For birding use, the TC 1.4 has to be permanently stuck to 400.
Its hard to rationalise buying a lens and not using it bare…or having to always use it with TC….as well buy a longer lens.
500 is ‘bare minimum’ i need
Tests confirm that 500 bare is sharper than that set up, even enlarged to 560mm.
molson wrote:
I'm trying to decide between the 500 PF and the Z 400 f4.5S for my next lens. I've used both in the recent past, the 400 f4.5 on my Z9, and the 500 PF on my Fuji X-H2S with a Fringer adapter. I didn't do any side-by-side comparisons, but my impression was the 500 PF was (noticeably) the sharper of the two. I also have the Z 100-400, so that makes the 400 f4.5 a bit redundant... but I wonder what I might be giving up if I go with the 500 PF and adapter instead of the native Z lens?...Show more →
I too love the 500PF... for all the obvious reasons. Have no inclination for the 400.
Just learned my 500PF needs the VR repaired but I'll wait til well into fall and just watch my shutter speed.
Garuna wrote:
500 PF for me over 400 4.5
For me its hard to rationalise buying a lens and not being able to use it as intended…bare…or having to use it with some compromise (TC)….as well buy a longer lens.
For birding use, the TC 1.4 will be permanently stuck to 400. Tests confirm that 500 bare is sharper than that set up, even enlarged to 560mm. But most of all, 500mm is the “bare minimum” (pun intended) that one needs for birds. Doesn’t hurt that it can become a 750 on DX, and i am not even counting TC 1.4.
I will think about it when a Z 600 PF lands up.
Last edited
I also bought a D850 with 500 PF. At some point in future i will add a Z8 so that i have a choice.
Such a correct FL, doesn’t fall short and on a high resolution body its as long as i will want.
I have my doubts whether a 600 in Z mount will make me leave my 500. As i see 600 will be heavier around 1750-1800 grams, and not much faster than 180-600 6.3. I see 500 as a viable 750 also, on D500 or DX mode.
I wonder if a future 500 Z can be as versatile as F mount 500 PF….as i won’t be able to use that on D850. I want to see it as a plus while I understand the craze for mirrorless, not sure dumping F mount is sensible when i go through the D850 BIF image thread.
Garuna wrote:
I also bought a D850 with 500 PF. At some point in future i will add a Z8 so that i have a choice.
Such a correct FL, doesn’t fall short and on a high resolution body its as long as i will want.
I have my doubts whether a 600 in Z mount will make me leave my 500. As i see 600 will be heavier around 1750-1800 grams, and not much faster than 180-600 6.3. I see 500 as a viable 750 also, on D500 or DX mode.
I wonder if a future 500 Z can be as versatile as F mount 500 PF….as i won’t be able to use that on D850. I want to see it as a plus while I understand the craze for mirrorless, not sure dumping F mount is sensible when i go through the D850 BIF image thread.
All in all, this is a cracker of a lens ! ...Show more →
Well said. Very good points you make. Do not recall if I mentioned this: I am keeping my D850 too and will only gradually replace f-mounts with z-mounts. Others here have proven that z-mount glass *is* superior to f-mount glass.
But there are exceptions. The 500PF is at least one and another might be the 300PF.
Please have a look at the 500PF's exciting MTF chart.....
The other improvement over DSLR I am finding is that my 500PF with the TC14II is very sharp on my Z8. That's the *II* not the *III*. For an unknown reason (at least to me), this Z8 (mirrorless) renders f-mounted glass with TC's sharper and quicker than on DSLR's. That is 700mm at f8. Must do more stills once I get into a "Z8 routine".
Still, there have been several factors that have greatly slowed my stills work this spring/summer. Yes, this Z8 is super exciting! But this comes not without my struggles to learn it. That is compounded by its confounding menu system. I'll find the perfect combo for me. My Daltonism is compounding all of this. The red and green boxes are invisible to me on most natural (woodland) backgrounds. I have an open case with NikonUsa, *requesting* that Nikon engineers add Focus Peaking colors to all those AF boxes. Truth be told, I think many folks will like that feature too. Keeping my fingers crossed .
