Gary Irwin wrote:
Would you like salt with those onion rings? [1:30]
Sorry, couldn't resist. Looks pretty good though.
If that's as bad as it gets in that type of lighting, I can live with it!... My current 200-400 would struggle with this and produce flare, and the 200-500 exhibits a bit of nervous/edgy bokeh in strong, direct, and shadow light like this. From what I have observed, the only lenses that would produce amazing bokeh in a situation like this (long distance, shadow, direct sun blob) are the 400mm f/2.8 AFS (all varieties), 500mm f4 G & E, and 600mm f/4 (all flavors).
Again, taken as a whole, I think the lens does surprisingly well in lighting that challenges fresnel lenses.
I must say being a Canon shooter I've been very impressed with Nikons products lately. The D500 seems to be the camera to have if your shooting BIF, especially with the 200-500. Now the Newer 500 lens thats much lighter comes out and seems a perfect pairing with the D500.
Wait and see what the images look like for sure, but I must say I have Nikon envy at the moment !
bs kite wrote:
No doubt the 500 5.6 PF will be sharper than the 2-5.
And the 500 5.6 PF will be faster (AF) than the 200-500, but, no prime has the versatility of zoom. And zooms arrived a while ago. The 2-5 will always be more versatile than any prime.
I think the 500 5.6 PF will be a hit with wildlife photographers.......faster than the 2-5 and about as fast as the 2-5 with the 1.4. BUT....it is *not* a zoom.
With my 2-5, I am already at 500. So why would I buy the 500 5.6 PF?
Myself and others are well aware that a prime lens is not as versatile as a zoom, and I never said otherwise. So I have no idea why you are quoting what I said. I already pointed out the factors why others will prefer the 500 pf over the 200-500.
And zooms arrived a while ago.
I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. That is about as meaningless as your blank posting.
I've seen a number of people on different threads say they'll wait for the 600PF. Did I miss a development announcement or is this wishful thinking? Considering Nikon went from 300PF to 500PF and skipped a 400, the wait for a 600PF could be years if ever. I've got an NPS pre-order in, so hopefully I'll get one from the first batch.
nuclearjock wrote:
Hopefully it ships 9/13. My guy is pretty reliable.
9/13 is listed everywhere including the Nikon press release so I think it is a good chance...that is great as they don't often ship stuff that soon after announcement....
I actually still haven't submitted my preorder...adding up what I can sell to fund it....I have a new rule not to spend any new cash on camera gear...something always has to go first
ELinder wrote:
I've seen a number of people on different threads say they'll wait for the 600PF. Did I miss a development announcement or is this wishful thinking? Considering Nikon went from 300PF to 500PF and skipped a 400, the wait for a 600PF could be years if ever. I've got an NPS pre-order in, so hopefully I'll get one from the first batch.
Erich
It is only wishful thinking because the patents for the 400, 500 and 600PF were all filed at the same time. But of course patents mean nothing and a 600PF will sell in much lower volume respectively because its price will be another $1500 or more dearer and be larger and heavier etc....still I'd be very interested.
Nikon may never make one and for me I'd rather enjoy gear now and worry about switching to a 600 if it makes sense in the future if it ever happens...
IMHO the 400/5.6 PF makes absolutely no sense at all as the patent shows the length longer than the 1.4TC/300PF combo which IME is phenomenal IQ and great AF so not sure what one would gain with the 400PF other than maybe a better 560/8 combo
arbitrage wrote:
It is only wishful thinking because the patents for the 400, 500 and 600PF were all filed at the same time. But of course patents mean nothing and a 600PF will sell in much lower volume respectively because its price will be another $1500 or more dearer and be larger and heavier etc....still I'd be very interested.
Nikon may never make one and for me I'd rather enjoy gear now and worry about switching to a 600 if it makes sense in the future if it ever happens...
IMHO the 400/5.6 PF makes absolutely no sense at all as the patent shows the length longer than the 1.4TC/300PF combo which IME is phenomenal IQ and great AF so not sure what one would gain with the 400PF other than maybe a better 560/8 combo...Show more →
Maybe Nikon also decided that a 400PF with those specs (and higher price than 300PF + TC) would not make much sense ...
OwlsEyes wrote:
Well... I guess that I am a man of my words...
I pre-ordered the lens 20 minutes ago from B&H. I will be faced with the dilemma of keeping or selling my 200-400VR1. The zoom has served me well throughout the years, but it is not handhold able.
With plans confirmed to go to the Khutzeymateen on June 14 where shooting from a zodiac is a must, my wife and I will be traveling with a 70-200 f/4, 300mm f/4 PF, 200-500f/5.6 VR, and the new 500mm f/5.6PF.
For those who are interested, I will be comparing the new lens to my stable of optics (including the 200-400VR) and will share my thoughts, once I have a few to share...
For me, this is a huge huge decision. I have never had the stones to plunk $3650 on a single piece of camera gear before, preferring the used market to the new... but, this is the lens that I have been hoping someone would introduced for years!
Go Nikon for having the courage to innovate in the super-tele world!
regards,
bruce...Show more →
Very interested to see how it fairs, and your impressions.
Of course the decisions will follow your impressions, but based on what I have been reading, I will not be at all surprised if you end up selling the vaunted 200-400mm.
This lens is the first thing that has had me considering a Nikon body since, well, ever. (ok, not including my old 1V )
In the Sony camp and before I was jealous of the 200-500 and looking forward to a rumored 200-600 Sony lens. Now I think I’d prefer something more like this. A 700 f8 with 1.4x mated in an incredibly small package. What’s not to love!?
When i was in Botswana last summer, I was alongside a gent with the Nikon 200-500mm.
