Nikon 500mm PF

Messages
2,143
Name
Andrew
Edit My Images
No
Yeah I know that but unless you are a professional - 3 x better ? it's surely then got to be a lotttttttttt better :)
 
Messages
3,006
Name
Allen
Edit My Images
Yes
Must be real annoying having the funds and Nikon let you down with very ltd production :confused:
 
Messages
255
Name
Darren
Edit My Images
No
Well thats genuinely disappointing, I'm still in the saving stage but with stock on the highstreet being non-existant e-fin was going to be my supplier of choice too.
 
Messages
1,122
Name
Gareth
Edit My Images
Yes
I've edited what you wrote. Perhaps the question isn't so difficult now?

I have had one a couple of months and I am still amazed by the size and weight. It really is very small, very light and extremely well balanced. I have only used a 200-500 briefly, but in comparison it is heavier and much more cumbersome. Having come from a 500 f4, I am really very happy. The image quality is very comparable as is focus speed. The only downside I have noticed is a comparative lack of subject isolation but I can live with this.
 

SFTPhotography

Ranger Smith
Messages
18,212
Name
Steve
Edit My Images
Yes
Thankfully the weight of the 500 G is what has stopped me cancelling the order. Knowing what I know now if I could turn back the clock to December I wouldn't be swapping systems. The D850/D500 are great but the lenses have left me very disappointed. The Nikon 24-70 is no match for my old Canon 24-70 F2.8 Mk2. The 16-35 F4 and Tamron 15-35 F2.8 G2 aren't on the same page as my Canon 16-35 F4 was. The Nikon 200-500 also doesn't stack up very well against my Canon 100-400 Mk2 (haven't tried the Nikon 80-400 but most people seem to prefer the 200-500 anyway). The Nikon 70-200 F2.8 is the only lens that I don't feel like I've lost anything over the Canon 70-200 F2.8 Mk2. I'm just hoping the 500 PF turns out to be as good as most people make it out to be and pray that another 24-70 comes along that offers better quality at the wide end than the one that I have.

Gary
Generally speaking Nikon camera's and sensors are ahead of the Canon offerings but the Canon lenses are optically better. I had a Nikkor 70-200 F4- it was laughable compared to a clients canon equivilent on a 5d3 we worked on processing raws with.
 
Messages
6,737
Edit My Images
Yes
Morning, seems to have gone a bit quiet in here, everyone still happy with the lens?

I'm thinking about one but then keep changing me mind :rolleyes:

Anyone use it with the mk3 1.4 tele? I'm fairly sure I'll miss the 600mm I've got used to with the Sigma c.

Is there still a wait?, anyone bought one recently? A few suppliers claim to have stock but I seem to remember reading that wasn't the case once ordered, cheers
 
Last edited:
OP
AdamSi
Messages
3,713
Name
Adam
Edit My Images
Yes
Morning, seems to have gone a bit quiet in here, everyone still happy with the lens?

I'm thinking about one but then keep changing me mind :rolleyes:

Anyone use it with the mk3 1.4 tele? I'm fairly sure I'll miss the 600mm I've got used to with the Sigma c.

Is there still a wait?, anyone bought one recently? A few suppliers claim to have stock but I seem to remember reading that wasn't the case once ordered, cheers
Hi Phil, I purchased the only one Harrison had last week, so far very impressed my recent pics are with it. I sold a 400 2.8FL as it was not getting the use it deserved and the 500 just so easy to carry everywhere, it really is like holding a 70-200 in size and weight, its certainly not going to compete with the bokeh of the f2.8 or even f4 but if you think about backgrounds its still very good. Its only a week in but the sharpness has really impressed me even cropping detail is still there (something that can be lacking on some other non F2.8 / F4 Pro grade lens

The portability for me won it as it now means I can get out on my mountain bike and still carry this in a small rucksack and if I come across anything I can take the photo which how many times do you go out for a walk or cycle and see something you wish you had your camera for

I have the TC14-III but not tried it yet on the 500 but hear it gives great results

My thinking is I can now sell my 300 PF too and change that for a 70-200 FL and my main bag would consist of 70-200FL / 500PF and 1.4 TC III if I think I may do some macro or landscape I can take 70-200FL / 500PF / 105 Macro / 20mm 1.8 and 1.4 TC III
 
Messages
1,845
Name
Peter
Edit My Images
Yes
Mine still works (again through DG).

I find the D500 and bare 500PF a well balanced combo. I have a 1.4 (iii) tc but have never liked the output with this attached. I prefer to crop a little.

As well as lockdown, I've been busy moving house so haven't had chance to do much photography lately.


https://flic.kr/p/2iQAMH4 View: https://flic.kr/p/2iQAMH4
 
Last edited:
Messages
6,737
Edit My Images
Yes
@AdamSi, @Peter123

Thanks chaps, I really am undecided :rolleyes:

I think for the money I've been so impressed with the Sigma, I don't want to be spending near 4 grand on lens plus tele, to feel a bit disappointed.

I've had the Sigma 4 years, although it still performs well, I'd like a change and think the 500pf has to be the way to go

Did you try Panamoz Adam? showing as 'in stock' as are LCE.

I have a 1.4 (iii) tc but have never liked the output with this attached
What was you not happy with Peter, IQ?
 