If one's primary passion is to document nature, video captures much more information. By itself, video tells much of the story. Another wonderful feature of the Z8/Z9 is the *video-to-stills switch*. This switch is comfortably reachable with your right thumb. I am gradually becoming familiar with this camera but still have not trained my brain to simply flip from stills to vids and back again. But I will. The switch is right there under my thumb.
Garuna wrote:
I also bought a D850 with 500 PF. At some point in future i will add a Z8 so that i have a choice.
Such a correct FL, doesn’t fall short and on a high resolution body its as long as i will want.
I have my doubts whether a 600 in Z mount will make me leave my 500. As i see 600 will be heavier around 1750-1800 grams, and not much faster than 180-600 6.3. I see 500 as a viable 750 also, on D500 or DX mode.
I wonder if a future 500 Z can be as versatile as F mount 500 PF….as i won’t be able to use that on D850. I want to see it as a plus while I understand the craze for mirrorless, not sure dumping F mount is sensible when i go through the D850 BIF image thread.
All in all, this is a cracker of a lens ! ...Show more →
The 500PF is a brilliant lens on the D850/D500/D5. Combined with the 300PF and 70-200 FLE, you have a super powerful and relatively compact nature photography kit that can meet the needs of most photographers throughout the entire decade. When I was using the latter kit (plus 16-35 and 200-400VR), I thought I was set... that is, until I bought a Z9.
Once I bought a Z body that had a live histogram, silent blackout free shooting, and autofocus that could match and surpass the AF capabilities of my DSLRs, I wanted lenses that did not have to be adapted to the camera.
If you are going to maintain a hybrid DSLR/Z-body system... F-mount lenses are the way to go to maintain cross body compatibility, but once you replace your DSLRs w/ Z-bodies, you will see the benefits of the Z-mount only glass.
I recently posted a thread showcasing the Z8 w/ 400 f4.5 + Z TC14... you will see that it can replace the 500PF if you wish to shoot Z glass.
Some soul who is qualified on MTF charts may feel the need to go deep with a comment here. If you choose to, please back up your comment(s) with a reference(s)
General MTF rule: The closer the lines are to the top, the better.
The MTF's for the 500 PF and 400 4.5 are virtually identical; however, the 500PF may have greater resolving power. The 400 has better bokeh
Conclusion: The 400 4.5 is no sharper than the 500 PF. That's all I need to know. I can change bokeh in the field.
Any *advantages* of one of these lenses over the other are marginal. Translation: If I already own a 500PF, I would be foolish to spend $3200 on this new lens, unless I was willing to leave Nikon f-mount in one complete move. I do not choose to do that.
The big advantage of the 500 PF is that I can continue to use my f-mount glass on the best sensor I have ever used.... my D850. And with the *rock solid* FTZII converter (that has absolutely no play in it whatsoever.... zero!) I can still shoot my 500PF in the mirrorless world. Translation: I have no problem at all with the converter. I see it as an advantage.
Any difficulty I have with mirrorless will be overcome as the days and weeks pass, by me and with the help of other's here. MTF will be posted momentarily. Comments by an experienced reader of MTF's are very welcome. Thanks
Oh, one other thing I will admit to liking about my 500 PF is the Gold Ring toward the big end of the glass. I confess I like it... I really do
And when all things are considered, isn't the Nikon 500 PF the standard for all 500 millimeters among all manufacturers? I am not sure.
Seriously, I do not even like discussing gear. For me, it is about nature. https://itsaboutnature.smugmug.com
But the comparison was brought up today and this is a response.
Z 400 can’t replace 500 because it is shorter and requires TC. Its a great optic for someone who wants a 400mm lens.
bs kite wrote:
Some soul who is qualified on MTF charts may feel the need to go deep with a comment here. If you choose to, please back up your comment(s) with a reference(s)
General MTF rule: The closer the lines are to the top, the better.
