Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 500mm f/5.6E PF ED VR Lens !!

MatthewK wrote in post #18872065
PF has arrived, and it’s every bit as small as they say. It makes you chuckle when first unboxing it bc of how tiny it is

Here it is next to the 1DX2 + 600 III, and 80D + 100-400 II (at its smallest FL, 100mm):

Hosted photo: posted by MatthewK in
./showthread.php?p=188​72065&i=i197589611
forum: Nikon Lenses

I’m on kid duty today, so won’t get to take it out on a test run.. it’s so perfect outside too, 75F, no humidity, slight breeze, sunny So, I’m spending the time (while daughter naps) tackling the absolutely backwards Nikon menu system and button layout.

Wow, thank you for this image. I mean, I knew, but putting it right next to something as familiar as the 100-400mm and seeing how similar they are in size, is very helpful.

MatthewK wrote in post #18872065
PF has arrived, and it’s every bit as small as they say. It makes you chuckle when first unboxing it bc of how tiny it is

Here it is next to the 1DX2 + 600 III, and 80D + 100-400 II (at its smallest FL, 100mm):

Hosted photo: posted by MatthewK in
./showthread.php?p=188​72065&i=i197589611
forum: Nikon Lenses

I’m on kid duty today, so won’t get to take it out on a test run.. it’s so perfect outside too, 75F, no humidity, slight breeze, sunny So, I’m spending the time (while daughter naps) tackling the absolutely backwards Nikon menu system and button layout.

Great comparison shot! Really shows the merit of the PF to me.
Ooops. Just noticed you've already donned coats for the other two lenses.

MatthewK wrote in post #18872439
Thanks, Phil, I've really appreciated your advice and insights! There is so much of the Nikon menu system that is just Greek to me, but I was able to get things setup how I want. My back button focus muscle memory needs to readjust to where Nikon has it positioned, but that shouldn't take too long. Today I learned that you can assign thigns to the lens function buttons, hopefully this can be done on the D500, so I'm excited to get home and see what I can do with it!

I've always loved the size and weight of the 100-400 II for birding, but the reach and aperture wasn't enough. I love the reach of the 600 III + 1.4x, but the weight/bulk is prohibitive at times. This 500pf is perfectly between these two solutions. Most of my morning has been spent marvelling over the new combo, and asking myself if it's possible that I could part ways with the 600, 1DX2, 80D and 100-400 II? *gasp* It's going to come down to how I get along with less reach and aperture, and the high ISO performance. Sure, there'll be times when only the 600 f/4 can get the shots, but I rarely shoot at 600mm and f/4, as I'm usually at 840mm f/5.6. If I can get along being at ~750mm f/5.6, I think I could stand to part with the big gear.

In regards to your Post Script notes:

VR Sport mode: I remember you telling me this, so it was one of the first settings I changed

AF Point Spot metering + bright whites: there's regular Spot, and then a Spot*, which the owners manual states has something to do with preserving highlights while shooting brightly lit subjects. I've read that normal Spot metering is the way to go though, is that your experience? (this really is the feature that Canon has screwed us over with by only giving it to the 1-series. I only found this out after shooting with the 1DX2, but I very rarely miss shots due to under/over exposure anymore, whereas every Canon body before this was a crap shoot)

Hejnar foot: I'm deciding between this and the Wimberley. I love Wimberley feet for hand held shooting, they're very smooth, and in this case their foot is lighter weight and sits closer to the body than the Hejnar. The Hejnar has the advantage of being a bit longer, which gives more hand holding space.

Everything Phil said plus consider a LensCoat. You'll be taking the PF places you'd most likely never want to take your 600.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2bD1​LGG

MatthewK wrote in post #18872170
Here's a shot of that Cardinal, which I've edited. Got to see the higher ISO performance, and just how well the noise can be handled in post. It's very nice, though obviously nowhere near as good as the full frame sensors. This is where having the 1DX2 and 600 f/4 will pay off, and I regularly encounter the sort of conditions where the ISO is jumping up into the stratosphere.

Hosted photo: posted by MatthewK in
./showthread.php?p=188​72170&i=i88555401
forum: Nikon Lenses

Abs. beautiful Cardinal. Just such a great setting.

rndman wrote in post #18872725
I believe you had 400mm DO II at some point. Would the 400 DO II + 1.4xTC be in the same ball park? (Cost of 400 DO II may be wee bit higher than D500 + 500mm PF)
Why I ask is switching to a different system is almost like converting to a (different) religion.

