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

EyeSpyEagle wrote in post #18933130
Lol! Perfect buddy!

Hope your travels have been safe & fun.

We’re smack dab in the middle of our planned trips. Heading back soon to meet my new nephew in Wisconsin, and then going to Hong Kong in November. It’s crazy, especially with a 1 year old who’s teething!

I’ve been birding the migration, whenever I can find a sliver of time, and the D500PF hasn’t let me down. Even for Warblers, it’s coming up aces, with more than enough reach for how I shoot. Still have the 600 sitting around, and have been tempted by the 90D, but seeing as how the Nikon kit has delivered, thats getting tough to justify!

How have you all been?

MatthewK wrote in post #18933184
We’re smack dab in the middle of our planned trips. Heading back soon to meet my new nephew in Wisconsin, and then going to Hong Kong in November. It’s crazy, especially with a 1 year old who’s teething!

I’ve been birding the migration, whenever I can find a sliver of time, and the D500PF hasn’t let me down. Even for Warblers, it’s coming up aces, with more than enough reach for how I shoot. Still have the 600 sitting around, and have been tempted by the 90D, but seeing as how the Nikon kit has delivered, thats getting tough to justify!

How have you all been?


[ HOSTED PHOTO DISPLAY FAILED: ATTACH id 1001195 has been deleted. ]


[ HOSTED PHOTO DISPLAY FAILED: ATTACH id 1001196 has been deleted. ]

Those are two beauties for sure!

Not much new here... Still mid to upper 90's & bone dry in TX. looks like we may finally begin to cool down at the end of next week.

Birding has been pretty slow in my neck-o-the-woods.

We've had quite a few hummers coming through, which is nice. I've see a couple American Kestrel too, so that's a good sign. I read last night that approx. 2500 whit pelicans arrived yesterday at a wildlife reserve about 60 miles north of town, so that's another good sign. Actually, it's good for a less obvious reason. The recent monster hail storm in Montana that killed thousands of pelicans that come here for winter seriously threatened the migration population.

Safe travels Matt!

EyeSpyEagle wrote in post #18933189
Those are two beauties for sure!

Not much new here... Still mid to upper 90's & bone dry in TX. looks like we may finally begin to cool down at the end of next week.

Birding has been pretty slow in my neck-o-the-woods.

We've had quite a few hummers coming through, which is nice. I've see a couple American Kestrel too, so that's a good sign. I read last night that approx. 2500 whit pelicans arrived yesterday at a wildlife reserve about 60 miles north of town, so that's another good sign. Actually, it's good for a less obvious reason. The recent monster hail storm in Montana that killed thousands of pelicans that come here for winter seriously threatened the migration population.

Safe travels Matt!

We're heading into the best time of the year, hope you get a reprieve from that heat soon. Is the Spring more active for you all, or do you get some good Fall activity as well?

Didn't hear about that hail storm, going to look that up and do some reading. Those are some horrendous losses

MatthewK wrote in post #18933455
We're heading into the best time of the year, hope you get a reprieve from that heat soon. Is the Spring more active for you all, or do you get some good Fall activity as well?

Didn't hear about that hail storm, going to look that up and do some reading. Those are some horrendous losses

Both fall & spring are typically pleasant and offer additional birding opportunities in our area. The migrant population increases significantly here, as you get closer to the TX coast.

Here's one report of the Montana hail storm. Sad... :-/

https://www.cnn.com …illed-scn-trnd/index.html

MatthewK wrote in post #18933184
We’re smack dab in the middle of our planned trips. Heading back soon to meet my new nephew in Wisconsin, and then going to Hong Kong in November. It’s crazy, especially with a 1 year old who’s teething!

I’ve been birding the migration, whenever I can find a sliver of time, and the D500PF hasn’t let me down. Even for Warblers, it’s coming up aces, with more than enough reach for how I shoot. Still have the 600 sitting around, and have been tempted by the 90D, but seeing as how the Nikon kit has delivered, thats getting tough to justify!

How have you all been?

Hosted photo: posted by MatthewK in
./showthread.php?p=189​33184&i=i27196792
forum: Nikon Lenses

Hosted photo: posted by MatthewK in
./showthread.php?p=189​33184&i=i62263288
forum: Nikon Lenses

Perfect. Both.

We're just really getting back from the trip.
Sadly no Nikon went.

Already cool here in east TN. Mornings in the 50s. But afternoons big swings to the mid 80s.
Leaves already starting to fall.

From the backyard pond.

I've still got a couple of EOS lenses and did look at the 90D. The buffer was an instant turn off. I'm not as fanatical as most with 2 card slots. In fact on the Sonys I shoot in overflow mode for storage but I do like having two cards, so another turn off.