The MTF's for the 500 PF and 400 4.5 are virtually identical; however, the 500PF may have greater resolving power. The 400 has better bokeh
Conclusion: The 400 4.5 is no sharper than the 500 PF. That's all I need to know. I can change bokeh in the field.
Any *advantages* of one of these lenses over the other are marginal. Translation: If I already own a 500PF, I would be foolish to spend $3200 on this new lens, unless I was willing to leave Nikon f-mount in one complete move. I do not choose to do that.
The big advantage of the 500 PF is that I can continue to use my f-mount glass on the best sensor I have ever used.... my D850. And with the *rock solid* FTZII converter (that has absolutely no play in it whatsoever.... zero!) I can still shoot my 500PF in the mirrorless world. Translation: I have no problem at all with the converter. I see it as an advantage.
Any difficulty I have with mirrorless will be overcome as the days and weeks pass, by me and with the help of other's here. MTF will be posted momentarily. Comments by an experienced reader of MTF's are very welcome. Thanks
Oh, one other thing I will admit to liking about my 500 PF is the Gold Ring toward the big end of the glass. I confess I like it... I really do
And when all things are considered, isn't the Nikon 500 PF the standard for all 500 millimeters among all manufacturers? I am not sure.
Seriously, I do not even like discussing gear. For me, it is about nature. https://itsaboutnature.smugmug.com
But the comparison was brought up today and this is a response.
Garuna wrote:
Z 400 can’t replace 500 because it is shorter and requires TC. Its a great optic for someone who wants a 400mm lens.
I agree with everything stated here. In fact, as someone who owned the 500PF and now uses the 400mm f4.5, I think the 500PF is marginally sharper than the 400mm f4.5 + 1.4x. I owned the 500PF since October 2018, so I am very aware of its capabilities and weaknesses.
I had a number of reasons for making the switch, none of them had to do with the raw performance of the 500PF.
So why switch...
1. I wanted a slightly faster lens, as a lot of my photography is in very low light.
2. I wanted full Z-system compatibility, as I sold my last DSLR... thus no need for an FTZ.
3. I disliked the bokeh of the 500PF when shooting backlit subjects. This was especially true for subjects in or on water.
4. I wanted to maximize the resale value of the 500PF, as I could foresee its precipitous crash.
5. I prefer the build and design of the Z telephotos.
6. I found the sound of the F-Mount VR to be distracting and loud when shooting during quiet mornings.
All reasonable points. Must add, 500 build quality is nice.
Wish you nice pictures with 400, its a great lens !
OwlsEyes wrote:
I agree with everything stated here. In fact, as someone who owned the 500PF and now uses the 400mm f4.5, I think the 500PF is marginally sharper than the 400mm f4.5 + 1.4x. I owned the 500PF since October 2018, so I am very aware of its capabilities and weakness.
I had a number of reasons for making the switch, none of them had to do with the raw performance of the 500PF.
So why switch...
1. I wanted a slightly faster lens, as a lot of my photography is in very low light.
2. I wanted full Z-system compatibility, as I sold my last DSLR... thus no need for an FTZ.
3. I disliked the bokeh of the 500PF when shooting backlit subjects. This was especially true for subjects in or on water.
4. I wanted to maximize the resale value of the 500PF, as I could foresee its precipitous crash.
5. I prefer the build and design of the Z telephotos.
6. I found the sound of the F-Mount VR to be distracting and loud when shooting during quiet mornings.
I just picked one up from B&S, and WOW. Light isn't the word for this. I'm gonna have trouble remembering how long this lens is thanks to how light it is.
Hoping to sneak out with it this week for some real action shots.
NightOwl Cat wrote:
I just picked one up from B&S, and WOW. Light isn't the word for this. I'm gonna have trouble remembering how long this lens is thanks to how light it is.
Hoping to sneak out with it this week for some real action shots.
