It always puzzles me why someone as accomplished as this photographer/reviewer wouldn't include images that just blow you away if they're going to the trouble of posting this type of review.
If I'm going to be saddled with a "slowish" lens, I'd just as soon keep my Sigma S. Also gives me 150mm and 600mm. Sharp enough for me
It should be fairly obvious that many would rather pack around and handhold a lens that only weighs 3.2 pounds instead of 6.3 pounds. Even with the 1.4x TC, you will have a 700mm lens weighing only 3.7 pounds and shooting at the same f-stop as your shot above.
We read in this field report:
"I didn’t expect this baby lens to be capable of the same image quality as the F4E, but it is! The D850’s 46 megapixels place a huge demand on any lens, and the 500mm F5.6E PF really delivers. Bokeh looks great, I couldn’t persuade it to flare while shooting against backlighting and I didn't notice any issues with chromatic aberrations.
All-in-all, I couldn’t find any drawbacks compared to the F4E when it comes to image quality."
Imagemaster wrote:
It should be fairly obvious that many would rather pack around and handhold a lens that only weighs 3.2 pounds instead of 6.3 pounds. Even with the 1.4x TC, you will have a 700mm lens weighing only 3.7 pounds and shooting at the same f-stop as your shot above.
No doubt about that. Makes perfect sense. But in my real world, money IS an object. And for what it would cost me to swap out my Sigma for this new lens, I could take another trip to Alaska. It's fairly obvious to me, I pick Alaska And I don't think I'd be giving up anything with the Sigma. I'm not a fan of teleconverters. I can live with the 3 lbs.
sum1sgrampa wrote:
No doubt about that. Makes perfect sense. But in my real world, money IS an object. And for what it would cost me to swap out my Sigma for this new lens, I could take another trip to Alaska. It's fairly obvious to me, I pick Alaska And I don't think I'd be giving up anything with the Sigma. I'm not a fan of teleconverters. I can live with the 3 lbs.
Which just goes to prove 'different strokes for different folks'.
I can afford to buy any gear and travel anywhere, but I still don't want to lug around excess weight. The reason why this lens is getting so many pre-orders is simply because there are so many that want what it offers. Many people have no need for an f4 lens, so why would they pay over $5,000 more for a Canon f500 f4 II that weighs more than twice as much?
I'm not a fan of teleconverters either, but I will live with them rather than living with an extra 3 pounds.
BestBuy not wavering yet on anticipated ship date.
Nikon - AF-S NIKKOR 500mm F/5.6E PF ED VR Telephoto Prime Lens for Nikon DSLR - Black
Qty: 1
Shipping Address
Robert Moore
In Progress
We'll ship it by Mon, September 17.
Imagemaster wrote:
Which just goes to prove 'different strokes for different folks'.
I can afford to buy any gear and travel anywhere, but I still don't want to lug around excess weight. The reason why this lens is getting so many pre-orders is simply because there are so many that want what it offers. Many people have no need for an f4 lens, so why would they pay over $5,000 more for a Canon f500 f4 II that weighs more than twice as much?
I'm not a fan of teleconverters either, but I will live with them rather than living with an extra 3 pounds. ...Show more →
Don't get me wrong. Looks like it's going to be an amazing lens and I'd order in a heartbeat if I could justify the addition. But every equipment expenditure cuts into my travel options. And I'm looking forward to more opportunities like this, not worrying about upgrades.
sum1sgrampa wrote:
Don't get me wrong. Looks like it's going to be an amazing lens and I'd order in a heartbeat if I could justify the addition. But every equipment expenditure cuts into my travel options. And I'm looking forward to more opportunities like this, not worrying about upgrades.
Words of wisdom. Once you have a good body & lens or two, get out there and use it.
Gotta tell ya I’m not all that impressed. To be sure the 500PF looks amazingly small and light but the sample images left a lot to be desired in terms of sharpness/clarity IMO. I cannot believe the 500PF is going to be visibly sharper than the 500E even wide open regardless what the MTF chart suggests. Hit rate was unimpressive too. I’m not suggesting the photog is at fault...looks like the conditions were not ideal, but I have to call it as I see it.