The 400DOii is a problem for me.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/QzkF​nK

MedicineMan4040 wrote in post #18872829
The 400DOii is a problem for me.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/QzkF​nK All wings down by MedicineMan4040, on Flickr

I'm emotionally attached to it, though I really don't need it anymore. It's my last connection to Canon
You could crunch numbers.....Nikkor 500PF at 5.6 vs. 400DOii+1.4TCiii at 5.6 eh but practicality for me is BIF is at minimum F8. Maybe that's just a me thing.
You could say the 400DOii at F4 is twice the light acquisition of the 5.6 Nikkor, it is a full stop difference isn't it? But for most of my use the DOF of F4 or F5.6
isn't enough.
Background separation rules for our desire of creamy luscious bokeh but given more bierd in focus I'd prefer to 'work' the background in post. Again probably just me.
As ground breaking as the DOii was in my photography (it still has the highest count in my BIF album) the 500PF is just way way more convenient, and less painful.
I predicted on FM's Nikon forum that in short order way more keepers will be had with the PF just because of its ease of use.

So why do I keep the 400DOii. A question I ask myself every now and then.
For a while I was thinking/hoping Canon may issue a 7Diii that is top drawer....now I here rumors of Canon 90D.
My true feel 'good in the water' is with Sony; I've just been with them the longest. I probably should just embrace that
and get down to one system and hope the Title Fairy re-visits me

Thanks and all are good points. But I still not finding a highly convincing argument myself to switch to entire different system based on one lens, especially when 400mm DO II will do everything you said above.
BTW, I was thinking of 400mm DO II or similar as 100-400 falls short at times and hence have all these questions. Keep thinking about 600 III as well, but the bulk is preventing me.
So please pardon me. I don't mean to offend anyone with these questions.

MedicineMan4040 wrote in post #18872818
Great comparison shot! Really shows the merit of the PF to me.
Ooops. Just noticed you've already donned coats for the other two lenses.

Lens Coat is incoming! I'm trying to decide if I want to go with the green woodland coat (like on the 600), or the standard RealTree Max5 (like on the 100-400).

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #18872743
Wow, thank you for this image. I mean, I knew, but putting it right next to something as familiar as the 100-400mm and seeing how similar they are in size, is very helpful.

I should take a shot w/ the 100-400 extended to 400mm, which at that point the 500pf would be shorter in length. Another noticeable difference is the small diameter of the pf, especially around the mount area, which makes it really easy to handle (I can almost touch fingers when holding it).

rndman wrote in post #18872725
I believe you had 400mm DO II at some point. Would the 400 DO II + 1.4xTC be in the same ball park? (Cost of 400 DO II may be wee bit higher than D500 + 500mm PF)
Why I ask is switching to a different system is almost like converting to a (different) religion.

From what I remember, the DO II was quite a bit heavier, but also almost perfectly balanced. The cost is a ton higher too, almost double (if buying new). Canon puts a premium on anything beyond 400mm and f/4. I definitely loved that lens, and always said I'd own it again one day if Canon upped their APSC game.

rndman wrote in post #18872878
Thanks and all are good points. But I still not finding a highly convincing argument myself to switch to entire different system based on one lens, especially when 400mm DO II will do everything you said above.
BTW, I was thinking of 400mm DO II or similar as 100-400 falls short at times and hence have all these questions. Keep thinking about 600 III as well, but the bulk is preventing me.
So please pardon me. I don't mean to offend anyone with these questions.

Very valid points, and in no way are you offending anyone, friend We're in the same boat, in that the 100-400, while awesome, doesn't quite get there for shooting small birds in less than ideal lighting. The DO II can get you further because you can use the 2x, but then you're permanently using extenders and still at f/8.

I'd actually take a look at the 400 f/2.8 III... forum user RobAmy has shown that it takes extenders with minimal IQ or AF penalty, even the 2x. So, you'd be at 800mm f/5.6, but also have a 560mm f/4. It's still kind of heavy, but it's a lot smaller than the 600III.

