apertur3 wrote:
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.
Yes it is each of our's prerogative. You value the VR at those SS enough to make the lens a failure at the price point. You have made your point well. I'm not going to argue with it. I assume you are sending your lens back and looking at a different option or just continuing on with your 200-500? If so, then I hope you will be kind enough to leave it at that and retire from the thread which should eventually develop into the full on image sharing thread from this lens. What I really hope is that you don't feel the need to re-enter the thread every page or so and tell us about the VR issue over and over again. I won't deny the VR issue once I test it myself and I totally believe it is there after seeing some of those well done tests by others on the DPR thread.
apertur3 wrote:
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.
Please do us all a favour, sell the 500PF to someone who'll appreciate it and like you've been banging on about this issue also on DPReview........and move on.
I love my 500PF and not seeing any near the low S/S VR issue that you/ve incessantly been going on about. And's that's on all 4 (AF tuned via Lens Align) bodies, the D5, D850, D810 and D500 gripped and ungripped( on the last 3).
Sure it misses a few frames at S/S of 1/125s and lower, and seldom shoot at anywhere near those speeds anyway, and if/when I do, I fire off a quick burst @ high fps and uaually nail around 3 out of 5 sharp.
Perhaps I have an excellent sample.......who knows or better long lens technique??
What I do know is I look forward to putting it to further testing next Wed for a 2 week Botswana assignment.
Look in all seriousness, I understand you might not be happy, and that's fine, I just don't want to hear about your grievance here and DPReview with nearly every 2nd post, you did the same for the 300PF as well.
Also for the record I'm a pro wildlife photographer who does make a bit of money and lens's such as the PF500 will help me in that regard.
I guarantee that a 70-300 is NOT sharper than the 80-400mm.
And, although people love to tout the 200-500mm as sharper than the 80-400mm, they are very close (and I have images to back it up), but the 80-400mm gives you huge convenience, especially if you do more hiking versus standing on a beach.
Tell you what, it seems every single lens Nikon makes has something wrong with it, depending on the users perspective.
apertur3 wrote:
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.
apertur3 wrote:
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.
I feel as if I hear the axe grinding... I think you've made your point a few times now.
The 500mm PF is not for you, you're willing to accept the inherent design flaws in the 200-500VR (no weather sealing, long throw zoom, slower AF), you like the Sony 80-400, you don't like the 500mmPF
arbitrage wrote:
Yes it is each of our's prerogative. You value the VR at those SS enough to make the lens a failure at the price point. You have made your point well. I'm not going to argue with it. I assume you are sending your lens back and looking at a different option or just continuing on with your 200-500? If so, then I hope you will be kind enough to leave it at that and retire from the thread which should eventually develop into the full on image sharing thread from this lens. What I really hope is that you don't feel the need to re-enter the thread every page or so and tell us about the VR issue over and over again. I won't deny the VR issue once I test it myself and I totally believe it is there after seeing some of those well done tests by others on the DPR thread....Show more →
ckcarr wrote:
I guarantee that a 70-300 is NOT sharper than the 80-400mm.
And, although people love to tout the 200-500mm as sharper than the 80-400mm, they are very close (and I have images to back it up), but the 80-400mm gives you huge convenience, especially if you do more hiking versus standing on a beach.
Tell you what, it seems every single lens Nikon makes has something wrong with it, depending on the users perspective.
I have been tempted by this lens a few times... I am looking to solidify my telephoto line-up and have considered it to be a possible replacement for my 200-400, as I could probably arrange a straight swap or one where I'd get a few hundred in return. I do not shoot my current 200-400 lens at f/4, but I do use it at f/4.5.
I could envision putting my 70-200mm f4VR in my wife's bag (she has a 200-500), and carrying the 80-400 & 500mm PF w/ my macro and wide-angle and call it a day. I shoot with 3 bodies and would but both telephotos on a pair of D500's and leave my D810 for the other lenses...
I would love to be pointed to some knock out images shot with the 80-400VRII at 400mm wide open... if you have a gallery of pics like this, please point me in that direction.
arbitrage wrote:
Yes it is each of our's prerogative. You value the VR at those SS enough to make the lens a failure at the price point. You have made your point well. I'm not going to argue with it. I assume you are sending your lens back and looking at a different option or just continuing on with your 200-500? If so, then I hope you will be kind enough to leave it at that and retire from the thread which should eventually develop into the full on image sharing thread from this lens. What I really hope is that you don't feel the need to re-enter the thread every page or so and tell us about the VR issue over and over again. I won't deny the VR issue once I test it myself and I totally believe it is there after seeing some of those well done tests by others on the DPR thread....Show more →
I'm just trying to keep others from making the same mistake I did. It blows my mind that people will just accept an issue like this, but whatever. I guess if you don't use those speeds, than it's not really an issue. Don't say I didn't warn ya
Good luck and enjoy the lens. I predict Nikon will be issuing a service advisory for this in the future.
ckcarr wrote:
I guarantee that a 70-300 is NOT sharper than the 80-400mm.