Gary Irwin wrote:
Gotta tell ya I’m not all that impressed. To be sure the 500PF looks amazingly small and light but the sample images left a lot to be desired in terms of sharpness/clarity IMO. I cannot believe the 500PF is going to be visibly sharper than the 500E even wide open regardless what the MTF chart suggests. Hit rate was unimpressive too. I’m not suggesting the photog is at fault...looks like the conditions were not ideal, but I have to call it as I see it.
I think I’ll wait for Brad Hill’s assessment.
I think if ultimate sharpness is the key criteria one is seeking, then the 500mm PF may not be the optimal lens. I owned (note past tense) the 300mmPF and recently sold it. I sold it for two reasons... needed some funds to afford my pre-ordered 500mm PF and I had two lenses that already covered the 300mm range.
With the exception of a trip to BC in 2017, my 300mmPF was an orphaned optic. Since I decided to keep my 200-400, it made sense to sell the 300PF and replace it with a 500mmPF that will get a lot more use.
Now to the sharpness point, my 300mmPF was not as sharp at 300mm as my 200-400mm lens when set to 300mm. In fact, it was about as sharp as my wife's 200-500VR at 300mm.
I expect that the 500mmPF will be brilliant in good light, but it will be less than great in low to moderate light. However, it is small and can be carried in the same bag with my much heavier 200-400VR. Here portability and the capacity to get to 500mm without a teleconverter (750mm on my D500) is more important to me than ultimate sharpness.
Then again, if you consider what I own in the way of lenses,*... I'm not an ultimate sharpness type of guy... I'm more of a... get the shot type of guy and work with what I've got in post.
As they say... different strokes for different folks.
bruce
* should you care about what we (Tamy and I) carry, here is a list... not one is in the list of Nikon's sharpest/greatest lenses.
Tamy: 20mm f/1.8, 24-120mmf/4VR, 200-500mmVR
Bruce: 16-35VR, 70-200VRf/4, 200-400VRi, ancient 105f/4 AiMicro... soon to arrive (?) 500PF
Gary Irwin wrote:
Gotta tell ya I’m not all that impressed. To be sure the 500PF looks amazingly small and light but the sample images left a lot to be desired in terms of sharpness/clarity IMO. I cannot believe the 500PF is going to be visibly sharper than the 500E even wide open regardless what the MTF chart suggests. Hit rate was unimpressive too. I’m not suggesting the photog is at fault...looks like the conditions were not ideal, but I have to call it as I see it.
I think I’ll wait for Brad Hill’s assessment.
Gary...I'm sure you've learned over the years that the comment you just made gets brought up just about every time a new lens or camera is released and all we have are a few sample shots from Nikon or Nikon ambassadors. I'd hold judgement to I post some images....I'll let you know what is up...I have the 500E to compare...unless I sell it to you
As to hit rate the 70% number sounds poor but we have no idea what number he'd assign to a 600 or 500E....we don't know how he shoots, what he considers a hit/sharp....I wouldn't worry about that "stat" just yet....again I'll let you know soon enough
Colin F wrote:
Words of wisdom. Once you have a good body & lens or two, get out there and use it.
Blasphemy....just sit at home, post lenses/cameras you bought 6 months ago for sale on FM and order newly announced ones to replace them...then shoot brick walls in your yard and get into pointless arguments on FM.....
