Got the lens today but had no time after I got it to go anywhere so went to the back yard. Nothing at all to photograph except one damselfly and some junk in the yard..... Figures.
I had the 500pf on a D500 with a x1.4 eIII for these 3 images, wide open f8. I had the AF on D25 and it looks like it caught the left wing. Tomorrow I will go out and give it a good test.
All straight from camera, no sharpening at all just resized for web. Photos of camera are from Iphone and just to show size. The x1.4 is attached to lens in these photos showing size relative to 200-500 and with converter attached. Amazingly small, pretty darn fast AF with x1.4 also. More tomorrow when I get home. Lenscoat is available from them now. I switched foot to a RRS 70-200 foot, works fine!
MedicineMan404 wrote:
George !! How do you already have a Lenscoat?
I just ordered one this morning for the 500PF.
Backyard shots look great. Love the fronds shot.
I live in Myrtle Beach and was evacuated when the lens was about to ship. Had it shipped to my friend Scott who owns Lenscoat, known him for 20yrs or so. He used my lens for the template and shipped it to me with a Lenscoat and a TravelCoat on it. Got it today.
George DeCamp wrote:
I live in Myrtle Beach and was evacuated when the lens was about to ship. Had it shipped to my friend Scott who owns Lenscoat, known him for 20yrs or so. He used my lens for the template and shipped it to me with a Lenscoat and a TravelCoat on it. Got it today.
Great friend to have, maybe a whisper to him your best bud in TN needs an expedite. I'll travel with it next week Oh, we chose the same pattern.
Smaller indeed. Well you got your wish!
The better-half is a Sony-Oly user and we've been comparing to her Oly 300mm Pro.
Several similarities. That's the only lens we have that comes close for a physical comparison.
If I ever fly overseas the 500PF won't cause so much fretting over lenses I'd packed in the past.
I'd hate to pack the 600VR for somewhere really distant-the always wanted to check my 500ISii
and I had to kick and scream to keep it with me. Don't think the airline steward would notice
this one.
apertur3 wrote:
The 100-400GM is probably the better lens.
For sharpness...yeah probably...for VR...yes for sure (especially combined with IBIS)...for balance handholding....not even close the 100-400GM is not a pleasant lens to handhold despite its fairly compact size...the balance when at 400mm is not good at all...of course having it on a lighter MILC makes it even worse.
I love my 100-400GM but I'd rather have the 500PF in my hot little hands....so yes, everyone should dump their recently acquired 500PF lenses at a significant discount onto the B&S because they can't shoot at 1/80s and then I can finally get one....
I wasn't even going to share this, but it will give you an idea of what the lens can resolve.
The subject is my parrot (yes his name is Rio... but name long before the movie). He was on our window sill... free flight in my house (yes, my wife and I are a bit nuts... ). Anyway, he is backlit horribly. I focused directly on the eye and this is a 40% crop of a D500 file... the bird was about 7M away.
Regarding RRS foot... well, too bad for me, as the Kirk one definitely did not fit tight.
cheers,
bruce
OwlsEyes wrote:
I wasn't even going to share this, but it will give you an idea of what the lens can resolve.
The subject is my parrot (yes his name is Rio... but name long before the movie). He was on our window sill... free flight in my house (yes, my wife and I are a bit nuts... ). Anyway, he is backlit horribly. I focused directly on the eye and this is a 40% crop of a D500 file... the bird was about 7M away.
Regarding RRS foot... well, too bad for me, as the Kirk one definitely did not fit tight.
cheers,
bruce
Beautiful avian family member there.
Yep the 500PF can resolve for sure!
ON the replacement foot, the
Kirk Replacement Lens Foot for Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8E FL ED VR
I used is like perfectly machined for the 500PF=tight as a drum.
Though now I have it installed I'm going another route. I've got a arca-swiss plate on the way. I plan next to completely remove even the Kirk replacement foot and put the plate directly on the bottom of the lens. I don't plan on using the 500PF on a tripod or monopod and the plain plate makes the lens even more 'packable' without the protruding foot. The plate is arca-swiss so if I want to mount on a tripd for MFA I can. Just thankful Nikon allows complete removal.
I got an email from RRS today, and they said they have not finalized the design of the foot yet for this lens. I told them that in that case, they should make the inside smooth and rounded like the 200-400 f/4 foot to make it more comfortable to hold it like a handle. The 70-200 foot is a bit too angular. They said they'd forwardd the suggestion to the design team.
ELinder wrote:
So we'll expect the "weatherproofing review" from you?
haha
went to work this evening,had to go outside in the rain for a bit, got soaked so i came home early so my weatherproofing failed, now weatherman says rain today, tomorrow, saturday, sunday, with that he'll "probably" be right
I posted here yesterday with my test shots from the 500mm f/5.6E PF lens taking photos of animals at the zoo.
