Long lens transition to mirrorless

[dalias 23]

I really enjoy this forum and have learned a lot from it. Thanks Steve! I have a D850 which I love. Shoot landscape and wildlife but am getting more into the latter and want a longer lens than my 70-200 with 1.4 x TC. I am drawn to the 300 or 500 PF but that is, for me, a significant investment in DSLR with mirrorless on the horizon. I would appreciate thoughts on whether I should await the arrival of the 100-400 or 200-600 (mid-2022?) and then add a mirrorless body, or stay in DSLR world for a while longer and get a 300 or 500PF? Or is there a better approach? Thanks in advance....

 

[BillW]

I currently use both mirrorless (Z7II & Z6II) and DSLRs (D850 & D500). I am looking forward to the 100-400 mm in Z mount and may also consider the 200-600. That said, my F mount telephotos — 500 mm PF, 300 mm PF, 70-200 mm f2.8E, 70-300 mm AF-P FX zoom, and the 200-500 mm zoom all work well on my Z bodies with the FTZ adapter. So if you want and would use the PF lenses now, I would certainly consider getting them and using them with your D850. They should also work well if you later add a mirrorless body or shift to mirrorless. One issue with the PF lenses — you get spoiled by their light weight.

 

[NorthernFocus]

What type of wildlife do you shoot? For anything other than BIF AF speed is not hyper critical and shooting mirrorless through the FTZ adapter will likely not be an issue. And how long are you willing to wait to see what happens with Nikon mirrorless? IMO there are two obvious options. Minimize your investment in DSLR while satisfying short term desires by getting a 200-500mm. You can likely find a used one for under $1000. For pure value the 200-500 is one of the best bargains out there. The other choice is to go ahead and invest in the 500 PF with plans to use it in the future adapted to mirrorless. As mentioned unless you're big into BIF that's a good compromise. Even for BIF any reduction in AF speed is only an issue for fast movers coming straight at the camera. And some currently shooting Z6/7 say AF speed with the FTZ is only an issue when the camera hunts stop to stop. The 500 PF is really an amazing lens. Not only due to size/weight but because it is sharp at maximum aperture.

 

[joe43]

I am still all DSLR right now. And I use the 300mm pf and the 500pf with tcs with my Nikon D500 and D850. I much prefer the small size and low weight of the Nikon pf lenses. If I were to get a Nikon mirrorless body, I would keep both the 300mm pf and 500mm pf and use them with the FTZ adapter. If Nikon came out with a 600mm pf S lens, Then I might part with my 500mm pf. Bottom line--I do not see how you can go wrong with owning and using a Nikon pf lens on any Nikon body.

 

[Abinoone]

I second the suggestion to get a 200-500 f5.6 now, rather than wait to see what happens (or doesn't). It's a great first "long lens", and gives you plenty of flexibility across the focal range. I have one, and have been very pleased with it. The 500 PF is a fine enough lens, but if you were to buy one, it would leave you without anything in the 200-480 range. Here's an image I took of a Barred Owl with the 200-500, mounted with the 1.4 TC iii - plenty sharp, in my view. I've also had pretty good luck with BIF, although less so with the TC. Waiting for the next best thing is like waiting for the next generation of computer before you buy - IMO, it's better to be in the action than always to plan for what's next.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[Backdoor Arts]

My story is elsewhere in this forum, but as a long time D500 wildlife shooter (300mm PF & 500mm PF) I decided to make the jump to mirrorless for everything else and picked up a Z6ii so I could use the F-mount glass. A month later a friend who has long been trying to get me to switch to Canon put an R5 & 100-500mm in my hand. Side-by-siding them there was no question of what worked for me and I've since sold everything but the D500 and two primes and, once the 14-35mm ships, will have replaced everything I shot with on the Nikon side with one body and 3 lenses. I say this not to talk you out of the lenses for as I said they are keepers for me with the D500. I say it to tell you not to assume that staying in-brand is the best way to go and you should trying and check out the competition because you're effectively transitioning systems going to mirrorless - you just have the advantage of using older lenses (which will continue to devalue) for longer.