What I wish Nikon would do is give me a mirrorless that the 500PF would work without an adapter. Never going to happen and I realize that
What I wish Sony would do is give me a 500/4 that weighs 4.5 pounds.
I've got no wishes for Canon.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2hmm​K1a

MedicineMan4040 wrote in post #18932195
Spectacular all Daniel.

Thanks!

Yesterday's visitor

MedicineMan4040 wrote in post #18933837
We're just really getting back from the trip.
Sadly no Nikon went.

Already cool here in east TN. Mornings in the 50s. But afternoons big swings to the mid 80s.
Leaves already starting to fall.

From the backyard pond.

I've still got a couple of EOS lenses and did look at the 90D. The buffer was an instant turn off. I'm not as fanatical as most with 2 card slots. In fact on the Sonys I shoot in overflow mode for storage but I do like having two cards, so another turn off.

What I wish Nikon would do is give me a mirrorless that the 500PF would work without an adapter. Never going to happen and I realize that
What I wish Sony would do is give me a 500/4 that weighs 4.5 pounds.
I've got no wishes for Canon.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2hmm​K1a Backyard pond by MedicineMan4040, on Flickr

Seems like each brand has that perfect piece of gear, but falls short of having the perfect system, right? Canon could single handedly crush it if they released a 500 f/4 DO that has the similar ratio of weight reduction as the 400/600IIIs. That lens on the 90D would be perfect.

Simply the best time of the year to be outside, isn't it? I'm stuck inside most days taking care of my daugher, and it crushes me to look out my back window and see the gorgeous light, the changing leaves, knowing I can't get out. I grew up being outside, and I'm not handling this confinement very well

MedicineMan4040 wrote in post #18934113
Yesterday's visitor

Fetching shot of this Cardinal. 3D-esque!

After several months of intensive self introspection, along with a substantial increase in my shooting enjoyment and over-the-moon happiness with my results, I've decided that me and the 500PF are meant to be. I've been hanging onto my 600mm f/4 lens with the thought that I'd eventually pass through the usual honeymoon phase and come to see the obvious superiority of the king f/4 lens, but in all honesty I think I'm a better, more effective photographer with this 500PF. It shouldn't be this way: this lens makes my bird photography easier, and I like my shots better, but that just can't be true! The 600 f/4 is a $13k lens and it weighs double, so it has to be better, right?! More background blur = better, that's common knowledge!

This shot of a migrant Northern Parula (and most other Passerines) require a ton of patience, luck, and the ability to hold a stress pose that entails being completely still while holding the camera/lens up in the shooting position while looking upwards. You best believe that the 1DX2 + 600 f/4 + 1.4x TC would have smoked my arms within a few minutes, and the need to rest would have resulted in a large movement that scared this Parula off. With the D500 + 500PF, I was a motionless, marble statue, and was able to get this shot, plus shots of numerous other species without moving out of position. NO way I would have done that with my 600 setup unless I was using a tripod. Even from my super-stable sitting position, the 600 would have fatigued me in short order.

Is the lesser background blur a big deal? Yes and no.... if you put yourself in a position to where your shot isn't ideal for pleasing background separation, you're asking for trouble. So, my goal is to get better at better composing photos. It's a lot more challenging, sure, but I'm loving it. If I bin a shot because the background blur stinks, not too often would the same shot be salvageable even with a 600 f/4.

What about sharpness and detail? Nope. I'm 100% loving this Nikon setup more than any Canon I've ever shot. End of story. I'm finding the D500 sensor is an absolute gem when it comes to noise control and cleanup. And for sharpness... the 500PF is a laser scalpel.

How about absolute reach? For how I shoot, I'm comfortable in the 750-850mm FOV. I don't take super sniper pot shots at birds, I like to be within ~20 feet, sometimes closer, and the 600 actually starts to get unwieldy, whereas the lighter 500PF and it's wider field of view + shorter MFD give me a more comfortable envelope to get the closer, more detailed shots. If I need to reach out and touch something in a pinch, I have the 1.4TC, though I rarely use it. Again, I want to be in close, too much reach can be a detriment.

In the end, I think I've just come to the realization that often times that extra "nth %" of performance doesn't actually translate into better photos, and allowing myself to be OK with that has been a great learning experience. Bonus is that I get to recoup some money when it sells

Oh, here's the Northern Parula:

MatthewK wrote in post #18934441
After several months of intensive self introspection, along with a substantial increase in my shooting enjoyment and over-the-moon happiness with my results, I've decided that me and the 500PF are meant to be. I've been hanging onto my 600mm f/4 lens with the thought that I'd eventually pass through the usual honeymoon phase and come to see the obvious superiority of the king f/4 lens, but in all honesty I think I'm a better, more effective photographer with this 500PF. It shouldn't be this way: this lens makes my bird photography easier, and I like my shots better, but that just can't be true! The 600 f/4 is a $13k lens and it weighs double, so it has to be better, right?! More background blur = better, that's common knowledge!

