arbitrage
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.3 #10 · "Official" Nikon 500 f/5.6E PF Discussion and Image Thread | |
Lance B wrote:
I really don't think the market for a 500 f5.6 PF will be as great as the market for a 600 f5.6 PF. Yes, they may get some sales, but I really believe there is going to be more demand for a 600 f5.6 PF. My whole point is not whether they will get sales of a 500, they probably will, but just not as many as a 600 f5.6, which I believe would have demanded a much larger audience. The point is, these lenses are probably going to be used for birding mostly, and some general wildlife. When you are birding, you generally want as long as you can get and that means a 600 *at f5.6* is better than a 500 at f5.6, as I pointed out, you want as long as you can get at this relatively slow max aperture as you are stuck with it as you can't realistically use a TC.
We can get *close* to 500mm very easily in a number of ways with a number of lenses and TC combo's, say 400/420mm or even 500mm (200-500 say) and these lenses would serve as your "up to" 500mm lenses that you may keep in your bag for those shorter focal length requirements. And under 400mm is pretty useless for birding anyway. Also, there is just not as much of a difference between 400/420mm and 500mm to really warrant spending so much money on a lens that is only 80/100mm longer (or in the case of a 200-500 no longer). For instance, you may have an 80-400 as your shorter zoom, but 500 is not that much longer when all is said and done. To get to 400/420mm we can use an 80-400, or a 300 PF + 1.4x TC, or a 300 f2.8 VRII + 1.4x TC (especially if they make a new 300 f2.8E FL which will be lighter than the current 300 f2.8), a 200-500 (makes the 500 PF basically redundant) or any of the third party lenses and the third party superzooms from Tamron and Sigma.
If you have a 400/420mm lens in your bag, which can easily be achieved, then a 500mm lens over a 400/420mm lens is just not a big enough difference to make it worthwhile. 1.5x is like using a DX camera over an FX camera which makes a difference, whereas a 500 over a 400 is only 1.25x (and only 1.19x for a 420mm combo), marginal increase at best, basically not worth the big $ spend.
A case in point. I use my 400 f2.8 bare, with the 1.4 and 2x TC. Rarely do I ever opt for the 1.7x TC because it makes little/no difference over the 1.4x TC (it is 1.21x the 1.4 similar to what the 500 would be over a 400/420), I can crop slightly for a better result if required. I *see* a difference using the 400 + 1.4x TC on my D850 or I see a difference when using the D500 over the D850 but these are 1.4x/1.5x. Again, the 2x TC over the 1.4x TC is 1.42x and *that* makes a difference. I'm sorry, but 1.25x (1.19x) is not much of a difference.
...Show more →
All very good points Lance and well reasoned.
I'll play the Devil's advocate a little and say that you can flip that argument and say that a lot of us may have already achieved good ways to be at 500mm. That could be the 200-500 which many are happy with. That could be the 300PF/1.7TC which at least I am very happy with (and will surely be smaller and lighter than the 500/5.6). And then there are the more exotic ways like the 400/2.8+1.4 or 500/4. If someone already has 500 covered then 600 is only 1.2x more...if 1.2x makes not much of a difference for you than why spend $7K for a 600 f/5.6?
Now I'm not saying I totally agree with my argument above because I can see ways a 500/5.6 and a 600/5.6 could tempt me.
I'd say a 500/5.6 would tempt because I could keep AutoAF at 500mm and not lose it like I do with the 300PF/1.7x
I would presumably gain better AF speed over the 200-500 and I could use a 1.4TC on the 500/5.6 when I need
It would of course be lighter than a 400/2.8 or 500/4 but would give up the aperture (as is always the case)
For a 600/5.6 of course I do primarily birding, often fairly small birds, often very shy birds and 600 is always better than 500...well almost always.
But I would also have to weigh in these unknown factors at this time:
* what is the cost difference between the 500 and 600...is the 600 another $3K premium?
* what is the size/weight difference between the 500 and 600?
* how close is the weight and size of the 600 getting to my 500FL?
Anyways, I really don't know which of these lenses would tempt me more and I will need to know the cost, weight and size to make any sort of decision....I just think the 600 will be a lot more money and bigger than most are envisioning.
Really at this point, now owning the 500FL, I'm not sure if either of these lenses will interest me
|
