MTF data for the 500 f5.6E PF (including TC's)

[fcotterill]

Photography Life have updated their review of the 500mm f5.6E PF with Imatest data.

These include both Teleconverters. The results with TC14 III corroborate the high quality of the images obtainable with this combination. And the review compares the older 500 f4G

Nikon 500mm f/5.6E PF Review - Page 3 of 5

We've updated our Nikon 500mm f/5.6 PF lens review with full Imatest data, including sharpness tests in the lab with Nikon's 1.4x and 2.0x teleconverters. To sum it up, this is a very high-performing telephoto on par with $5000+ exotic lenses in performance!

photographylife.com

Unfortunately, they did not compare any of the recent telephotos in this 500 / 560 mm category, including the 400mm f4.5S + ZTC14.... Final note, my results with the 500 PF+TC14 III versus 800 PF do not agree with their MTF results of the 800 PF

 

[Michael Dreese]

Photography Life have updated their review of the 500mm f5.6E PF with Imatest data.

These include both Teleconverters. The results with TC14 III corroborate the high quality of the images obtainable with this combination. And the review compares the older 500 f4G

Nikon 500mm f/5.6E PF Review - Page 3 of 5

We've updated our Nikon 500mm f/5.6 PF lens review with full Imatest data, including sharpness tests in the lab with Nikon's 1.4x and 2.0x teleconverters. To sum it up, this is a very high-performing telephoto on par with $5000+ exotic lenses in performance!

photographylife.com

Unfortunately, they did not compare any of the recent telephotos in this 500 / 560 mm category, including the 400mm f4.5S + ZTC14.... Final note, my results with the 500 PF+TC14 III versus 800 PF do not agree with their MTF results of the 800 PF

Thanks for the link. The article really conveys just how good the 500mm PF is on either F mount or Z mount. I have a 1.4 tc 14ii so will definitely try it out when the opportunity presents itself.

 

[Oh_Snap]

Photography Life does nothing but disseminate disinformation.

The 500mm F/4G ED VR was always terrible in terms of its resolving power by modern sensor standards.

The 500/600mm were two of the lenses that received the biggest gains from the E/FL redesigns.

Here is what Photography Life's data actually reveals:

The 500mm PF lens can barely resolve 24mp and has no place on a 45mp sensor. It's not a replacement for the exotic supertelephotos.

 

[tclune]

The 500mm PF lens can barely resolve 24mp and has no place on a 45mp sensor. It's not a replacement for the exotic supertelephotos.

@Oh_Snap you have printed the DXOMark data for a different lens than the Nikon 500 f/5.6 pf.

 

[Oh_Snap]

@Oh_Snap you have printed the DXOMark data for a different lens than the Nikon 500 f/5.6 pf.

Photography Life is showing you that the 500mm PF is the same as the 500mm f/4G VR.
DXOMark is showing you how poor the 500mm F/4G VR is compared to the older generations of the 400mm f/2.8.

I'm merely demonstrating that the 500mm PF is not that great when you put it in perspective @tclune.

 

[Marcepan]

Strange...

I have 500 FL, but many of my friends use 500 G and 500 PF. We took photos together almost 15 years. Thousands of photos.

My conclusions:
Both 500 F4 are incredible sharp, 500 5.6 are sharp too, but they noticeable weeker in the center and borders.
Another story is 500 PF + TC 1.4 III - sharpness is good, but when we compare to 500 FL or G - its another league...

And the last issue:
On photographylife 500 PF + TC 1.4 III is almost as good as 800 PF...
What do You think?

 

[BlueGil21]

The 500mm PF lens can barely resolve 24mp and has no place on a 45mp sensor.

What is a statement that is not true?

 

[Krümelkraft]

I am offering two images taken at the same magnification, one with the 500PF, the other with the 800PF.
I shot a series of four images with each of the lenses and picked the sharpest of either series to compare. Each shot on Z9 at 1/1000s, VR, handheld, wide open. No sharpening or noise reduction applied (unfortunately, I had to shoot at ISO 2000). I consider this to be real life conditions.
Wich one is the 500PF, wich is the 800PF? (Note: according to photographylife, one scores at 2646, the other at 3332 in the sharpness department).

