button, I go look at me photos on Flickr and remind meself just how happy I am with it.........that still doesn't mean I don't want one
Last edited:
I can understand your dilemma Phil. I spent a lot of time adjusting the Sigma lens using the USB dock to get as sharp an image as possible, but at times I feel I could do better. With regards range, some reviewers of the sigma 150-600 contemporary indicate that the 600mm is nominal and actual range is around 570mm but how true that is I do not know. I am also sure that at times I will miss the zoom function. My main aim however is to have a lens that is lighter, so that for much of my photography I can leave the tripod in the car. Many times I have missed shots when carrying the tripod or when fiddling around to set it up quickly.. Before the sigma I had a nikon 300mm F4 and some of my best shots were taken with that lens, but much of the time I had a 1.4TC on it which degraded the quality of the image, especially as the camera I had at the time did not have a fine adjustment function. From reports of the 500pf it would seem that it takes a 1.4 TC much better.
I think that I have almost conviced myself that the 500 pf is going to be an improvement.
I think that I have almost conviced myself that the 500 pf is going to be an improvement.
- Messages
- 1,141
- Name
- Gareth
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I have a 500mm PF, it takes the 1.4tc very well. In good light autofoucs on a D500 is still very useful, maybe a little slower but still yields good results. I came from a 500 F4 so the weight saving is huge, but it not just the weight, the balance is fantastic, the weight is not at the front. I now use either 300pf or 500 pf for all of my bird photography and find them a brilliant combination.
- Messages
- 15,374
- Name
- Jeff
- Edit My Images
- No
Or just simply switch to Olympus , light weight , my camera and lens +tc giving a reach of 1120 mm in FF terms weighs in at 2 kg
- Messages
- 7,676
- Name
- Nigel
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I doubt if you will have any regrets, as I mentioned inthe other 500pf thread, the foot it comes with is not very good, I removed mine and fitted a Wimberley AP-500 foot instead. Let us know how you get on with the lens.
This one : https://www.wexphotovideo.com/search/?q=Wimberley+AP-500+Replacement+Lens+Foot&search_type=All
Last edited: