500PF 1.4x or 800PF?
- Thread starter Pat Cassity
- Start date
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).
I was on the waiting list for the new 800 and then ... I am actually quite satisfied with the 500PF and the 1.4TC combo. This photo was taken with that combo and I then reconsidered the purchase of the 800. mounted on the Z9.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
O
Well-known member
100% that's why i still have it......
I also loved my D4s i sold the D4s D5 for 2 D850 units with no regrets.
My all time favorites were the D4s D6 and currently the D850, i do like the Z9 i have but wonder if i am staying with it.
If i had to make a choice i would stay with the D6 D850...........
Only an opinion
O
Well-known member
Hi.
My 2 cents.
I own the Z9 and 500pf.
500mm isn’t long enough for birds and waterfowl. I found myself cropping in heavy. So I got a TC 1.4 (newest version) and what I found was disappointing. Unless I fill the frame, The TC was working against me. For any distance bird, cropping the bare 500 to pixel level was no issue, vs. cropping a TC’d shot halfway. The picture simply fall apart.
So I did some research and found out that the F mount TC’s only 1 out of 5 (some say 8) would actually pair well with the 500pf. I tried a couple and I was disappointed. So I sold all of them. Back to bare 500mm.
The Z TC - on the other hand, is a different story. I have both, the 1.4 and 2.0 Z TC’s and tried them on my z 70-200 and the only complaint was the 2.0 was a tad softer. But the images weren’t falling apart when I cropped in.
I’m thinking about the selling the 500pf in favor of the z400 with 1.4 TC, for those 600mm needs and I don’t like the FTZ. But first I need the 800mm. Because all of my shots are cropped in to 800 or more.
1) 500 plus F-TC No!!
2) Can a 400+1.4 Z replace the 500 bare? I’m not sure.
3) I rarely need 400mm focal length, and when/If I do (When going to a zoo) I found the 70-200 with 1.4 or 2xTC to deliver the job! As other have said, To buy the 400 with the mindset to glue on a 1.4 TC is wrong. Rather wait for the 200-600 Or continue to use the 500pf and crop in.
My 2 cents.
I own the Z9 and 500pf.
500mm isn’t long enough for birds and waterfowl. I found myself cropping in heavy. So I got a TC 1.4 (newest version) and what I found was disappointing. Unless I fill the frame, The TC was working against me. For any distance bird, cropping the bare 500 to pixel level was no issue, vs. cropping a TC’d shot halfway. The picture simply fall apart.
So I did some research and found out that the F mount TC’s only 1 out of 5 (some say 8) would actually pair well with the 500pf. I tried a couple and I was disappointed. So I sold all of them. Back to bare 500mm.
The Z TC - on the other hand, is a different story. I have both, the 1.4 and 2.0 Z TC’s and tried them on my z 70-200 and the only complaint was the 2.0 was a tad softer. But the images weren’t falling apart when I cropped in.
I’m thinking about the selling the 500pf in favor of the z400 with 1.4 TC, for those 600mm needs and I don’t like the FTZ. But first I need the 800mm. Because all of my shots are cropped in to 800 or more.
1) 500 plus F-TC No!!
2) Can a 400+1.4 Z replace the 500 bare? I’m not sure.
3) I rarely need 400mm focal length, and when/If I do (When going to a zoo) I found the 70-200 with 1.4 or 2xTC to deliver the job! As other have said, To buy the 400 with the mindset to glue on a 1.4 TC is wrong. Rather wait for the 200-600 Or continue to use the 500pf and crop in.
fcotterill
Well-known member
Photography Life has undertaken to test the new Z telephotos fairly soon. And with Teleconverters.