This shot of a migrant Northern Parula (and most other Passerines) require a ton of patience, luck, and the ability to hold a stress pose that entails being completely still while holding the camera/lens up in the shooting position while looking upwards. You best believe that the 1DX2 + 600 f/4 + 1.4x TC would have smoked my arms within a few minutes, and the need to rest would have resulted in a large movement that scared this Parula off. With the D500 + 500PF, I was a motionless, marble statue, and was able to get this shot, plus shots of numerous other species without moving out of position. NO way I would have done that with my 600 setup unless I was using a tripod. Even from my super-stable sitting position, the 600 would have fatigued me in short order.

Is the lesser background blur a big deal? Yes and no.... if you put yourself in a position to where your shot isn't ideal for pleasing background separation, you're asking for trouble. So, my goal is to get better at better composing photos. It's a lot more challenging, sure, but I'm loving it. If I bin a shot because the background blur stinks, not too often would the same shot be salvageable even with a 600 f/4.

What about sharpness and detail? Nope. I'm 100% loving this Nikon setup more than any Canon I've ever shot. End of story. I'm finding the D500 sensor is an absolute gem when it comes to noise control and cleanup. And for sharpness... the 500PF is a laser scalpel.

How about absolute reach? For how I shoot, I'm comfortable in the 750-850mm FOV. I don't take super sniper pot shots at birds, I like to be within ~20 feet, sometimes closer, and the 600 actually starts to get unwieldy, whereas the lighter 500PF and it's wider field of view + shorter MFD give me a more comfortable envelope to get the closer, more detailed shots. If I need to reach out and touch something in a pinch, I have the 1.4TC, though I rarely use it. Again, I want to be in close, too much reach can be a detriment.

In the end, I think I've just come to the realization that often times that extra "nth %" of performance doesn't actually translate into better photos, and allowing myself to be OK with that has been a great learning experience. Bonus is that I get to recoup some money when it sells

Oh, here's the Northern Parula:

Hosted photo: posted by MatthewK in
./showthread.php?p=189​34441&i=i224207658
forum: Nikon Lenses

Easily one of the most useful posts I've read on POTN.

Ease of use vs. reach/on paper is so true!!!

I've often thought about attempting to handhold a 500 F4 or 600 F4 as long as I can the 100-400 II, $1800 vs $5-$13k, is that 5-15% better results? What's more enjoyable?

I believe this speaks volumes as I just do not see many out in the field with the giant white lenses enjoying themselves while being hooked to a tripod the entire time.

So far I've simply learned how to get closer, and as mentioned above, the ability to stand motionless and wait for the moment would not be possible with a longer/heavier lens.

markesc wrote in post #18934687
Easily one of the most useful posts I've read on POTN.

Ease of use vs. reach/on paper is so true!!!

I've often thought about attempting to handhold a 500 F4 or 600 F4 as long as I can the 100-400 II, $1800 vs $5-$13k, is that 5-15% better results? What's more enjoyable?

I believe this speaks volumes as I just do not see many out in the field with the giant white lenses enjoying themselves while being hooked to a tripod the entire time.

So far I've simply learned how to get closer, and as mentioned above, the ability to stand motionless and wait for the moment would not be possible with a longer/heavier lens.

It's like that old saying "sometimes your eyes are bigger than your stomach" I've long been a proponent of handholding the big whites, and it's certainly doable, but quickly becomes unenjoyable. For the Parula shot, I was sitting directly on the ground, and a few times I was doing weird yoga/pilate-esque maneuvers to change composition, holding half sit-up positions or leaning way forward past my knees. Stuff I'd never dream of doing while using the 600. These smaller lenses allow you to get into more positions quicker and quieter, and sustain them for longer.

For wooded areas, quite often my long distance shots get blocked, or the AF thrown off, by a twigs/leaves, nullifying all of the reach advantage. Not only that, unless you've pre-picked out a specific spot, what are the odds of nailing a nicely composed shot? Of course, this is just our use case for our specific environment, and the longer lenses definitely have their place. When it's winter and there is no more foliage to contend with, shooting distances will increase, and the longer 600 will definitely have an advantage. Then again: will it really be that much better than the 500PF?

MatthewK wrote in post #18934441
After several months of intensive self introspection, along with a substantial increase in my shooting enjoyment and over-the-moon happiness with my results, I've decided that me and the 500PF are meant to be. I've been hanging onto my 600mm f/4 lens with the thought that I'd eventually pass through the usual honeymoon phase and come to see the obvious superiority of the king f/4 lens, but in all honesty I think I'm a better, more effective photographer with this 500PF. It shouldn't be this way: this lens makes my bird photography easier, and I like my shots better, but that just can't be true! The 600 f/4 is a $13k lens and it weighs double, so it has to be better, right?! More background blur = better, that's common knowledge!