You can't find a Canon 100-500mm now if you tried, so you have some time to think. And if you're determined to stay I do have a very clean 300mm PF up for sale on Fred Miranda (I had 2) for just a bit more than I'd get in trade if you're interested. Both it and the 500mm worked fine on my Z6ii when I tested it, and the 500mm worked fine with the 1.4x in good light, so you've got that.

 

[RichF]

I shoot a Z7 II and 500 PF from a boat. Spent a day photographing flying puffin which was a real challenge (fast flying birds, bouncing boat, ....). I got a number of good shots, though the percent of keepers was very low. I used a TC 1.4 for a short time and that worked well (given that the 500 PF does work well with any TC).

I have not tried other lenses on the Z7 II but think they will work well. Looking forward to the rumored upgrade to firmware in Sept. Hopefully this will happen

 

[BillW]

I really enjoy this forum and have learned a lot from it. Thanks Steve! I have a D850 which I love. Shoot landscape and wildlife but am getting more into the latter and want a longer lens than my 70-200 with 1.4 x TC. I am drawn to the 300 or 500 PF but that is, for me, a significant investment in DSLR with mirrorless on the horizon. I would appreciate thoughts on whether I should await the arrival of the 100-400 or 200-600 (mid-2022?) and then add a mirrorless body, or stay in DSLR world for a while longer and get a 300 or 500PF? Or is there a better approach? Thanks in advance....

A few more thoughts.

As Northern Focus says, your choice may depend a lot on what you like to shoot at the long end and the circumstnaces.

Given your 70-200 mm zoom and 1.4x TC, you also have a 98-280 mm lens. Is your zoom of the Nikon 70-200 f2.8s? If so, you have a 98-280 f4 lens with the TC. Which is pretty close at the long end to a 300 mm PF f4. (If you have the 70-200 mm f4 zoom, you still have 98-280 f5.6 with a 1.4x TC.) Of course, the 300 mm PF is quite a bit lighter than a 70-200 mm f2.8 plus a TC. And the 300 mm PF takes the 1.4x TCIII quite well, giving you a nice light weight 420 mm f5.6 lens (and because it is f5.6, AF still works well on a D850 or D500). Before I got my 500 mm PF, I used the 300 mm PF + 1.4x TCIII a lot. After I got my 500 mm PF, I tended to use the 300 mm PF (when I use it, which is not as often now) without the TC.

As to focal length range, if you do a DX crop on images from your D850 (which is pretty close to a D500 image), your 98-280 mm lens has the FOV of a 137-392 mm lens on an FX body. So in some sense, you have 70-392 mm covered.

A long way of arguing that maybe the 500 mm PF would add more for your kit than the 300 mm PF, although both are great lenses. And it depends what you shoot

As to choosing between the 200-500 mm zoom and the 500 mm PF. I have both lenses. Weight, size and cost differences are obvious. I shoot a lot from a canoe or kayak and walking around; so size and weight matter to me. I also shoot a lot of birds, so even with the 200-500 mm lens, I am often at 500 mm. As a result, I use the 500 mm PF a lot more -- taking out the 200-500 mm lens when I need the flexibility of a zoom in a single camera/lens combo. I often prefer to have the 500 mm PF on my D850 or Z7II and a 70-300 AF-P FX lens on my Z6II if I may need shorter focal lengths.

Other differences: The 500 mm PF is a bit better optically, especially at the edges and in the corners (although that may often not matter much with wildlife shots). The 500 mm PF focuses faster, in my experience, than the 200-500 mm zoom, whether on a D850 or ZII body. I think the 500 mm PF balances better on a ZII body than the 200-500 mm zoom. When I want to use the 200-500 mm zoom, I tend to pick my D850 or D500.

Good luck with you choice. All are excellent lenses.

 

[dalias 23]

Thanks so much to all of you who have responded and offered thoughts. I am in Australia so just digesting them all now! The idea of going ahead now with a 500 PF (since a lot of the mid range is covered by 70-200 + TC) is very appealing. In this COVID world, carpe diem applies even more than usual!