And, although people love to tout the 200-500mm as sharper than the 80-400mm, they are very close (and I have images to back it up), but the 80-400mm gives you huge convenience, especially if you do more hiking versus standing on a beach.
Tell you what, it seems every single lens Nikon makes has something wrong with it, depending on the users perspective.
Just goes to show how much people on forums really know. Thom Hogan tested this lens against the 80-400, and I've seen it mentioned in other reviews. The NEW 70-300 is sharper at 300. It's widely known that the 80-400 goes soft at the long end. Another Nikon dud.
marc2307 wrote:
Please do us all a favour, sell the 500PF to someone who'll appreciate it and like you've been banging on about this issue also on DPReview........and move on.
I love my 500PF and not seeing any near the low S/S VR issue that you/ve incessantly been going on about. And's that's on all 4 (AF tuned via Lens Align) bodies, the D5, D850, D810 and D500 gripped and ungripped( on the last 3).
Sure it misses a few frames at S/S of 1/125s and lower, and seldom shoot at anywhere near those speeds anyway, and if/when I do, I fire off a quick burst @ high fps and uaually nail around 3 out of 5 sharp.
Perhaps I have an excellent sample.......who knows or better long lens technique??
What I do know is I look forward to putting it to further testing next Wed for a 2 week Botswana assignment.
Look in all seriousness, I understand you might not be happy, and that's fine, I just don't want to hear about your grievance here and DPReview with nearly every 2nd post, you did the same for the 300PF as well.
Also for the record I'm a pro wildlife photographer who does make a bit of money and lens's such as the PF500 will help me in that regard.
Then don't read my posts. Shoot 10 shots at 1/80. Shoot 10 shots at 1/100. Handheld. See how it does. In a head to head with my 200-500, the PF gets blown away by VR, and sharpness is no different. If anything, the PF is worse.
If you're a pro, you should be shooting the 500 f/4. Everyone knows that
OwlsEyes wrote:
I feel as if I hear the axe grinding... I think you've made your point a few times now.
The 500mm PF is not for you, you're willing to accept the inherent design flaws in the 200-500VR (no weather sealing, long throw zoom, slower AF), you like the Sony 80-400, you don't like the 500mmPF
Have I missed anything?
Having an axe to grind would imply that I have a personal vendetta against Nikon. That's just not true. I'm simply pointing out that their product has a problem. Apparently, they didn't learn from the the 300PF blunder, which is sad. Anyway, I have made my point, so I'll leave it at that. I think the real issue is many are just upset they wasted a lot of money on another Nikon lens that has issues. They will try to justify their purchase and ignore any flaws because the fanboyism is strong. Whatever. They can live in ignorance. Fine by me. See ya.
apertur3 wrote:
Then don't read my posts. Shoot 10 shots at 1/80. Shoot 10 shots at 1/100. Handheld. See how it does. In a head to head with my 200-500, the PF gets blown away by VR, and sharpness is no different. If anything, the PF is worse.
If you're a pro, you should be shooting the 500 f/4. Everyone knows that
Believe me, I'd love to read anything but your posts, except for the fact that your constant whining about the 500PF takes up every 2nd post it's darn hard to avoid them!
Oh and BTW I never said I'll exclusively be shooting the 500PF, my main tool is the 400E 2.8, but this lens will still be a vauelable tool in my arsenal.
Keep this up and you'll alienate a lot of FM members here just like you have on DPReview.....continue to peddle your drival there and leave us be if that's possible.....somehow I doubt it.
I agree with what others have said regarding repeated complaints. But with that said, I would like to encourage others to share their experience with the VR issue who have not already done so. I've not yet ordered a 500PF, and I'm still undecided. I'm curious whether certain body combinations, using a battery grip, or maybe even individual variation could be attributed to the cause.
Seems like there's at least 3 or 4 people reporting the issue, and 1 or 2 who say they don't really notice the issue at all.
Hopefully time will bring some clarity to the situation. It's a real concern for wildlife photographers who often shoot at dusk/dawn and under shaded canopies. I also realize we're only a subset of the target buyers.