Tell you my current problem. The better-half is handling-fondling the D500 and saying key phrases like 'I like this, it isn't heavy like your old.....', or 'Would it be wrong to have two of these.....' and 'You have the 300 and the teleconverter and you ordered the 500PF.....'
arbitrage wrote:
Gary...I'm sure you've learned over the years that the comment you just made gets brought up just about every time a new lens or camera is released and all we have are a few sample shots from Nikon or Nikon ambassadors. I'd hold judgement to I post some images....I'll let you know what is up...I have the 500E to compare...unless I sell it to you
As to hit rate the 70% number sounds poor but we have no idea what number he'd assign to a 600 or 500E....we don't know how he shoots, what he considers a hit/sharp....I wouldn't worry about that "stat" just yet....again I'll let you know soon enough ...Show more →
All well and good Geoff...you'll get no argument from me on any of that, and I'm very much looking forward to your hands-on experiences with the 500PF. It's just that that particular quickie-review did nothing to whet my appetite for the 500PF. Of course my benchmark lens is the 600E, so the bar is set pretty high. I'm not *necessarily* a fan of super-light and small lenses just because they're super light and small -- if they don't solve a problem they're gone...just like my 300PF.
All I know is that, for me.....this lens is a Godsend, especially after lugging around three Canon 500’s and a 600 MK II attached to a tripod. Last year during Christmas break, I hit the beach at IBSP in 10° temps with 30-40 mph gusts. I was chasing snowies and heavy hiking in the sand was mandatory.
I’m in the construction business and am in better shape than most guys my age and that was pure hell. This lens will allow me to really get out and do what I love to do. “ Chase the wildlife.”
I’m reading all the early criticisms regarding sharpness, lack of light, etc, etc. I can’t see this lens as being any worse than my Cannon 600. The increased low light performance of Nikons newer cameras will more than compensate for the f/5.6 factor. I’m excited and get wait to hit the beaches and marshes chasing Snowies, SEO’s and whatever, without having to hire a Sherpa to carry my equipment.
Gary Irwin wrote:
All well and good Geoff...you'll get no argument from me on any of that, and I'm very much looking forward to your hands-on experiences with the 500PF. It's just that that particular quickie-review did nothing to whet my appetite for the 500PF. Of course my benchmark lens is the 600E, so the bar is set pretty high. I'm not *necessarily* a fan of super-light and small lenses just because they're super light and small -- if they don't solve a problem they're gone...just like my 300PF.
In my experience my best images have come from having light weight gear that I can use to react quickly to fast changing situations. I value that quality in a lens like my 400DOII, 300PF and hopefully the 500PF much more than I value any IQ differences that exist between those lenses and my 600II and 500E....which really I find so minimal that it makes no difference to me. I buy 600II and 500E for the stop of light/stop of DOF, not for any resolution differences.
Therefore for my use the PF and DO lenses are solving my number one problem of having a high quality optic in a lightweight lens to travel, kayak and hike and to be more reactive to quickly changing situations which includes being able to handhold the lens to my eye for minutes on end...not seconds like the 600II....
arbitrage wrote:
In my experience my best images have come from having light weight gear that I can use to react quickly to fast changing situations. I value that quality in a lens like my 400DOII, 300PF and hopefully the 500PF much more than I value any IQ differences that exist between those lenses and my 600II and 500E....which really I find so minimal that it makes no difference to me. I buy 600II and 500E for the stop of light/stop of DOF, not for any resolution differences.
Therefore for my use the PF and DO lenses are solving my number one problem of having a high quality optic in a lightweight lens to travel, kayak and hike and to be more reactive to quickly changing situations which includes being able to handhold the lens to my eye for minutes on end...not seconds like the 600II.......Show more →
brian_sp wrote:
just don't invite Geoff along when you do that, the guy is a bad luck charm, last time he tried that he scared every snowy out of the NY state!!!!!
I believe I was supposed to go on one of the excursions with Geoff, Eric Gurwin and Morris to Jones Beach for Snowies.
a while back.
I couldn’t make it because of work. My recollection is that they were greeted with Tropical Force winds and they, along with their equipment were literally sand blasted. Heard it was brutal.
Another situation where this new lens (staying on topic) will benefit those of us who really do brave the elements to do what we do.
And I don't think I'd be giving up anything with the Sigma. I'm not a fan of teleconverters. I can live with the 3 lbs. 
