100% from the center of 500/4e FL vs 500PF. Both at F5.6, on tripod, delay shuttle release. Live view focus for both. Distance was 100 odd meters.
The good news is that both has the same T stop or at least close enough that on A mode, same iso, aperture, the metering in the camera chose the same shutterspeed
MedicineMan404 wrote:
Yes sir it is true. a9+Commlite+300PF (with or without 1.4TCiii) is a dream.
a9+Commlite+500PF is a fail.
According to Alex Commlite is working on a big update.
Geoff have you done the latest MC-11 AND a9 update?
I'm holding back on the a9 update, can't be too hasty with that.
I need to pop the a9+MC-11+400DOii together for next weeks outing where I'm
hoping to BIF on the coast.
No I haven't done the latest updates....I used the combo yesterday with 400DOII and it was doing so good I'm afraid to touch the FW....even with the 2xTC on the 400DOII, I was getting shot after shot of a foraging plover with Wide AF mode tracking it wherever I wanted to place it in the frame....I love being able to compose as I shoot.....you've probably already seen one of the plover shots in the FE images thread but if not you can go check it out....
Christian H wrote:
Why? Everything posted so far has suggested IQ comparable to the 200-500.
I really can't and won't evaluate IQ based on 1200px wide processed images. But posted 100% crops does give a better data point to go off of. Still until I have it in my own hands and have the RAWs between all four combos (200-500, 500PF, 500E, 300PF/1.7TC) on my computer I won't make any final conclusions about the lens' IQ. You can use pretty much any lens and the 1200px jpeg posted on a forum will look pretty much the same. I can evaluate great vs poor images on a forum but not IQ......YMMV
Also for me, if the IQ of the 500PF wide open can match the IQ of the 200-500 @ 500/7.1 then I'm happy. The main benefits I'm looking for with the 500PF is the ability to have a much more compact/light lens than the 500E and the 200-500. And the benefit I'm looking for over my 300PF/1.7 is the ability to shoot in Auto AF mode (which is my go to mode for smaller BIF and gets shut down over f/5.6). I'm also looking for the ability to shoot at 700mm when needed in such a compact/light package.
Long-distance tests may favour the faster model as these tend to be optimized for such things (it makes some sense to optimize the smaller aperture variants for close and mid range because in such shots, the smaller aperture is not as much of a limitation - you may even want to stop down the lens to get adequate depth of field in a close-up, whereas in long-distance shots you can shoot wide open and the whole subject will still be within the depth of field).
It is unlikely that one can compare image quality in a useful way based on shots that are made by other people, since the shooting conditions are unlikely to be the same as in your own work with another lens, and so making hard conclusions between lenses is impossible without a side-by-side comparison.
I think OwlsEyes' shots of the deer clearly show the positive effect of the tripod. Subjectively I feel the 500 PF images are sharper and cleaner than those from "mid-level" lenses (such as 300 PF or 200-500), as they should be given the very high MTF of the 500 PF. However, because of the small size of the posted images, of course we cannot evaluate fine detail. That infinity results are a bit worse than 500/4 FL shouldn't be a surprise - the 300/2.8 is also sharper at long distances than the 300/4, whereas at close-ups the f/4 versions of the 300mm do very well. It would be interesting to see if the 500mm PF is better than the f/4 FL near minimum focus distance, or if the larger lens holds the edge also there.
I think that we're a long ways from getting definitive results.
That being said, I think the main advantage of this lens is the weight savings. There are also the advantages of better build, sealing and AF then a lens like the 200-500 or the 300 PF with TC's. These are all relatively minor differences so we each have to decide if they are worth it or not. I think this is a general trend in all things photography now. Mid range gear is so good now that it isn't as easy to justify spending the extra on pro level gear. Some people need it and it's a no brainer, but for a lot of us it's a tough call.
+1 on everything but
I’m not too confident in using a tc on a 5.6 lens
I’ll stay with the 500e to get 700/5.6
arbitrage wrote:
I really can't and won't evaluate IQ based on 1200px wide processed images. But posted 100% crops does give a better data point to go off of. Still until I have it in my own hands and have the RAWs between all four combos (200-500, 500PF, 500E, 300PF/1.7TC) on my computer I won't make any final conclusions about the lens' IQ. You can use pretty much any lens and the 1200px jpeg posted on a forum will look pretty much the same. I can evaluate great vs poor images on a forum but not IQ......YMMV
Also for me, if the IQ of the 500PF wide open can match the IQ of the 200-500 @ 500/7.1 then I'm happy. The main benefits I'm looking for with the 500PF is the ability to have a much more compact/light lens than the 500E and the 200-500. And the benefit I'm looking for over my 300PF/1.7 is the ability to shoot in Auto AF mode (which is my go to mode for smaller BIF and gets shut down over f/5.6). I'm also looking for the ability to shoot at 700mm when needed in such a compact/light package....Show more →
However, to save those looking to just see member produced images with this lens, I linked to one of the first posts I saw with member produced photos from this lens. I also put in a link to the first post for those wanting to read through 30+ pages of discussions before finding owner images.
Let me know if there's member produced photos before the one I found.
100% from the center of 500/4e FL vs 500PF. Both at F5.6, on tripod, delay shuttle release. Live view focus for both. Distance was 100 odd meters.
The good news is that both has the same T stop or at least close enough that on A mode, same iso, aperture, the metering in the camera chose the same shutterspeed
Left is 500/4e FL, right 500PF
Thank you for taking the time for this comparison. It's good to know what the PF lens is capable of. But it is not very fair to compare a pro lens stop down and a not-so-pro lens wide open IMHO.