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

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

p.s. how can I remove EXIF data?

 

[Oh_Snap]

Diminishing returns at ISOs higher than 500.

The answer you're looking for is they're both terrible quality, which leads me to think that neither lens is really up to par for a 45mp sensor --- high ISO or not.

To be fair: shooting those types of close focus distances is not where these lenses are at their peak in terms of resolution/sharpness.

To be even more fair: It's much more difficult to resolve 800mm than 500mm. Even if they were equal, the 800mm wins solely for the reason that it's resolving power is 60% higher than the 500mm.

 

[BlueGil21]

Just ignore the performance of the lens, and generate a nonsense post in an attempt to circumvent the obvious conclusion from the data.

Conclusive data? You are using two different sources one of which hasn’t even tested the 500pf to draw conclusions. Even simply testing a single copy of the lens throws these type of measurements in the inconclusive category. I like to go by experience, using multiple brands, and the 500pf is certainly not “terrible quality”. That’s just absurd.

 

[Krümelkraft]

Diminishing returns at ISOs higher than 500.

The answer you're looking for is they're both terrible quality, which leads me to think that neither lens is really up to par for a 45mp sensor --- high ISO or not.

To be fair: shooting those types of close focus distances is not where these lenses are at their peak in terms of resolution/sharpness.

To be even more fair: It's much more difficult to resolve 800mm than 500mm. Even if they were equal, the 800mm wins solely for the reason that it's resolving power is 60% higher than the 500mm.

Don't forget these are 100% crops. For some reason, they seem to be enlarged here. Original files appear sharper.
Testing at ISO 2000 is not the best, however, differences as the measurements from photographylife imply would be obvious even at ISO 2000.

By the way, I have shot the 500PF on both, a 24MP FF sensor and on a 46MP FF sensor to compare performance. The 46MP clearly showed more detail than the 24MP sensor (although the difference was not huge). Obviously it resolves good enough that it benefits from a 46MP sensor.
As I see moiré artifacts commonly with both lenses on a 46MP sensor, I assume their resolution is at least close to good enough.

Those images were shot around 10-15m, so nowhere close to their closest focus distance, but close enough to avoid atmospheric distortion.
I have never noticed image degradation at minimum focus distance with these two lenses (in contrast to some other lenses).

Your last sentence makes so sense at all. Resolution is measured in line pairs / lateral distance on the sensor at a given magnification.

 

[EricBowles]

There does not need to be a right or wrong here. If we have different perspectives, that's fine. Let's leave the debate and let others form their own opinions.

 

[pnbarne]

I bought the 500 pf to use with my D850. It worked well for my purposes. When the mythical Z800 was announced I ordered it and a Z7ii. In the year plus I waited for the Z800 I used the adapted 500 pf on the Z7ii. It proved to be a great lens on the Z7ii. When the Z800 arrived I used it on the Z7ii with equally good results. When the Z8 was announced my wife said I should order it and decide later if I wanted it. Well, it arrived at warp speed. So, I now use both the 500 pf and the Z800 on the Z8. Both are really good combinations. Frankly, if it works for me, that’s all I need to know.

 

[Marcepan]

Pnbarne, so 500 PF and 800 PF are equally good (fot sharpness reason only)?

 

[Michael Dreese]

I bought the 500 pf to use with my D850. It worked well for my purposes. When the mythical Z800 was announced I ordered it and a Z7ii. In the year plus I waited for the Z800 I used the adapted 500 pf on the Z7ii. It proved to be a great lens on the Z7ii. When the Z800 arrived I used it on the Z7ii with equally good results. When the Z8 was announced my wife said I should order it and decide later if I wanted it. Well, it arrived at warp speed. So, I now use both the 500 pf and the Z800 on the Z8. Both are really good combinations. Frankly, if it works for me, that’s all I need to know.