I was well equipped with both EF 500mm f/4 II prime, and EF 100-400mm V2...
But for me it took two bodies, and I still did not have a wide angle zoom ready.
So yeah, that 200-500mm has looked good to me for a long time as well.
CyberDyne wrote:
When i was in Botswana last summer, I was alongside a gent with the Nikon 200-500mm.
I was well equipped with both EF 500mm f/4 II prime, and EF 100-400mm V2...
But for me it took two bodies, and I still did not have a wide angle zoom ready.
So yeah, that 200-500mm has looked good to me for a long time as well.
The 200-500VR + D500 has been the gateway drug for many who want to test the Nikon waters.
Purchased used or refurbished, you can both for about $2600. There are many long-time Canon shooters on this board who tried out Nikon with this set-up. Some disliked it and decided their investment in Canon was too great, while others ultimately sold their Canon gear and moved into Nikon (or kept it all)...
Take this as you like... a cautionary note or an opportunity to use something different. In reality, if you get a well calibrated lens that mates well to a D500, you would be hard pressed to find a better "inexpensive" willdlife kit that can consistently produce professional results by skilled photographers.
OwlsEyes wrote:
With plans confirmed to go to the Khutzeymateen on June 14 where shooting from a zodiac is a must, my wife and I will be traveling with a 70-200 f/4, 300mm f/4 PF, 200-500f/5.6 VR, and the new 500mm f/5.6PF.
Go Nikon for having the courage to innovate in the super-tele world!
regards,
bruce
Just as a heads up - we were in Khutz on June 14 this year and while I am a Canon shooter, 75% of my shots were taken at 700mm (500 F4 + 1.4x tele) with maybe 20% shot with my 100-400mm (mostly in the 200-400mm range) and 5% with a wide angle.
If I were going back, I would not have changed my kit at all - I think a 70-200 is not going to be useful, you will either want to shoot at 24mm for a landscape or 200mm+ with a bear in frame - the minimum distances from the bears are reasonably far.
lowside67 wrote:
Just as a heads up - we were in Khutz on June 14 this year and while I am a Canon shooter, 75% of my shots were taken at 700mm (500 F4 + 1.4x tele) with maybe 20% shot with my 100-400mm (mostly in the 200-400mm range) and 5% with a wide angle.
If I were going back, I would not have changed my kit at all - I think a 70-200 is not going to be useful, you will either want to shoot at 24mm for a landscape or 200mm+ with a bear in frame - the minimum distances from the bears are reasonably far.
Hello Mark,
Thanks for the heads up... Were you on the OceanLightII?
I was on the marine mammals trip a year ago August and simply loved the experience. I happened to be on a photo-workshop w/ Brad Hill during the trip and he added a lot of value to the experience.
Just for a bit of clarification... you say that you shot your 500mm lens w/ a converter... were you using a full frame camera or crop? I plan to mate the 500mm lens to my D500 (DX), the 300mm PF on a 2nd D500, 200-500 on a 3rd D500 (my wife's), 70-200 on a D810 and 16-35 on a D810.
While I want to do some portrait work, I am really after wildlife landscapes...
Finally, did you happen to see any wolves?... Wolves on Coastal BC is a dream shot for me.
arbitrage wrote:
I totally agree...using the 300PF and the 100-400GM over the past while I have come to appreciate the value of a lens that is easier to walk around with, easier to pan along with BIF, easier to hold up to your eye for many mins while waiting for those few seconds of interesting behaviour/action and so on and so forth....
On a trip last year to shoot owls in Vancouver there were two with 600II lenses on tripod most of the time, me with a 600II and a 300PF over the shoulder and the fourth guy with a 7D2/100-400II over his shoulder and no big lens/tripod to lug.....let me tell you the guy with the 7D2 managed to nail some of the very short lived action when a SEO and Northern Harrier went at it over a catch....I was setting down my tripod and had to waste a few seconds making sure it was stable on the uneven ground and then whipped up the 300PF and still missed the best shots. If I'd just been walking around with the 300PF I would probably have some more interesting shots....the two others with 600II/tripod weren't even close to being ready to capture the action.
Now having that at 500mm and even 700mm with 1.4TC is going to be a dream. I love shooting with the f/4 primes also and I am still eyeing the Sony 400/2.8 because it is so light but still it is nothing like the agility you get from a lens like the 500PF.....the overlays of the 500E and 200-500 I posted earlier are really telling in how small this thing is. I also like to be as inconspicuous as possible when out in public so not to draw attention to a huge lens and a lens like this is very helpful....using it without the hood when warranted makes it a very stealthy long lens....Show more →
I have similar feelings about this. And the price *is* right.
I am not quick to surrender the versatility of my 2-5.
I am most anxious to view/hear the results others will have of wildlife, when the 1.4 is attached to this 500 PF.
How fast will this new 500 5.6 PF focus at f8?
Based on the sharpness of the 300 PF, I am quite confident 500PF/1.4 images will be sharp.
I want to hear their characterizations of the AF speed when shooting 700mm at f8.
arbitrage wrote:
Official pics....now onto the real important stuff:
PRICE and WEIGHT
But it does look like that might be an Arca Swiss foot...not totally sure.
Having the lens buttons is a big plus for me as it gives me one more easily accessible AF mode without using the stupid AF-Mode switch.
It sure does look like it may have the grooves. Did I miss a late post; i.e. do we yet know if this has an Arca Swiss foot?
Closer inspection looks like just a very thin foot with a groove but I don’t think it is Arca Swiss either anymore. It looks easy to replace. Maybe able to use 70-200/2.8 feet?? At least low weight.
AvianScott wrote:
I do not believe it has an Arca Swiss foot. None of the images I've seen have shown it.
I need to know these things....where is my PM?
)