100% from the center of 500/4e FL vs 500PF. Both at F5.6, on tripod, delay shuttle release. Live view focus for both. Distance was 100 odd meters.
The good news is that both has the same T stop or at least close enough that on A mode, same iso, aperture, the metering in the camera chose the same shutterspeed
Left is 500/4e FL, right 500PF
sorry but either your lens is bad or there was major operator error here. Your 500PF image is totally soft and useless
using a 3D object for sharpness test is not ideal, use a flat target such as an MTF chart or a simple bank note. if on tripod, turn VR OFF. If it is still that bad you may need to send it back to Nikon.
To be fair, since both 500/4e FL and 500PF were used less than a minute a part, any atmospheric
interference would be about the same so for the purpose of comparison, I would not worry
about atmospheric interference. If you look at absolute sharpness of a particular lens, certainly, that should be taken into account.
suggestion of using MTF chart or bank note is a bit more perplexing since this was shot at about
100m+ by my estimate.
If I have time, I will try near MFD comparison but geez, posting something like this, I feel level of hostility seems to go up higher than posting mediocre regular picture that I am not sure if it worth the effort.
I use f5.6 for both as that would keep shutter speed and iso at the same level. Granted 500/4e FL will have the advantage of stepping down but shooting it wide open will give it one stop advantage in iso or shutter speed as well so there is no way to make this a 100% equal test.
suteetat wrote:
To be fair, since both 500/4e FL and 500PF were used less than a minute a part, any atmospheric
interference would be about the same so for the purpose of comparison, I would not worry
about atmospheric interference. If you look at absolute sharpness of a particular lens, certainly, that should be taken into account.
suggestion of using MTF chart or bank note is a bit more perplexing since this was shot at about
100m+ by my estimate.
If I have time, I will try near MFD comparison but geez, posting something like this, I feel level of hostility seems to go up higher than posting mediocre regular picture that I am not sure if it worth the effort.
I use f5.6 for both as that would keep shutter speed and iso at the same level. Granted 500/4e FL will have the advantage of stepping down but shooting it wide open will give it one stop advantage in iso or shutter speed as well so there is no way to make this a 100% equal test. ...Show more →
Well, I certainly appreciate the effort. Much more valuable than folks assessing sharpness based on individual pictures taken by different people, in different conditions, with different settings and with different postprocessing skills. I also think that it is at distances (big crops) that the differences will really show, especially with high pixel density bodies.
And, you did the right thing in using the same aperture of course.
The suggestion of using charts may not be a bad idea though. And, if you had access to a 200-500, it would be cool to see the difference as well.
I thought about starting a new thread titled Nikon 500mm PF vs the world... but then figured that many have been looking here for updates and I did not want to be that guy that started... yet another thread.
Looking a suteetat's discussion and some of the comments about the 500PF being no better than the 200-500, I decided to compare the telephoto lenses I have in a more deliberate manner.
I used 3 D500 cameras, two of which have been paired to specific lenses for the last two years.
* The D500 that is paired with my wife's 200-500 has been dialed in multiple times and they have a 3 year relationship.
* The D500 paired to my 200-400 has been tuned in and they have been together for two years now.
* The D500 paired with my 500PF has not been fine tuned... they are dating, but I think they like each other.
The test... I brought a stuffed screech owl home from my classroom today. The owl has been mounted like this since 1958 (7 years longer than I've been around). It is somewhat dusty and the feathers are showing their age. Because it is dead and does not preen, you will not see the perfection of a barbed feather like you might in the wild, but hey... it's better than shooting a brick wall!
The first picture is my set up... just to show you that the cameras were lined up next to each other and shot in the same light at the same time.
I shot the owl at about 40 meters from the camera... a long way for a small owl and will present the full frame 200-500mm lens at f5.6 first followed by the 500mm PF at f5.6 (exif is shared). Pictures 3 and 4 are 100% crops with the 200-500 first followed by the 500 PF.
I then moved the tripods in to the 20 meter point... still a bit far for a small owl like this, but the type of shot we often get to take and might require a fairly heavy crop. As before, the pictures will be full frame 200-500 then 500PF. Pictures 7 and 8 are 100% crops.
For kicks I close with my 200-400 @ 400mm and f/5.6 @ 20 meters.
Final point... NO post work was done, no sharpening, no contrast, no color. I exported files from LR Classic into jpg with "standard sharpening for the web."
I sincerely hope this helps people as they consider their options.
cheers,
bruce
I meant to add a few more things...
1: All were autofocus shots taken in AFC single spot. I ripped sequences of three, moved the lens out of focus and repeated 3 times. I did this for every lens, I addition, I tried LiveView focus for the 200-500 just to be sure the AF was spot on. The picture presented was the best in a series of 15 pictures from each lens.
I'm glad I'm the only one I have to please with this lens
Well me and two cats.
Remember I've been in the Nikon world now almost 3 weeks and finally went to B/H and saw
the 500/4. Yep the PF looks really really good to my back knees ankles .....and eyes.
I meant to add a few more things...
1: All were autofocus shots taken in AFC single spot. I ripped sequences of three, moved the lens out of focus and repeated 3 times. I did this for every lens, I addition, I tried LiveView focus for the 200-500 just to be sure the AF was spot on. The picture presented was the best in a series of 15 pictures from each lens.
2: I used auto ISO and did no noise reduction.
regards,
bruce
Wow. Thanks for doing this. This is actually the kind of difference I was expecting.
In the 200-500 shot, I am recognizing the kind of ‘glow’ (or softness if you will) I sometimes get at f5.6 around the subject even at closer distance.