If anyone is deciding to not keep their new 500 pf and would like to sell it to another member to try, rather than send it back, I am very interested. I would like to see if it works for me. Thank you!
apertur3 wrote:
Having an axe to grind would imply that I have a personal vendetta against Nikon. That's just not true. I'm simply pointing out that their product has a problem. Apparently, they didn't learn from the the 300PF blunder, which is sad. Anyway, I have made my point, so I'll leave it at that. I think the real issue is many are just upset they wasted a lot of money on another Nikon lens that has issues. They will try to justify their purchase and ignore any flaws because the fanboyism is strong. Whatever. They can live in ignorance. Fine by me. See ya. ...Show more →
If I was seeking lens perfection, I would have sold my 200-400 a long time ago (actually, I sold the first one just to buy another one because it was so useful to me). I think that the 500mm PF will be much like every other lens that I own... it will have strengths beyond what else is available, and have weaknesses that I will need to learn to avoid.
In the world of Nikon... the 105 f1.8, 200mm f2, 400mm f2.8's and 600mm f4's are all brilliant. The 500mm f4's are good, but great arrived with the 500mm f4E... With the exception of the all around great 70-200mm f2.8E, the prior f2.8's were great within their limits...
It seems that there is the search for some kind of lens perfection that I just do not think exists. If my 500mmPF is just as sharp as the 500mm f/4E but its VR is a bit wonky, then I'm all good!
I reached out to Adorama CS. The rep told me they are expecting the lens in the 4th week of September (9/23-9/29). I got my pre-order in late August, so I am somewhat optimistic there will be a lens for me in their first shipment.
The reports of VR do not concern me in the least, then again, I don't find myself at 1/80 - 1/100 (matter of preference/habit) and I still intend on using a monopod as I prefer to rest the lens on my shoulder while holding the monopod when hiking to certain locations.
All products have compromises and 'optimal' use cases. If 1/80th and 1/100th are critical for your photography, than the lens may not be a good option.
I also think it is wise to take criticism/praise at this early stage with a grain of salt. It takes time to take into account curve/quirks. Impressions can be different within the return window than outside of the grace period.
It took me two weeks to feel satisfied with the 200-500mm. The 35mm 1.8, on the other hand, took only a few minutes.
A few more from this morning. Again a bit of a rush job here, we are expecting flooding soon around here but wanted to get out this morning. Our home should be ok but needed food, etc.
Anyway, mostly early morning stuff. First 3 are ISO 2000 hand held, rest are various with x1.4 EIII attached to D500. Lens is very small and I need more time with it but here you go;
Again RRS 70-200 foot is solid. They may be making a new one though so just a FYI. All hand held.
Y’all be safe. Don’t leave until the water recedes. Been through it with Harvey. There’s no destination worth risking, unless you have to evac which I hope doesn’t happen.
George DeCamp wrote:
A few more from this morning. Again a bit of a rush job here, we are expecting flooding soon around here but wanted to get out this morning. Our home should be ok but needed food, etc.
Anyway, mostly early morning stuff. First 3 are ISO 2000 hand held, rest are various with x1.4 EIII attached to D500. Lens is very small and I need more time with it but here you go;
apertur3 wrote:
I'm just trying to keep others from making the same mistake I did. It blows my mind that people will just accept an issue like this, but whatever. I guess if you don't use those speeds, than it's not really an issue. Don't say I didn't warn ya
Good luck and enjoy the lens. I predict Nikon will be issuing a service advisory for this in the future.
I'm happy you and others identified the VR issue. I certainly want to know about issues before mine comes because I'm on such backorder that I have time to cancel if issues are deal breakers for me. This VR issue isn't a deal breaker for my work but your testing will certainly help others that value that SS range and need good VR in that range. Certainly my 200-500 and 500E work much better in that range than my 300PF does. The D850's Qc mode basically eliminates the VR issue on the 300PF but it sounds like it doesn't for you with the 500PF...that is also good info to know.
So in a nutshell, it sounds like this VR weak-spot won't be a problem for those who normally shoot at higher shutter speeds (bird/sports photographers), but there could & would be those times for bird photographers (shooting in low light conditions) where it would be an issue. Something to keep in mind for sure.
Said in my best Stewie voice: "I guess that 500 f/4 isn't looking so bad now eh?"
George DeCamp wrote:
A few more from this morning. Again a bit of a rush job here, we are expecting flooding soon around here but wanted to get out this morning. Our home should be ok but needed food, etc.
Anyway, mostly early morning stuff. First 3 are ISO 2000 hand held, rest are various with x1.4 EIII attached to D500. Lens is very small and I need more time with it but here you go;
Again RRS 70-200 foot is solid. They may be making a new one though so just a FYI. All hand held.
Sharp, contrasty, great colors what's not to love!
ISO 2000 on your D500 looks better than mine but ISO in grey gloom is different than
ISO in light so I'm not fretting.
That set of images really sells the lens. If I didn't already have one I'd get in line for sure.