The ranking of candidates follows the poll of readers' requests
See article by Spencer Cox
photographylife.com
The ranking of candidates follows the poll of readers' requests
See article by Spencer Cox
Our Lens Testing Survey Results
Last week, I posted a survey asking what lens reviews you most wanted to see at Photography Life. The survey received many more responses than I expected: 657 before I closed it! I've tallied up the responses and now have a clear idea what lenses we're going to review next.
photographylife.com
The more I read this thread and hear about all of the gear that people are using, I can't help but wonder if anyone is happy with the images they produce. O's connection to the audiophile is something I've seen in "photographers" throughout the years. A music lover who can't play a note can buy their way into music appreciation with speakers, pre-amps, and (fill in)... the same can be said for people who want to see themselves as photographers.
While I am intrigued by the new gear and their capabilities, I have based my purchase decisions on 3 criteria:
When I returned to Nikon I bought a 200-400, 70-200 f2.8, and 16-35 and lived with this kit until the 500PF was introduced in 2018. Were it not for the large scale shift to Mirrorless, I probably would still have the same lenses I acquired in 2014.
Today, I carry 3 bodies attached to 3 lenses (24-120, 100-400, 500PF), it all fits in an F-stop Tilopa w/ XL Pro ICU, and I can shoot anything from wide-angle landscapes to insects. The bag is light, portable, and fits on every plane I have ever flown.
Rather than obsess about the best images I could make with the best lens, I stick to my original criteria (see above bullets).
In the end, these purchase decisions are a mix of photo-goal/want/need/ and ego... each of us needs to define where we place our priorities.
cheers,
bruce
While I am intrigued by the new gear and their capabilities, I have based my purchase decisions on 3 criteria:
- 1. Can I make an interesting photo with my gear
- 2. Can I fit it ALL in one bag for both travel and hiking
- 3. Can I afford to buy it with cash?
When I returned to Nikon I bought a 200-400, 70-200 f2.8, and 16-35 and lived with this kit until the 500PF was introduced in 2018. Were it not for the large scale shift to Mirrorless, I probably would still have the same lenses I acquired in 2014.
Today, I carry 3 bodies attached to 3 lenses (24-120, 100-400, 500PF), it all fits in an F-stop Tilopa w/ XL Pro ICU, and I can shoot anything from wide-angle landscapes to insects. The bag is light, portable, and fits on every plane I have ever flown.
Rather than obsess about the best images I could make with the best lens, I stick to my original criteria (see above bullets).
In the end, these purchase decisions are a mix of photo-goal/want/need/ and ego... each of us needs to define where we place our priorities.
cheers,
bruce
Last edited:
I had an F mount 1.4 TCIII it went back to Nikon 3 times under warranty after the 3rd time it worked great on 300pf and 500pf. The 500pf and 1.4 TC worked better when FTZ adapted to my Z6II than it did on my DSLR's.
I had a Tamron 1.4 that I used on their 70-200 f/2.8 G2 and that was the best f mount combo I ever had.
My current Z mount 1.4 TC is great and plays very well with my Z 70-200 and Z100-400 on Z9 or Z6II. That being said I have not used the TC on either of those in months and seldom use those bare lenses.
If my wife ever let's me try her 400 f/4.5 I might get around to trying the Z1.4 TC on that.
My birding habit keeps the Z800PF on my Z9 most of the time. Only time it has been off is for some indoor and outdoor event shoots at church where I was using Z9 and Z6II at the same time.
You made me think.
I started into photography in 2009 after I retired.
I have been happy with the images produced from almost every combo I have had even starting with my first camera a Fuji and then Nikon bridge camera and some pocket cameras used in the pocket of my waders back when I was still fly fishing and my ski coat on the ski hill.
My photographs bring back memories, promote conservation, have won contests and prints have been sold so nothing to be unhappy about
I am ADD/ADHD no medication required just learning lot's of new things over the years.
I have not had a desire to travel by plane for some time now. The flights from Idaho to and from South Africa were not my cup of tea. I have made a couple of trips to Alaska since then but none for several years now. So my airplane travel camera bag sits unused.
I like the directness of your last two posts, Bruce, as they really resonate with how I view the almost-philosophical choices we make when it comes to how we choose gear. On the philosophical-side of things, I’m a minimalist, not a generalist. I follow the principle of one camera/lens system, “beware the man with one gun”, as I feel that the goal is to become so in-tune with the gear that you don’t notice it while in use, and you won’t achieve that by switching every year or two.