MatthewK wrote in post #18872880
Very valid points, and in no way are you offending anyone, friend We're in the same boat, in that the 100-400, while awesome, doesn't quite get there for shooting birds small birds in less than ideal lighting. The DO II can get you further because you can use the 2x, but then you're permanently using extenders and still at f/8.

I'd actually take a look at the 400 f/2.8 III... forum user RobAmy has shown that it takes extenders with minimal IQ or AF penalty, even the 2x. So, you'd be at 800mm f/5.6, but also have a 560mm f/4. It's still kind of heavy, but it's a lot smaller than the 600III.

I spent 4 days with a Hungarian in Panama who used a 400/2.8. He was constantly tripod or monopod bound
Got great shots though

MedicineMan4040 wrote in post #18873139
I spent 4 days with a Hungarian in Panama who used a 400/2.8. He was constantly tripod or monopod bound
Got great shots though

The 400mm f/2.8 III is almost exactly twice the weight of the 500mm PF (6.2 vs 3.2lbs). Just lift two of your 500pfs at once, and you'll get an idea of what it feels like

Did my first real outing with the new setup (D500 + 500pf) at my favorite birding spot. Being as it's the first time actually using the camera, at this point I can only give initial impressions and a brief highlight between it and my regular birding rig that I've been using for the past few months (1DX2 + 600III). Didn't do any side-by-side shooting, one because I wanted to dedicated the time to the Nikon, and two, it was too blazing hot to carry around 15 lbs of camera gear across my shoulders.

Obvious things out of the way, the weight and bulk of the D500 + 500pf compared to the 1DX2 + 600III is not even comparable, a different dimension in time and space, really. This Nikon lens is just perfect size and weight, handholding it is a dream. The smooth, small diameter barrel is a joy. After a few hours of shooting in 90 degree heat, I came away with no fatigue whatsoever. Naturally, most any camera/lens combo is obviously going to be lighter than what I've been using, so I can't really count this as a negative or a positive against either setup, but after a few years of heavy rigs, this was a nice change.

AF speed and agility: the lens AF's super fast, probably just as nimble as my 600III + 1.4TC. No issues with hunting whatsoever. This is more a comparison between the camera bodies themselves, and seeing that I'm comparing Canon's best to a Nikon APSC body that's almost a 1/4 of the price, I have to say the D500 is a beast. I shot mostly in single point AF-C (AI-Servo). My main takeaway was that the 1-series just had a more urgent, direct feel to the AF when it was grabbing a target; the D500 feels the same, though just a smidge "looser" in aquisition. With the 1DX2 you can feel when the AF locks on target like a clamp, the D500 is not quite as tactile, if that makes any sense. The good thing is, neither camera misses too often...

Where the D500 completely rocks though: Auto-AF and tracking. Wow. It just magically nails and maintains focus. Complete revelation, I can see what people have been raving about. Canon has Single Point perfected, but they can't touch Nikon in this area.

IQ: amazingly sharp results, with great fine-feather detail. There's a lusciosness and pop to the Nikon photos that the Canon doesn't quite achieve, and I think this is partly due to the lack of AA filter because pics from the Canon can be made similar in post. Getting it right in camera is best though, and this advantage for the Nikon cannot be ignored. But there's a catch...

High ISO noise and IQ... this is where I'm seeing the 1DX2 stomp on the APS-C D500, which I expected. Somewhere b/w ISO 3200 and 6400, the Nikon loses that punchy dimensionality and starts looking more flat, while the Canon just trucks along. I've easily used shots from the 1DX2 at ISO 25600 without hesitation. This is what you expect on an f/5.6 + crop camera setup, and this is the area that is most going to determine which setup I use.

Overall, I completely loved using this camera and the 500pf. I'm happy with the photos, I'm happy with the weight, what more can be said? For the forseeable future, I'll be shooting both setups in tandem.

Photo from MatthewK's gallery.
Image hosted by forum (981427)

Photo from MatthewK's gallery.
Image hosted by forum (981428)

Photo from MatthewK's gallery.
Image hosted by forum (981433)

Photo from MatthewK's gallery.
Image hosted by forum (981434)

MatthewK wrote in post #18873901
Did my first real outing with the new setup (D500 + 500pf) at my favorite birding spot. Being as it's the first time actually using the camera, at this point I can only give initial impressions and a brief highlight between it and my regular birding rig that I've been using for the past few months (1DX2 + 600III). Didn't do any side-by-side shooting, one because I wanted to dedicated the time to the Nikon, and two, it was too blazing hot to carry around 15 lbs of camera gear across my shoulders.