Last night, I took the lens to shoot an MLS soccer match between the Seattle Sounders and Philadelphia Union to see how it performs for fast-action sports.
George DeCamp wrote:
Got the lens today but had no time after I got it to go anywhere so went to the back yard. Nothing at all to photograph except one damselfly and some junk in the yard..... Figures.
It's actually a dragonfly and not a damselfly (those are smaller and usually fold the wings more or less along the body when resting).
Thanks, this is reassuring for closeup image quality as it looks way better than my Canon 100-400II for closeups (that lens has strong "glow" due to spherical aberration when used near MFD and near full open). Of course there isn't enough DOF to get the whole dragonfly in focus, and when using AF it is difficult to be sure where it is going to focus (usually the wingtips or legs because they are most contrasty).
How is the working distance at maximum magnification? The Canon 100-400II has impressive magnification for a long lens, but in practice it isn't useful because the working distance is very short due to extreme focus breathing (set at 400mm near MFD it is actually about 200mm focal length). Even my 2.8/200 prime has better working distance ... I'm interested in this for situations where I simply cannot get close enough to the subject, and where I want both good magnification (may require an extension ring, although with TC the magnification might often be sufficient) AND good working distance.
MedicineMan404 wrote:
Beautiful avian family member there.
Yep the 500PF can resolve for sure!
ON the replacement foot, the
Kirk Replacement Lens Foot for Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8E FL ED VR
I used is like perfectly machined for the 500PF=tight as a drum.
Though now I have it installed I'm going another route. I've got a arca-swiss plate on the way. I plan next to completely remove even the Kirk replacement foot and put the plate directly on the bottom of the lens. I don't plan on using the 500PF on a tripod or monopod and the plain plate makes the lens even more 'packable' without the protruding foot. The plate is arca-swiss so if I want to mount on a tripd for MFA I can. Just thankful Nikon allows complete removal....Show more →
Thanks... I would photograph rio more, but he does not like the "big eye" of a lens staring at him and flies about whenever I try to photograph him. If there were more light in my home, he'd be great for bird in flight shots, as he flies from place to place on demand.
Now isn't that strange that your Kirk foot fits like a snug glove... mine has a wiggle and does not lock down. I did buy it as a "scratch and dent" version from them, so I wonder if the foot is not perfect. As for tripod... well, I've mentioned this before... I'm a tripod guy, prefer to use it, and will continue to do so despite the smaller profile of the PF lens.
My dilemma relates to the portability of my kit... I still have the 200-400VR which is my "money" lens. It has served me well throughout the years, used for most of my published wildlife work, and is sharp. Unfortunately, it is heavy and takes up 1/2 of my bag... I would love a lighter alternative, but the 80-400VR is definitely not that lens.
kevinlisota wrote:
I posted here yesterday with my test shots from the 500mm f/5.6E PF lens taking photos of animals at the zoo.
Last night, I took the lens to shoot an MLS soccer match between the Seattle Sounders and Philadelphia Union to see how it performs for fast-action sports.
OwlsEyes wrote:
Thanks... I would photograph rio more, but he does not like the "big eye" of a lens staring at him and flies about whenever I try to photograph him. If there were more light in my home, he'd be great for bird in flight shots, as he flies from place to place on demand.
Now isn't that strange that your Kirk foot fits like a snug glove... mine has a wiggle and does not lock down. I did buy it as a "scratch and dent" version from them, so I wonder if the foot is not perfect. As for tripod... well, I've mentioned this before... I'm a tripod guy, prefer to use it, and will continue to do so despite the smaller profile of the PF lens.
My dilemma relates to the portability of my kit... I still have the 200-400VR which is my "money" lens. It has served me well throughout the years, used for most of my published wildlife work, and is sharp. Unfortunately, it is heavy and takes up 1/2 of my bag... I would love a lighter alternative, but the 80-400VR is definitely not that lens.
I thought about an 80-400, but from what I hear, it's not as sharp as the 200-500. Apparently, even the 70-300 is sharper at 300, so no point really. Not for the price they want.
arbitrage wrote:
For sharpness...yeah probably...for VR...yes for sure (especially combined with IBIS)...for balance handholding....not even close the 100-400GM is not a pleasant lens to handhold despite its fairly compact size...the balance when at 400mm is not good at all...of course having it on a lighter MILC makes it even worse.
I love my 100-400GM but I'd rather have the 500PF in my hot little hands....so yes, everyone should dump their recently acquired 500PF lenses at a significant discount onto the B&S because they can't shoot at 1/80s and then I can finally get one....
Well, if people are comfortable paying $3600 for a lens with a design flaw, that's their prerogative. Missing shots is not worth the weight savings to me. Personally, I'd rather deal with 2 extra pounds. If I screw up, I can accept missing a shot, but if my lens screws up? Nope.
?