At the same time, it can be said that you won’t know what you need until you’ve experienced it, tried all the options, and only then can you settle on the preferred thing. I think there’s some people that figure it out quick, and then others who take longer on that journey. For me, it took me a good 2-3 years of heavy shooting, switching cameras/lenses (APSC to FF, 100-400 -> 400 f/4 -> 500 f/4 -> 600 f/4) to really hone in on my exact focal length and features that allows for me to best photograph my subjects (small birds).
Found I love the 600 + 1.4TC (840mm) field of view, but despise the weight of the gear. The 500PF on the D500 is a little short of that FOV, but the weight of the gear is perfect, so I accepted that exchange and worked on improving my field craft enough that I could get closer to the birds to make up that ~100mm of reach. Now that I’m back on FF, bare 500mm is way too short, 500 + 1.4TC is still a bit short + too slow. I’m always shooting with the TC, and still cropping a good amount of the time. Sure, I could shoot in DX mode on the Z9 and be back on a D500 experience, which I’ll probably do until the 800PF arrives, but in the end though, I know I want to be at 800mm, and I want to be there as cleanly as possible, which means no adapters, no TCs, no crop.
Again, great discussion, really forces me to reassess and consider new options and points of view. Best part is that I probably have a looooong time to wait for the 800, so will get to exhaustively use the 500PF on the Z9 and see what’s what.
Regarding bigger lenses, there is a word that I think describes an affliction some of us have. It's called Abirdtoofar. It's an affliction I have learned to live with
almost without treatment; I bought a Z9.
almost without treatment; I bought a Z9
.
I hope your wait is not to long for the 800 it is a great lens for us small bird people
Hmm. I have the 100-400 and I borrowed the 400 f4.5 for a week to try it out and took a few thousand images with it The 400 f4.5 is definitely a great lens and very sharp with wonderful IQ, but the 100-400 is definitely *not* soft even for a Z lens. At this stage, I am not getting the 400 f4.5 and sticking with my 100-400 and 500 pf combo and maybe add the 800 PF (which is on order).My favourite focal length is 600mm f4. 500mm being my second.
I also have the 200-400 and 200-500 lenses so I'm pretty well covered.
Although I have a 400mm f2.8 ive also bought the 400mm f4.5 - its just so light and handy and doesn't degrade too much with a TC.
The 100-400 is a good lens but a little soft for a Z lens.
I had the 800mm f5.6 AFS and sold it because it was slightly too long for most uses and most birds here are a good size here...
How sharp do you need it to be. Z 100-400 shots:
I think you'll find that the 1.4x TCIII issue: "So I did some research and found out that the F mount TC’s only 1 out of 5 (some say 8) would actually pair well with the 500pf" is that they were using them on DSLR's and the issue with DSLR's is AF fine tune and that only a few AF points can actually AF at f8 (max aperture with the 500 f5.6 + 1.4x TCIII). Even if you AF fine tune the camera to the 500 PF + 1.4x TCIII it will be at one camera to subject distance and one aperture. Minor AF issues can happen outside the tested distance and aperture enough to possibly take the absolute sharpness off the image. Not only that, but only the D500, D850, and D5/6 etc (none of the lesser models successfully) could AF f8 and even then they had issues as it is only a few of the cross point AF points that can actually be used successfully. I did use the D850 + 500 + 1.4x TCIII with a little success but it was a little hit and miss due to the f8 issue. The problem was AF slowness and even using the cross type AF points that were supposed to ba able to focus at f8 were hit and miss in anything but good light.
With the advent of Mirrorless, AF fine tune is basically a thing of the past and my Z9 + 500 PF + 1.4x TCIII has a new lease of life. So much so that I am questioning whether I really need the 800 PF which I have had the good fortune to borrow from a friend for over a week to evaluate it. So, it's not as though I do not have the experience with the 800 PF.