 

[dalias 23]

What type of wildlife do you shoot? For anything other than BIF AF speed is not hyper critical and shooting mirrorless through the FTZ adapter will likely not be an issue. And how long are you willing to wait to see what happens with Nikon mirrorless? IMO there are two obvious options. Minimize your investment in DSLR while satisfying short term desires by getting a 200-500mm. You can likely find a used one for under $1000. For pure value the 200-500 is one of the best bargains out there. The other choice is to go ahead and invest in the 500 PF with plans to use it in the future adapted to mirrorless. As mentioned unless you're big into BIF that's a good compromise. Even for BIF any reduction in AF speed is only an issue for fast movers coming straight at the camera. And some currently shooting Z6/7 say AF speed with the FTZ is only an issue when the camera hunts stop to stop. The 500 PF is really an amazing lens. Not only due to size/weight but because it is sharp at maximum aperture.

Thanks for this. It seems the equation is lower cost of 200-500 vs better performance & lighter weight of 500 PF, plus much of the 200-500 focal range is covered by existing setup albeit with TC.

 

[dalias 23]

What type of wildlife do you shoot? For anything other than BIF AF speed is not hyper critical and shooting mirrorless through the FTZ adapter will likely not be an issue. And how long are you willing to wait to see what happens with Nikon mirrorless? IMO there are two obvious options. Minimize your investment in DSLR while satisfying short term desires by getting a 200-500mm. You can likely find a used one for under $1000. For pure value the 200-500 is one of the best bargains out there. The other choice is to go ahead and invest in the 500 PF with plans to use it in the future adapted to mirrorless. As mentioned unless you're big into BIF that's a good compromise. Even for BIF any reduction in AF speed is only an issue for fast movers coming straight at the camera. And some currently shooting Z6/7 say AF speed with the FTZ is only an issue when the camera hunts stop to stop. The 500 PF is really an amazing lens. Not only due to size/weight but because it is sharp at maximum aperture.

Many thanks. Birds mostly, but not so much in flight. Plus whatever I can find in the countryside around, and on travels. 500 PF is sounding good!

 

[dalias 23]

I second the suggestion to get a 200-500 f5.6 now, rather than wait to see what happens (or doesn't). It's a great first "long lens", and gives you plenty of flexibility across the focal range. I have one, and have been very pleased with it. The 500 PF is a fine enough lens, but if you were to buy one, it would leave you without anything in the 200-480 range. Here's an image I took of a Barred Owl with the 200-500, mounted with the 1.4 TC iii - plenty sharp, in my view. I've also had pretty good luck with BIF, although less so with the TC. Waiting for the next best thing is like waiting for the next generation of computer before you buy - IMO, it's better to be in the action than always to plan for what's next.

View attachment 22562

Thanks. Nice owl! I accept that 500 PF is limiting in range to that focal length, and is expensive. Maybe I'll just have to get another body to put the 70-200 on!

 

[dalias 23]

My story is elsewhere in this forum, but as a long time D500 wildlife shooter (300mm PF & 500mm PF) I decided to make the jump to mirrorless for everything else and picked up a Z6ii so I could use the F-mount glass. A month later a friend who has long been trying to get me to switch to Canon put an R5 & 100-500mm in my hand. Side-by-siding them there was no question of what worked for me and I've since sold everything but the D500 and two primes and, once the 14-35mm ships, will have replaced everything I shot with on the Nikon side with one body and 3 lenses. I say this not to talk you out of the lenses for as I said they are keepers for me with the D500. I say it to tell you not to assume that staying in-brand is the best way to go and you should trying and check out the competition because you're effectively transitioning systems going to mirrorless - you just have the advantage of using older lenses (which will continue to devalue) for longer.

You can't find a Canon 100-500mm now if you tried, so you have some time to think. And if you're determined to stay I do have a very clean 300mm PF up for sale on Fred Miranda (I had 2) for just a bit more than I'd get in trade if you're interested. Both it and the 500mm worked fine on my Z6ii when I tested it, and the 500mm worked fine with the 1.4x in good light, so you've got that.

Many thanks for the offer of the 300 PF. I'm inclining towards the 500, though, given I almost have 300 covered with the 70-200 + TC.

 

[dalias 23]

A few more thoughts.

As Northern Focus says, your choice may depend a lot on what you like to shoot at the long end and the circumstnaces.