Last edited:
OP
AdamSi
Messages
3,713
Name
Adam
Edit My Images
Yes
@Phil-D I was but the prices went up too close to UK and Harrison had one in stock and they were £3449, I seen even e-ifin today are close to £3400 so was a no brainer for me going UK with next day delivery

Whether you feel the improvement is worth all that extra money is debatable for sure and you will loose zoom flexibility, but the balance and size was just too much for me to ignore
 
Messages
622
Name
GC
Edit My Images
Yes
Did you try Panamoz Adam? showing as 'in stock' as are LCE.
Got mine from Panamoz in March at £3,100, not had a chance to use it properly as yet!

GC
 
OP
AdamSi
Messages
3,713
Name
Adam
Edit My Images
Yes
Got mine from Panamoz in March at £3,100, not had a chance to use it properly as yet!

GC
That was when I nearly bought one from them but since then they have gone up to £3300 due to exchange rate taking a hammering I guess
 
Messages
1,111
Name
Si
Edit My Images
Yes
I use a 300 PF with the Mk3 1.4x TC (which barely comes off the lens) and have done for a good while. I have to say it's excellent. I swapped in a 200-500 for it and I prefer the 300+TC combo for lots of different reason - better IQ in low light, much lighter and much quicker AF. That said, I keep getting the itch to try a 500 PF - played around with one at the Photography Show last year and loved it.

Like Phil, I do wonder if it's worth the extra money. I'd almost forgotten about it since lockdown (seems to have mostly killed off the GAS for me), but this thread spring back to life has got me thinking about it again (thanks guys!! :facepalm:)

About the only gripe I have with the 300 PF is loss of detail with large crops. The big primes seem to handle this better IME (thinking 300 2.8/500 f4 and the like). Be interested in 500 PF owners thoughts on this and generally @AdamSi what you like about it vs the 300 PF and is it any good with a 1.4x TC?!
 
Messages
738
Edit My Images
No
My thinking is I can now sell my 300 PF too and change that for a 70-200 FL and my main bag would consist of 70-200FL / 500PF and 1.4 TC III if I think I may do some macro or landscape I can take 70-200FL / 500PF / 105 Macro / 20mm 1.8 and 1.4 TC III
Thought I'd bump this thread up again :)

I'm currently running a D850 200-500 and was looking to upgrade to the 500PF......I also thought through all the combinations and came to the out come that the best option might be to sell my 70-200 f4 and upgrade to the 70-200 FL and add in a 1.4tele to cover the bottom range and use the 500mm PF with 1.4 tele to cover the top range.............

My main questions would mainly be about sharpness and softness in the out of focus areas.......I think sharpness has been answered somewhat and I have read its up there with the top primes.....But how do people feel it compares to the 500 f4 out of focus areas?

Cheers
 
OP
AdamSi
Messages
3,713
Name
Adam
Edit My Images
Yes
Thought I'd bump this thread up again :)

I'm currently running a D850 200-500 and was looking to upgrade to the 500PF......I also thought through all the combinations and came to the out come that the best option might be to sell my 70-200 f4 and upgrade to the 70-200 FL and add in a 1.4tele to cover the bottom range and use the 500mm PF with 1.4 tele to cover the top range.............

My main questions would mainly be about sharpness and softness in the out of focus areas.......I think sharpness has been answered somewhat and I have read its up there with the top primes.....But how do people feel it compares to the 500 f4 out of focus areas?

Cheers
I now have a 500PF and 70-200FL after selling 200-500 and. 300PF, the 500 PF is lovely and just so small and neat, light to hold as you know. What you loose is versitilty of zoom and with the TC it works but tryong to calibrate which I do with all lenses it fails with the TC-14E III which surprised me but just bear this in mind its at f8 and FoCAL does not like it, the unbuild worked and it does operate but just a warning.

if you look on my Flickr stream you will see a lot of shots recently taken with the 500PF
 
Messages
738
Edit My Images
No
Yeah, knew 500PF would be f8 with tele added, but for those times when you need the extra range it would be ok. I also guessed the the D850 would be ok with its auto focus with this combo. Will probably just calibrate by hand for the tele.

What does the 70-200 handle like with the tele added and is the quality still as good as people say, I'm pretty picky ;-)
 
OP
AdamSi
Messages
3,713
Name
Adam
Edit My Images
Yes
Yeah, knew 500PF would be f8 with tele added, but for those times when you need the extra range it would be ok. I also guessed the the D850 would be ok with its auto focus with this combo. Will probably just calibrate by hand for the tele.

What does the 70-200 handle like with the tele added and is the quality still as good as people say, I'm pretty picky ;-)
I have not had it long os not even tried with tele yet to be fair, they are both excellent but you do pay for it and like most photography it’s exponential curve so is it worth 3x price of 200-500 not in quality terms but portability wins it over for me, dont get me wrong some of my fave pics I took with 200-500 and D500 but I love the 500PF and don’t regret buying
 
Messages
738
Edit My Images
No
I recently got the 70-200 mm f2.8 fl and gave it a run out last week with the 1.4iii shooting fast moving red kites at gigrin

It was superb, both af and iq on both a d500 and d5, highly recommended, and I too am pretty picky about IQ

Mike
Good to hear the quality is great, I’d read a few reviews but it’s always nice to get it direct from people who’ve used it in the field.
 
Messages
143
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
Yes
I have a local county park right on my doorstep and I’m always walking my dogs carrying a camera with me and I have carried my 300mm f2.8 VR a number of times but it’s a bit awkward sometimes as the dogs have to be on leads. So even though I own a 500mm f4 VR I’m considering a 500mm PF as a lightweight alternative. For the wildlife and BIF I think the PF would be ideal so let’s see.
 
Top