I own the 500mm PF and love the image quality and ergonomics. I’m saving up for the 800mm PF as I feel that would fill all of my telephoto lens needs. I also own the 100-400S.

 

[Wes Peterson]

Good ole DXOmark...... the people who score the D810 higher in sports/lowlight than the D5 lol

 

[EricBowles]

Pnbarne, so 500 PF and 800 PF are equally good (fot sharpness reason only)?

I found the best place to test sharpness was at the short end. All the long lenses have similar magnification at minimum focus distance. Beyond that, you end up needing to crop, use a TC, or make similar compromises that are not exactly the same. My subject matter is small birds at the feeder - subject matter that is relevant but common enough for lots of test photos in very good light.

The 500mm f/5.6 and 800mm PF are both close enough that there is no real difference in the bare lenses. You could add the Z 400mm f/4.5 to that mix. If you add the 1.4 teleconverter or crop, the bare lenses will almost always have a very small edge. When you add a 2x teleconverter to the mix, the Z 400mm f/4.5 lens is quite usable and the 500mm PF is borderline, but you are clearly giving up something.

The bare lenses are going to have the edge over lenses with a 1.4 TC.

I found all of these lenses are able to resolve the eyering feathers on most birds. If you are looking for more difference than that, the factor is probably technique rather than gear. The eyering feathers of a bluebird are around 1/20 of an inch in width, and made of 8-10 feather fibers with spaces. So now it is resolving at 1/400 of an inch - around the diameter of a hair.

I don't think sharpness is as much of a difference maker as backgrounds, aperture wide open, and how you choose to build your kit. For me, I found the backgrounds of the 400mm f/4.5 are the best of the three lenses. It's not a PF lens and was designed for good backgrounds. For use with small birds, the 800mm gets the nod - you can never have enough reach and it's 2.3 stop faster and sharper than the 500mm PF + TC combination. On a budget, the 500mm PF still gets the nod and for many people will be a great choice. The 400mm and 500mm lenses have a lot more flexibility with mammals while the 800mm PF is a little long.

 

[Michael Dreese]

Thanks for the detailed analysis, Eric. I always appreciate your expertise.

 

[Marcepan]

Eric, thanks for the explanation.

I have 500 FL, its crazy sharp lens, but to short for my photography - I often use with TC1.4 III, and heavy cropping. So I consider 800 PF, but when I compare my 500 FL with TC 1.4 III to 800 PF...
500 FL was noticeable sharper then 800 PF...

So...Im very confused, maybe 800 PF was a weak copy...?

 

[EricBowles]

Eric, thanks for the explanation.

I have 500 FL, its crazy sharp lens, but to short for my photography - I often use with TC1.4 III, and heavy cropping. So I consider 800 PF, but when I compare my 500 FL with TC 1.4 III to 800 PF...
500 FL was noticeable sharper then 800 PF...

So...Im very confused, maybe 800 PF was a weak copy...?

The 500mm FL is a very good lens. The 800mm PF is a good lens as well, but it needs really good technique to use 800mm. I would not be concerned about the lens if you are using the 800mm PF - the lens is sharp. But it is a lighter lens, has a big hood that can gather wind, and is a really long focal length. If your technique is lacking at all, you'll notice. On the other hand, you can handhold the 800mm PF all day without any issues.

800mm PF

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

This bluebird image was with the 800mm PF and Z 1.4 TC

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

 

[Marcepan]

Thanks Eric!

I use my 500 FL with TC 1.4 III always, always handheld. I think, my technique is not bad.
This lens has big Hood too.
Is it possible lens with TC was sharper then bare 800 PF?

I often shoot planes.
Often from long, long distances:

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

 

[jeffnles1]

I found the best place to test sharpness was at the short end. All the long lenses have similar magnification at minimum focus distance. Beyond that, you end up needing to crop, use a TC, or make similar compromises that are not exactly the same. My subject matter is small birds at the feeder - subject matter that is relevant but common enough for lots of test photos in very good light.