Given your 70-200 mm zoom and 1.4x TC, you also have a 98-280 mm lens. Is your zoom of the Nikon 70-200 f2.8s? If so, you have a 98-280 f4 lens with the TC. Which is pretty close at the long end to a 300 mm PF f4. (If you have the 70-200 mm f4 zoom, you still have 98-280 f5.6 with a 1.4x TC.) Of course, the 300 mm PF is quite a bit lighter than a 70-200 mm f2.8 plus a TC. And the 300 mm PF takes the 1.4x TCIII quite well, giving you a nice light weight 420 mm f5.6 lens (and because it is f5.6, AF still works well on a D850 or D500). Before I got my 500 mm PF, I used the 300 mm PF + 1.4x TCIII a lot. After I got my 500 mm PF, I tended to use the 300 mm PF (when I use it, which is not as often now) without the TC.

As to focal length range, if you do a DX crop on images from your D850 (which is pretty close to a D500 image), your 98-280 mm lens has the FOV of a 137-392 mm lens on an FX body. So in some sense, you have 70-392 mm covered.

A long way of arguing that maybe the 500 mm PF would add more for your kit than the 300 mm PF, although both are great lenses. And it depends what you shoot

As to choosing between the 200-500 mm zoom and the 500 mm PF. I have both lenses. Weight, size and cost differences are obvious. I shoot a lot from a canoe or kayak and walking around; so size and weight matter to me. I also shoot a lot of birds, so even with the 200-500 mm lens, I am often at 500 mm. As a result, I use the 500 mm PF a lot more -- taking out the 200-500 mm lens when I need the flexibility of a zoom in a single camera/lens combo. I often prefer to have the 500 mm PF on my D850 or Z7II and a 70-300 AF-P FX lens on my Z6II if I may need shorter focal lengths.

Other differences: The 500 mm PF is a bit better optically, especially at the edges and in the corners (although that may often not matter much with wildlife shots). The 500 mm PF focuses faster, in my experience, than the 200-500 mm zoom, whether on a D850 or ZII body. I think the 500 mm PF balances better on a ZII body than the 200-500 mm zoom. When I want to use the 200-500 mm zoom, I tend to pick my D850 or D500.

Good luck with you choice. All are excellent lenses.

Great summary, and makes a lot of sense. Many thanks.

 

[joe43]

Just remember that the Nikon 200-500mm is longer, wider and heavier (by about 2 lbs.) at 500mm than the Nikon 500mm f5.6 pf. The article at this link shows a picture of both with the 200-500mm extended or zoomed out to 500mm.

Nikkor AF-S 500mm f/5.6 PF VR field Review – Ari Hazeghi Photography

 

[NorthernFocus]

Thanks. Nice owl! I accept that 500 PF is limiting in range to that focal length, and is expensive. Maybe I'll just have to get another body to put the 70-200 on!

Particularly if birds are your main target I doubt you'll miss the zoom. A while ago I looked at all of my images shot with 200-500 and over 90 percent were shot at 500mm. And that includes a good bit of time shooting mammals with it. I also analyzed thousands of images shot with a 500 f4 and less than 10 percent were shot at f4. I'm so impressed with the 500 PF that with the above data in mind I sold both of the other lenses. The only practical downside to letting go of the 500 f4 is when a TC would come in handy. Which I wasn't concerned about because my plans were to reinvest the funds in 600 f4. But now those plans are on hold pending what shakes out in the mirrorless world. Regardless I can't imaging ever parting ways with the D850/500 PF combo.

 

[Deleted member 115]

I own a D500 and D850. I really disliked my Nikon 200-500mm lens that I replaced my old A011 Tamron 150-600mm with. The 200-500 was sharp and good image quality on the rare occasion it locked on to something. I wish I would have bought a Tamron G2 150-600mm instead. Anyhow I bought a 500mm PF last winter and gave my wife the 200-500mm and do not miss it one bit.
My next move will be to replace everything for a mirrorless set up. Probably Sony but that could change when the time comes. If Z9 works as well as the A1 Sony and plays well with the 500PF that would be a dream come true

 

[BillW]

Great summary, and makes a lot of sense. Many thanks.

