I often look at other's images and the results from this lens always spectacular so, I had to buy and experience for myself! looking forward to its arrival!
Nikon 500mm f/5.6 vs Nikon 200-500mm f/5.6? Prices are so different and some people would pick the 200-500mm. I do have the 200-500mm and the 300mm f/4 PF and use the 300mm more than the Monster because I will be 80 years old in January 2021.
I used to own the 200-500 as well. It's a great lens! 300mm pf, 500mm pf, 200-500 - I think they're all great options. It's not like any of them are subpar but I just love shooting primes at these focal lengths. With the 200-500, I was shooting at 500mm 95 percent of the time anyway, and it IS a beast!
Totally agree. First time I tried this on my entry level D 5600 and saw what was attainable I made the plunge. Now I use the same lens with a D500 and couldn’t be happier 🙂
Yes and no, the AF really takes a hit, especially in low light or if you need focus points that are not near the center. Or if you don't have a D500, D850, D5 or D6, the older AF systems don't do very well at f/8, with exception to maybe the D4s. Image quality is excellent with the TC-14E III and if you have enough light and the subject is not moving fast or is stationary the results can be great. However in lower light or for fast moving birds it's not great. This one of the reasons the f/4 version is so much more money. Especially the 500FL, which takes the TC-14E III amazingly well, it's like its not even on there. I personally have the 500mm f/4E VR FL and use the TC-14E III all of the time. I tried my friends 500pf in order to see if it was feasible for me to add one or even switch to one, but I was not sold. If I had an 800FL or 600FL, I would happily and quickly buy the 500pf as a walk around or hiking lens. But for me the 500FL is a walk around lens and I can carry it and handhold it for hours. Obviously not all at once or for hours at a time, but I can throw in on my monopod or carry it on my shoulder and bring it up to shoot easily. I've been using the much heavier 400mm f/2.8G VR or 600mm f/4G VR lenses, so the 6.6lbs 500FL is very lightweight to me and I can carry it for a long time. What I can't live with is the f/5.6 in low light or the poor AF performance with teleconverters. I would personally rather have a used 500mm f/4G VR, which is around the exact same price as a new 500pf, especially when taxes are applied. To me the cost difference was worth it, but not everyone can afford the 500FL and the 500pf is a great lens. It does better than the 200-500mm with the TC-14E III attached or without it AF wise, the 500pf is a fast focusing lens. However once the TC-14E III is attached AF performance takes a hit, and it really hunts unless you use the center few AF points.
I cannot say, exactly but I am a believer that as cameras continue to trend toward higher resolution, larger frames, it might be best to stick with full frame options that allow for cropping, vs crop sensor models. This is not to say that crop sensor cameras are a bad option. Many of them are fantastic but I just prefer the largest frame my money can afford!
Hi David, I to just love this 500mm PF, its one of my favourite lenses. I have had my lens about a year now. One thing I am still using a D850 and am now thinking of the new Z7ii How are you finding it with your Z camera? Thanks
@@davidcarr867 awesome to hear thank you will take a look cheers do u use instagram and thanks for the info thats my dream lens i ahve a nikon z7 with 24-200 im not a pro but a very passionate severely sight impaired/blind photographer
Mr. Carr, I have not seen one review about this lens in low light. I’m thinking high school football, unfortunately the pandemic has shut some programs down in certain states. But some are driving on. My friend has a Canon 300mm and 2.0 converter and got great football pictures in Indiana. This lens should compete with that shouldn’t it? Nice review by the way.
Thanks for the compliment! As for low light, it's only going to be as good as f/5.6 and whatever the high ISO performance of your camera offers. I just figure that the next comparable prime lens option for more light at 500mm is the f/4 and the $7000 extra you pay for that stop. So far, low light capability hasn't been a concern for me.
Its a great lens and probably the best Wildlife and Outdoor Solution for 35mm out there but i cannot help myself you sound like a brand new m4/3 user ;)
Nice video but the images look very soft, like they were taken with a MF 3rd party lens. I have a 500 PF and I the images looks 50x sharper than shown.
Honest opinion... I did not like a single sample photo. All of them were shaky and blurred. Either it's the lens or you're not up to the task; I suspect it's not the lens that's at fault. Conclusion: this review did more harm to the lens.