Obvious things out of the way, the weight and bulk of the D500 + 500pf compared to the 1DX2 + 600III is not even comparable, a different dimension in time and space, really. This Nikon lens is just perfect size and weight, handholding it is a dream. The smooth, small diameter barrel is a joy. After a few hours of shooting in 90 degree heat, I came away with no fatigue whatsoever. Naturally, most any camera/lens combo is obviously going to be lighter than what I've been using, so I can't really count this as a negative or a positive against either setup, but after a few years of heavy rigs, this was a nice change.

AF speed and agility: the lens AF's super fast, probably just as nimble as my 600III + 1.4TC. No issues with hunting whatsoever. This is more a comparison between the camera bodies themselves, and seeing that I'm comparing Canon's best to a Nikon APSC body that's almost a 1/4 of the price, I have to say the D500 is a beast. I shot mostly in single point AF-C (AI-Servo). My main takeaway was that the 1-series just had a more urgent, direct feel to the AF when it was grabbing a target; the D500 feels the same, though just a smidge "looser" in aquisition. With the 1DX2 you can feel when the AF locks on target like a clamp, the D500 is not quite as tactile, if that makes any sense. The good thing is, neither camera misses too often...

Where the D500 completely rocks though: Auto-AF and tracking. Wow. It just magically nails and maintains focus. Complete revelation, I can see what people have been raving about. Canon has Single Point perfected, but they can't touch Nikon in this area.

IQ: amazingly sharp results, with great fine-feather detail. There's a lusciosness and pop to the Nikon photos that the Canon doesn't quite achieve, and I think this is partly due to the lack of AA filter because pics from the Canon can be made similar in post. Getting it right in camera is best though, and this advantage for the Nikon cannot be ignored. But there's a catch...

High ISO noise and IQ... this is where I'm seeing the 1DX2 stomp on the APS-C D500, which I expected. Somewhere b/w ISO 3200 and 6400, the Nikon loses that punchy dimensionality and starts looking more flat, while the Canon just trucks along. I've easily used shots from the 1DX2 at ISO 25600 without hesitation. This is what you expect on an f/5.6 + crop camera setup, and this is the area that is most going to determine which setup I use.

Overall, I completely loved using this camera and the 500pf. I'm happy with the photos, I'm happy with the weight, what more can be said? For the forseeable future, I'll be shooting both setups in tandem.

Excellent summary, Matt. Thank you for sharing this.

I am in 100% agreement with everything you said. My 1DxII + 600F4 experience was with the VII lens, which was even heavier than the VIII - as I understand it.

I am so glad that you were able to experience what I have been trying to put into words since I bought our 1st D500 (for wifey). It's really difficult to explain what I refer to as Focus Lock, Retention, & Tracking until you actually experience it 1st hand. So glad your experience is similar to mine.

I am also in complete agreement with the 1DxII high ISO point. Until I had the 1DxII, I had no idea any camera body could achieve such results. It is truly amazing. This is like reverse of the Focus Tracking scenario. A Nikon (or non-1DxII) shooter will never be able understand / appreciate just how crazy good high ISO "can" be. Ya just gotta experience it 1st hand.

One thing you didn't mention, was shutter sound comparison. Notice any difference there?

If you decide you'd like to try out the AFMA (AF Fine Tune in Nikon speak), don't be shocked when you find that the Nikon offering has only one setting per lens - not a long & short (for zoom) in like Canon does. The bodies have an "Auto AF Fine tune" mode that supposedly tests & finds a setting for you, but I have not tried it. I did fine tune my first few lenses, but I have not with the 500PF's yet, as they are quite nice right out'a the box.

Enjoy & keep up the good work!

EyeSpyEagle wrote in post #18873929
Excellent summary, Matt. Thank you for sharing this.

I am in 100% agreement with everything you said. My 1DxII + 600F4 experience was with the VII lens, which was even heavier than the VIII - as I understand it.