This shot of a migrant Northern Parula (and most other Passerines) require a ton of patience, luck, and the ability to hold a stress pose that entails being completely still while holding the camera/lens up in the shooting position while looking upwards. You best believe that the 1DX2 + 600 f/4 + 1.4x TC would have smoked my arms within a few minutes, and the need to rest would have resulted in a large movement that scared this Parula off. With the D500 + 500PF, I was a motionless, marble statue, and was able to get this shot, plus shots of numerous other species without moving out of position. NO way I would have done that with my 600 setup unless I was using a tripod. Even from my super-stable sitting position, the 600 would have fatigued me in short order.

Is the lesser background blur a big deal? Yes and no.... if you put yourself in a position to where your shot isn't ideal for pleasing background separation, you're asking for trouble. So, my goal is to get better at better composing photos. It's a lot more challenging, sure, but I'm loving it. If I bin a shot because the background blur stinks, not too often would the same shot be salvageable even with a 600 f/4.

What about sharpness and detail? Nope. I'm 100% loving this Nikon setup more than any Canon I've ever shot. End of story. I'm finding the D500 sensor is an absolute gem when it comes to noise control and cleanup. And for sharpness... the 500PF is a laser scalpel.

How about absolute reach? For how I shoot, I'm comfortable in the 750-850mm FOV. I don't take super sniper pot shots at birds, I like to be within ~20 feet, sometimes closer, and the 600 actually starts to get unwieldy, whereas the lighter 500PF and it's wider field of view + shorter MFD give me a more comfortable envelope to get the closer, more detailed shots. If I need to reach out and touch something in a pinch, I have the 1.4TC, though I rarely use it. Again, I want to be in close, too much reach can be a detriment.

In the end, I think I've just come to the realization that often times that extra "nth %" of performance doesn't actually translate into better photos, and allowing myself to be OK with that has been a great learning experience. Bonus is that I get to recoup some money when it sells

Oh, here's the Northern Parula:

Hosted photo: posted by MatthewK in
./showthread.php?p=189​34441&i=i224207658
forum: Nikon Lenses

Very well said, Matt. It’s one of those things that one just has to experience, because it defies logic & basic consensus. As you know, I’ve experienced the exact same after making the switch - you just said it all WAY better than I can / could have.

I’m so glad it has worked out for you, as it did for me. I can completely relate to that initial gut feel that “it just can’t be that good or better than the 10’s of thousands of $$ in Canon gear”. But, for me, it really was/is better.

One thing you did not touch on is the unparalleled ability to travel with enough gear (reach) “easily”. I’m sure you’re experiencing that now and will again on your next journey. Having traveled both with and w/o the 600F4, there is no doubt which is easier and more enjoyable.

EyeSpyEagle wrote in post #18935258
Very well said, Matt. It’s one of those things that one just has to experience, because it defies logic & basic consensus. As you know, I’ve experienced the exact same after making the switch - you just said it all WAY better than I can / could have.

I’m so glad it has worked out for you, as it did for me. I can completely relate to that initial gut feel that “it just can’t be that good or better than than 10’s of thousands of $$ in Canon gear”. But, for me, it really was/is better.

One thing you did not touch on is the unparalleled ability to travel with enough gear (reach) “easily”. I’m sure you’re experiencing that now and will again on your next journey. Having traveled both with and w/o the 600F4, there is no doubt which is easier and more enjoyable.

Kind of reminds me of vehicles that have more power on paper, but weigh too much, so unless the track is long enough, you never really see the numbers promised in real world conditions.

I can see the big whites being great for beaches / open areas / from the vehicle (that's prettymuch the norm at places like Ridgefield wildlife refuge 4-mile Auto Tour where you're stuck in the car farting the entire time waiting for some action to occur). Personally I like being out of the car, off in the woods, in the environment, and the portability factor means the best Canon has to offer at this point is the 100-400II or 400 DO II; I'm not sure why Canon just refuses to build a 500 F5.6 for any reason other than the marketing groups convinced by some charts showing it would cannibalize big white sales. As many corporations become the big avocado that doesn't taste very good, they begin to become risk adverse and lack innovation, along with competing internal struggles.

I still firmly believe that Canon also purposefully cannibalizes the AF on objects coming towards the camera to push 1dx/1dx-2 sales as well as F4 big white sales.

As much as I dislike Canons decision, it's kind of like the Toyota Camry of setups, it's boring, it gets the job done in most cases, and it is reliable but won't win any races in specialized cases, unless you go all out and get the $13k-$20k setup.