technic wrote: OwlsEyes wrote: jhinkey wrote:
I'd prefer a 400/5.6 or a 500/4, but I'll take a 500/5.6 as long as it's optically stellar wide open as f/5.6 at 500mm is getting a bit slow . . .
Just curious... why is a 400mm f/5.6 considered fast enough for you, but a 500mm f/5.6 is too slow? At 500mm, the increased magnification will provide better isolation and the relatively slow aperture should, in theory, have a more pleasing bokeh than a 400mm f/5.6 lens.
The current 500mm f/4 FLE is too expensive for most, even serious, photographers. Forced to settle for last years models because of financial constraints, this lens might be just affordable enough for those willing to spend $4000 or so on a top performing optic... that, of course, presumes that the lens does not underperform.
cheers,
bruce
The 4/500 is too much of a burden for many, both in price and maybe even more so in weight/size. The loss of one stop can be easily forgiven for many subjects, as long as the lens has excellent AF and is sharp wide open. It's high on my list together with the 300PF, just waiting to see if one of the new mirrorless FF bodies is a better platform for me than a DSLR like D500.
I am not sure that you read my response to jhinkey, as what your wrote pretty much restates the point that I was making. I shoot a 200-400mm f/4 regularly... this lens is big and poorly balanced. It can be shot hand-held for a short periods of time, but is not practical for long-term hand held use... especially on unstable platforms like kayaks, canoes, zodiacs, etc... Like you, I would pair a 500mm f/5.6 w/ a 300mm PF or a 70-200FLE w/ 1.4x... this smaller kit can be carried long distances and should allow for more photographic opportunities whenever tripod use is not practical.
cheers,
bruce
Aug 07, 2018 at 10:31 AM
Previous versions of OwlsEyes's message #14553203 « "Official" Nikon 500 f/5.6E PF Discussion and Image Thread »