I am so glad that you were able to experience what I have been trying to put into words since I bought our 1st D500 (for wifey). It's really difficult to explain what I refer to as Focus Lock, Retention, & Tracking until you actually experience it 1st hand. So glad your experience is similar to mine.

I am also in complete agreement with the 1DxII high ISO point. Until I had the 1DxII, I had no idea any camera body could achieve such results. It is truly amazing. This is like reverse of the Focus Tracking scenario. A Nikon (or non-1DxII) shooter will never be able understand / appreciate just how crazy good high ISO "can" be. Ya just gotta experience it 1st hand.

One thing you didn't mention, was shutter sound comparison. Notice any difference there?

If you decide you'd like to try out the AFMA (AF Fine Tune in Nikon speak), don't be shocked when you find that the Nikon offering has only one setting per lens - not a long & short (for zoom) in like Canon does. The bodies have an "Auto AF Fine tune" mode that supposedly tests & finds a setting for you, but I have not tried it. I did fine tune my first few lenses, but I have not with the 500PF's yet, as they are quite nice right out'a the box.

Enjoy & keep up the good work!

I love the shutter sound on the D500, in all of its mechanical goodness. You were 100% spot on, in that it's fast, but dampened in some way that makes it less irritating to the birds. Just overall, with the more quiet shutter and smaller lens, I felt a lot less conspicuous out there With the shorter 500pf, there's less of a huge flash of movement when bringing it up to my eye, so it may not be as noticeable.

AF Fine Tune... luckily, it seems as though the combo is hitting exactly where I want it, so I (thankfully) don't have to mess with it. Having the EOS R and not having to do AFMA is a huge monkey off my back. I am curious about the Nikon's auto tuning though!

I used the Auto AF mode and tried to get some BIF shots (I'm by no means a BIF shooter), and it just blew me away with how perfectly it acquired and nailed focus. The 1DX2 can hit these shots, but it's.. different. I think it has to do with the AF point spread, as I felt like the bird would get lost momentarily or hesitate between points on the 1DX2, whereas the D500 just confidentally locked on. This is Nikons best AF system, so it should compare favorably above its pricepoint, and it most certainly does.

That leads me to my initial conclusion about this whole exodus from Canon to Nikon/Sony because of the AF: it's not a reason to switch, both can easily do the job. What is a reason to switch though: this 500mm PF lens. It's a game changer. And having a top level body like this D500 to mount it on is huge because you aren't needing to invest $6000 on a D5 to get amazing AF and performance. For the price of a 1DX2, you get this D500 and 500PF (if you can find one). It has me thinking of going with the Nikon gear just to be able to put a TON of extra money back in the bank... but the 600 III is sooooo good though. Ugh, I hate these kinds of decisions.

MatthewK wrote in post #18873951
...it just blew me away with how perfectly it acquired and nailed focus. The 1DX2 can hit these shots, but it's.. different. I think it has to do with the AF point spread, as I felt like the bird would get lost momentarily or hesitate between points on the 1DX2, whereas the D500 just confidentally locked on. This is Nikons best AF system, so it should compare favorably above its pricepoint, and it most certainly does.

I certainly don't know "why" it works like it does, but it's hard not to love.

Someone far smarter than I, suggested that it has to do with their algorithms & coding.

I've never shot a D5, "but" I've heard (my buddy has one & D850 too, but most often uses his D500's) it is even stronger in the AF department and is superior in the ISO arena as well, although I am hard pressed to imagine it could be better than the 1DxII in ISO performance. BUT, it's another $6k body, and with the D500 working as well for me as it does - I'm good with what I have.

EyeSpyEagle wrote in post #18874065
I certainly don't know "why" it works like it does, but it's hard not to love.

Someone far smarter than I, suggested that it has to do with their algorithms & coding.

I've never shot a D5, "but" I've heard (my buddy has one & D850 too, but most often uses his D500's) it is even stronger in the AF department and is superior in the ISO arena as well, although I am hard pressed to imagine it could be better than the 1DxII in ISO performance. BUT, it's another $6k body, and with the D500 working as well for me as it does - I'm good with what I have.

Yeah, the D500 is perfectly paired with this 500pf, and the D850 would be just as nice thanks to its cropability, but 500mm on a FF sensor like the D5 (and 1DX2) would be just a little short for birding for me. If Nikon released a reduced weight 600 f/4, I’d be a D5 shooter today