I see I made a math error. The 70-200 with a 1.4x TC and a DX crop will give you the FOV of a 147-420 mm lens on FC, since the crop factor for a Nikon is 1.5X. Not 132-392 mm which mistakenly used a 1.4x crop factor.

Of course in post, you can crop more or less than a DX crop with your D850 images.

 

[dabhand16]

I always thought that the Nikon DX was 1.6 crop factor.

 

[dalias 23]

Tha

I see I made a math error. The 70-200 with a 1.4x TC and a DX crop will give you the FOV of a 147-420 mm lens on FC, since the crop factor for a Nikon is 1.5X. Not 132-392 mm which mistakenly used a 1.4x crop factor.

Of course in post, you can crop more or less than a DX crop with your D850 images.

Thanks for this clarification.

 

[NorthernFocus]

I always thought that the Nikon DX was 1.6 crop factor.

Canon is 1.6. Nikon DX is 1.5.

 

[Roy]

I really enjoy this forum and have learned a lot from it. Thanks Steve! I have a D850 which I love. Shoot landscape and wildlife but am getting more into the latter and want a longer lens than my 70-200 with 1.4 x TC. I am drawn to the 300 or 500 PF but that is, for me, a significant investment in DSLR with mirrorless on the horizon. I would appreciate thoughts on whether I should await the arrival of the 100-400 or 200-600 (mid-2022?) and then add a mirrorless body, or stay in DSLR world for a while longer and get a 300 or 500PF? Or is there a better approach? Thanks in advance....

I'm afraid the 200-600mm Z lens is going to be pro-level with a 5 figure price tag.
I also hope the 100-400mm Z lens isn't a conversion of the Nikkor 80-400mm lens.
The 200-500mm F lens is still fantastic value for money. You can also get a FTZ adapter (like I did)...

 

[Steve W]

I really enjoy this forum and have learned a lot from it. Thanks Steve! I have a D850 which I love. Shoot landscape and wildlife but am getting more into the latter and want a longer lens than my 70-200 with 1.4 x TC. I am drawn to the 300 or 500 PF but that is, for me, a significant investment in DSLR with mirrorless on the horizon. I would appreciate thoughts on whether I should await the arrival of the 100-400 or 200-600 (mid-2022?) and then add a mirrorless body, or stay in DSLR world for a while longer and get a 300 or 500PF? Or is there a better approach? Thanks in advance....

There are many good suggestions made here. I guess the first question you need to answer is whether you’re prepared to wait rather than take the photos you want now.

 

[EricBowles]

I'm afraid the 200-600mm Z lens is going to be pro-level with a 5 figure price tag.
I also hope the 100-400mm Z lens isn't a conversion of the Nikkor 80-400mm lens.
The 200-500mm F lens is still fantastic value for money. You can also get a FTZ adapter (like I did)...

The 200-600 from Sony is $2000. It's a good lens, but does not compare to the 400mm, 500mm, and 600mm lenses that carry a 5 figure price tag. It's positioned as an alternative to the Nikon 200-500 and the Sigma 150-600 Sport. My expectation is the Nikon Z 200-600 will be in a similar place. It's likely to have a number of the same features, positives and negatives. I prefer a fixed aperture throughout the range, but there are alternatives including a variable aperture or simply making it a smaller PF lens. But it's not an S lens. I think the pricing will be closer to $1500, a little more than the current 200-500.

The 100-400 on the Roadmap is an S lens, which suggests it's likely to be similar to the Canon 100-400 or 100-500, and the Nikon 80-400. That focal length may not be long enough for birding, but it's long enough for most mammals and compact in size. It's likely to have a fixed aperture throughout the range like the 80-400. Optics should be excellent and it should work well with teleconverters. Pricing for that kind of lens is in the $2500-3000 range.

The Nikon 200-500 is a great value and there is no reason you can't use it with the FTZ. I like the constant f/5.6. Image quality is very good. It works with the 1.4 teleconverter.

 

[ccirelli]

If you want a super lens now that works great on the Z's, find a new or used 200-500. Or, the Sigma 150-600 C (not the Sport model).
I'm waiting patiently for the 200-600, but I'm fine in the meantime with the 200-500. I also have the 70-300 4.5-5.6 (latest FX version) which is also a tremendous lens on the FTZ (fast / quiet / sharp!).