The 500mm f/5.6 and 800mm PF are both close enough that there is no real difference in the bare lenses. You could add the Z 400mm f/4.5 to that mix. If you add the 1.4 teleconverter or crop, the bare lenses will almost always have a very small edge. When you add a 2x teleconverter to the mix, the Z 400mm f/4.5 lens is quite usable and the 500mm PF is borderline, but you are clearly giving up something.

The bare lenses are going to have the edge over lenses with a 1.4 TC.

I found all of these lenses are able to resolve the eyering feathers on most birds. If you are looking for more difference than that, the factor is probably technique rather than gear. The eyering feathers of a bluebird are around 1/20 of an inch in width, and made of 8-10 feather fibers with spaces. So now it is resolving at 1/400 of an inch - around the diameter of a hair.

I don't think sharpness is as much of a difference maker as backgrounds, aperture wide open, and how you choose to build your kit. For me, I found the backgrounds of the 400mm f/4.5 are the best of the three lenses. It's not a PF lens and was designed for good backgrounds. For use with small birds, the 800mm gets the nod - you can never have enough reach and it's 2.3 stop faster and sharper than the 500mm PF + TC combination. On a budget, the 500mm PF still gets the nod and for many people will be a great choice. The 400mm and 500mm lenses have a lot more flexibility with mammals while the 800mm PF is a little long.

Great write up Eric.
Two things I would add would be:
1) the incremental cost of the FTZ adaptor if a person does not already have one (for the 500PF
2) the added complexity of adding the adaptor.

Neither of these are huge just something to consider.

Jeff

 

[Charles Loy]

Thanks Eric - well said

 

[Wes Peterson]

Thanks Eric!

I use my 500 FL with TC 1.4 III always, always handheld. I think, my technique is not bad.
This lens has big Hood too.
Is it possible lens with TC was sharper then bare 800 PF?

I often shoot planes.
Often from long, long distances:

View attachment 66463

That's a badass photo. Makes me wish it was mine!

 

[fcotterill]

Thanks Eric, your post with superb images reminded me of your points commenting on the PL review of the 800 PF. Two key factors strongly influencing image quality (and with the Teleconverters) are the subject distance and frame-filling images (thus technique), because too often atmospheric effects rear up over longer distances.

Also note Thom Hogan's Comments, including "The Nikon exotics (e.g. the fixed focal length, fast aperture, long telephotos) are among the best lenses you can find anywhere in terms of resolution/acuity. Nikon nailed the basic optical approach for these lenses early in the film SLR era, and has been careful not to mess it up since. They’re also hand assembled and hand tested before being released."

Bottom line, there are no serious (if at all) deficiencies in sharpness and contrast in all the G and E type AFS telephotos primes for F-Mount, let alone these new Z-Mount primes, and S Line telephoto zooms. So much so, I've found it's challenging to distinguish between images testing both 800 PF and 800 E. [And this very high optical quality also includes the Three Big Dragons: 70-200 f2.8E FL, 120-300 f2.8E SR, 180-400 f4E TC14 - cf. this Hogan essay)

Nikon Z 800mm f/6.3 PF VR S Review - Page 6 of 6

When Nikon added an 800mm S-line prime lens to their roadmap, I had flashbacks to the F-mount 800mm f/5.6E FL. That lens was Nikon's crown jewel for years - a $16,300 piece of glass that very few photographers could justify. Would the mirrorless version, the 800mm f/6.3 that I'm reviewing today...

photographylife.com

The 500mm FL is a very good lens. The 800mm PF is a good lens as well, but it needs really good technique to use 800mm. I would not be concerned about the lens if you are using the 800mm PF - the lens is sharp. But it is a lighter lens, has a big hood that can gather wind, and is a really long focal length. If your technique is lacking at all, you'll notice. On the other hand, you can handhold the 800mm PF all day without any issues.

800mm PF
View attachment 66458

This bluebird image was with the 800mm PF and Z 1.4 TC
View attachment 66461