If you want to see some samples of the 500 PF + 1.4x TCIII, see my post earlier in this thread.
Nextlife1
Active member
I love my 500 PF + TC14 as well--thousands upon thousands of great sharp shots with it.
Lance I know you shot a lot with your friend's 800 PF. But did you shoot it with the Z TC14? For anyone who often/commonly shoots small birds, after trying that easily handholdable combination at 1120mm and evaluating the results, if you don't lust after it you are a stronger person than me!
O
Well-known member
Its been interesting to see the way how many of us approach things, and there is some good advice in this forum.
From what you have said Its all sounds like a resounding 800mm seems to be your ticket and tool you need.
Would the 600 f4 with a TC be better optically ? that i feel is a resounding yes, but the weight and size ! so the merry go round it goes and goes LOL.
Getting close as you say i find is the greatest tool.
I find Light can be our greatest enemy and that light is often sold to us in tiny increments by the camera manufacturers often at extortionate prices.
My friend a professional bird photographer for over 40 years and still going has published over 100 books, he sells to calendar, commercial publishing companies etc from his deep collection of works on file.
He is an expert on the all bird-life, the environment, location, breeding seasons, behavior from all over OZ and NZ.
He is also a master at PS LR etc but always prefers to get it right in camera which is his mantra.
He currently uses a 500 F4 D850 previously a D800 Previously a D700, never a cropped sensor.
He knows or studies the site, waits patiently in a Hyde often for hours on end, he often sets up usually near a water hole with some very carefully positioned remote flash units strategically placed to add in ever such a very low fill light to just remove any shadows and add maybe a catch light occasionally, its that low it never effects the birds.
He prefers this kind of location when available as the birds fly in and out giving him excellent BIF action.
He has made a very successful living for a long time doing something he loves, he has never been worried about the gear, the latest lenses or cameras etc, he stays with what works and relies 95% of the time on himself and his skill sets, a wealth of knowledge, experience, then uses simple reliable tools to record birds tiny or large in action mostly not just standing on stick.
My other friend an ornithologist well into his 80s now, made a living documenting bird live all his carrier from around OZ, his employer was the federal Government environmental authority.
After film mostly used Leica on a long lens, then he went to digital, a 500 F4, 80-400, 200-500, D700, D7100, then to a D800 then lastly the D500 on a 300 F4 PF with a 1.4 TC.
He struggled adapted, searched tried different gear from Nikon to best meet his needs and choices, his shooting style was mostly to walk around listen look shot, that is a tough gig in my book LOL.
He would plan to catch 30 species on a long annual trip using his 500 f4 tripod D800, after lugging the gear around he would catch around 12 species, selling everything and finally later using only the D500 on the 300 F4 PF plus TC he would catch 28 out of 30 desired species.
Now he was a document-er, that needed just good records shots, he wasn't an artistic creative fine art photographer, the need was for academic purposes, studying the decline or expansion of the nature of these birds.
My other friend mentioned previously was a super competent highly creative talented photographer with many awards not just in bird life photography, he relied on himself for 95% of the result, regardless of the gear, his end results where consistently excellent regadless of the gear at the time.
In contrast to my ornithologist friend who relied heavily on the tools 90% to achieve his aim.
So whats the point in these two examples, neither is right or wrong, i guess its know what it is you want to do, know the way your going to do it, invest in your self as much as possible before investing in gear, stay with what works for you, above all love what you do, please your self first always, the gear only represent a fraction of what you achieve, they are only tools.
Less is more
I am going to view the international wild life photography exhibition on Thursday here in Sydney, its run from the UK, one of the winning shots is on a D4 28-300, many are with the Z7 and the rest is surprising.........
Sounds like the 800mm will be great.
Only an opinion
Last edited:
O
Well-known member
EXCELLENT INFO THANKS HEAPS MATE
For me Thats one less nail in the coffin for the Z9
@Pat Cassity you asked about BIF with the 800 pf
Here are a few BIF with Z9 and Z800 PF.
