If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).
Yep, the size & weight is a plus and the one stop penalty is a minus. With the lower cost and less weight after two shoulder reco’s The 500 PF was a no brainer for me.I've tested the 500 PF against my 600 F/4 and it's close enough not to care.For me, the big consideration is size / weight / F/stop.
Interestingly, I just went through a very similar deliberation, albeit for slightly different reasons. I had set aside $$ for a photographic purchase and my quandary was where would I get the biggest photographic bang for my $. I do own the 300PF (and a 1.4 TC) which I just love and have been eyeing the 500PF since it was launched. I also often use it with the TC so, as you said, a 420mm f5.6...devilishly close to the 500PF. Therefore, wanting more low light, high ISO, focusing and speed capabilities (and debating this for most of this year), I went overboard and got a D6 instead. Just got it last week and have put my "first few rolls of film" through it. Attached image was shot with the 300mmPF, 1.4 TC on the D6. Problem is, I still want the 500PF too
Well said, sir. Photographically speaking, I'm never happier than when behind the viewfinder. However, I am partial to capturing sharp focused pictures.
and that's a crop from original it is fantastic lens and the vibration reduction is very effective hand held.Mac
The more wildlife photography I do, the more I realize longer than 600 mm-e isn't the solution. Getting closer is the solution. Too bad birds think I'm scary!
This is really true.
The problem with getting into super long focal lengths for long-range targets is that the atmosphere itself starts to work against you and soften the images. I'm always happier when I'm at the proper range and go out of my way to shoot locations that allow it.This is really true.
LOL guiltySee Steve, that's why you'll never succeed at that "influencer thingy" - you are telling people to actually work at what they want and to develop their technique and that not every problem can be solved by buying more expensive gear. (all tongue in cheek obviously)
Yeah…getting closer is always better…but frequently that just ain't possible. Either you're on a boardwalk where they frown on getting down in the swamp…or there are gators and snakes in the swamp…or the dad gum bird/elk/bear/whatever just insists on being 100 yards out there and you can't get any closer. In those cases…you either have a longer lens, or you crop the shot close and lose detail, or you crop out a bit and make it more of a scene, or you just skip the shot…and none of those are really great answers except the longer lens. If it's something like a grizzly on a bison kill at Yellowstone like we had summer before last…it isn't something you're likely to see again so you take the shots and just sacrifice the closeup views because some shot is better than no shot in unique situations like that.
I know I certainly use my 500PF more than my 300PF, nice as it is. However, I also shoot full fame
There is the full frame question…and the 7II is likely in my future as well. I remember back when I was in college in the 70s and shot film with a Canon F1…somebody gave me a Vivitar or some such inexpensive 300mm for it and it was usually not enough reach…at least for swamp tromping around the Everglades shooting birds…those were the days when we did…well…stupid stuff in efforts to get a shot. Luckily…I've outgrown a lot of that stupidity and try to be more careful now…although I'm not sure that my wife would agree.I know I certainly use my 500PF more than my 300PF, nice as it is. However, I also shoot full fame
As for action, it's not like you can't do it with the Z7ii - it's just that Nikon's higher end DSLRs still have an edge.