The Franklin's Gull shots illustrate the limitations of any lens when dealing with atmospheric distortion and the farther away the subject is the more that can come into play so it is easy to run into that with the 800PF. The first image was a serious crop and was taken accross the tail race of a dam with turbulent moisture and foggy mist from temperature differential in the air and I could see the atmospheric distortion through the viewfinder. The image was still good for ID of a seldom seen gull at this location this time of year.
The second gull shot was much closer and away from the tail race atmospheric disturbance.
The Barn Swallows were taken while they were playing and foraging over the Bruneau Sand Dunes in Southern Idaho.
Here are a few BIF with Z9 and Z800 PF.
The Franklin's Gull shots illustrate the limitations of any lens when dealing with atmospheric distortion and the farther away the subject is the more that can come into play so it is easy to run into that with the 800PF. The first image was a serious crop and was taken accross the tail race of a dam with turbulent moisture and foggy mist from temperature differential in the air and I could see the atmospheric distortion through the viewfinder. The image was still good for ID of a seldom seen gull at this location this time of year.
The second gull shot was much closer and away from the tail race atmospheric disturbance.
The Barn Swallows were taken while they were playing and foraging over the Bruneau Sand Dunes in Southern Idaho.
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.
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.
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.
Dead on I know similar ornithologists and pro photographers here in the US who do it differently but with great results.
I have a friend here in the US that is far more patient than I am and uses blinds, sets up landing branches, provides tasty snacks (minnows) for Kingfishers etc.. and gets stunning photos with what some would term ancient gear D300s and D4s. Another uses camera traps with multiple speed lights etc.. and the latest camera's and lenses. They both get amazing images that I love to see.
As I have noted I am ADD/ADHD so sitting in a blind is a major challenge for me
I just have more fun running around, stalking, and watching and photographing birds as they do their thing.O
Well-known member
A great point and examples,
The atmospheric effects is something i face a lot doing surfing photography, in what i do i find it has a lot to do with the level of wind and direction, if its a good breeze in the right direction its less of an issue, not always but at times the 800mm focal range can amplify the issues even with the 600 f4 and a 1.4 TC.
I love using a long lens for things much closer rather than things a super long way of in the distance and then even crop, if that's the case I prefer to pass on shooting.
I think they call that filling the frame, but he that's me.........i am strange LOL.
I like the 600 F4 FL with a TC 1.4 if needed on a D6 D850 or Z9, if cant get it with that, i don't want it LOL.
I have heard some good comments on the Canon 800mm ???
Only an opinion
O
Well-known member
Just love what you do............... happy daysDead on I know similar ornithologists and pro photographers here in the US who do it differently but with great results.
I have a friend here in the US that is far more patient than I am and uses blinds, sets up landing branches, provides tasty snacks (minnows) for Kingfishers etc.. and gets stunning photos with what some would term ancient gear D300s and D4s. Another uses camera traps with multiple speed lights etc.. and the latest camera's and lenses. They both get amazing images that I love to see.
As I have noted I am ADD/ADHD so sitting in a blind is a major challenge for me
O
Well-known member
yes exactly, i find even at 30 feet i prefer the 200- 500 used at 500mm for that Rosella in the bush LOL. the 800mm would be wonderful for that.
I know there are so many different gear choices out there and there are some real exotic lenses but when i look through the archives and see the killer sharp colorful eye in focus shots taken of older gear and even the 150-500 Sigma LOL.........it slows me down to build another shelf to store more to collected gear LOL
I still have my old 150-500 with VR that's broken, but it still achieves excellent results.
Sorry, I never tried the 800 + Z 1.4x. I should have!
My "limit" for useable focal length is 800mm as I think anything longer and the shutter speed/ISO thing starts to really eat into the image quality. Just an opinion. I would be more inclined to just shoot 800mm and crop the extra if needed. If you need longer than 1120/1200mm ( 1.4x TC or crop to DX) then we are getting into what I consider ridiculous focal lengths and well out of the realms of handholdability for little birds. Again, just my opinion.