MTF data for the 500 f5.6E PF (including TC's)
- Thread starter fcotterill
- 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).
fcotterill
Well-known member
Some caveats on the technical issues of laboratory tests of lenses. LensRentals is probably unique because they quantity copy variation in estimating the MTF of each model.
Measurements of mtf data of a supertelephoto lens present big challenges. Two big issues are stabilizing the lens and limits of the apparatus. All these factors complicate comparing mtf data across different reviews.
So I judge published mtf results, the longer telephotos especially, as guidelines with uncertainties. This includes Photography Life, and note they changed their methodology recently; so older charts are not comparable. However, logic says data should be compatible from the same apparatus & methodology from the same outfit. Some years back, Nasim Mansurov described the huge challenges entailed in trying to measure reliable mtf results for a 800 f5.6E FL Nikkor, which involved using flash to mitigate vibrations.
The pragmatic route is I test each copy of my own telephotos to estimate its performance in the real world, where I photograph wildlife. I use live subjects at known distances, being wary of atmospheric interference. The big questions include: what is the optimal range of subject distances? How does it pair with Teleconverter(s)?
Why Aren’t the Damn Numbers the Same????
I get asked a simple question almost every day: Why do your results say this, Joe's results say that, and Bill's results say something different? The questions surprised me at first; I grew up in biological and medical research and took it for granted everyone expected different tests to have...
www.lensrentals.com
Just MTF Charts: Nikon Prime Lenses
We'll continue our just MTF chart series of posts with the Nikon brand prime lenses. For those of you who have been asking, The Digital Picture is going to add all our MTF graphs to their comparison tool as we release them. That will let you do logical comparisons like 'is the Sony 135mm f/1.8 [...]
www.lensrentals.com
Measurements of mtf data of a supertelephoto lens present big challenges. Two big issues are stabilizing the lens and limits of the apparatus. All these factors complicate comparing mtf data across different reviews.
Supertelephoto MTF Curves
Brandon has accomplished much during his summer with us, including several things I never thought we'd be able to do. One of those things was measuring the MTF of supertelephoto lenses on our optical bench. A vertical bench just isn't designed to handle the mass of those big lenses and...
www.lensrentals.com
A Peek Inside the AF-S Nikkor 120-300mm f/2.8 FL ED SR VR
We've wanted to look inside the Nikkor AF-S 120-300mm f/2.8 FL ED SR VR lens. When we took apart a Z lens recently, we found Nikon had moved on from their 'classic' internal optomechanical and electrical design for a neat, modern design. We were interested to see if newer F lenses would pick...
www.lensrentals.com
So I judge published mtf results, the longer telephotos especially, as guidelines with uncertainties. This includes Photography Life, and note they changed their methodology recently; so older charts are not comparable. However, logic says data should be compatible from the same apparatus & methodology from the same outfit. Some years back, Nasim Mansurov described the huge challenges entailed in trying to measure reliable mtf results for a 800 f5.6E FL Nikkor, which involved using flash to mitigate vibrations.
The pragmatic route is I test each copy of my own telephotos to estimate its performance in the real world, where I photograph wildlife. I use live subjects at known distances, being wary of atmospheric interference. The big questions include: what is the optimal range of subject distances? How does it pair with Teleconverter(s)?
Last edited:
Marcepan
Well-known member
I still considering 800 PF.
I have a request.
Can I ask for some samples from 800 PF?
Only the sharpest.
Only at F6.3.
Only NEF.
Theme - whatever.
Body - D850, Z9.
EDIT:
...right...D850 + 800 PF - it would be difficult task
I compare this with my 500 FL with TC 1.4III and make decision.
My private email adres I write on priv message. Files via Wetransfer please.
I will be very, very grateful!
Marcepan
I have a request.
Can I ask for some samples from 800 PF?
Only the sharpest.
Only at F6.3.
Only NEF.
Theme - whatever.
Body - D850, Z9.
EDIT:
...right...D850 + 800 PF - it would be difficult task
I compare this with my 500 FL with TC 1.4III and make decision.
My private email adres I write on priv message. Files via Wetransfer please.
I will be very, very grateful!
Marcepan
Last edited:
good luck getting D850 files shot through an 800pf
Ado Wolf
Well-known member
I think it is safe to say, that expensive exotic primes (such as 500 f4) render high IQ photos compared to those made with mid range primes (such 500 PF). It is also safe to say, that one loses some IQ when using a TC.
But IQ is not everything. a big and heavy exotic prime is worthless, when one doesn’t use it often enough, in my case favouring the 500 PF for its weight, size and compactness.
initially I had a 200-500 zoom. Back then IQ was sufficient for me. With more time and experience I wanted better IQ.. even if I could have afforded a 500 f4 (which I don’t), I would have still bought the 500 PF (as I did) because I knew from my experience with the 200-500 zoom that I wanted a lighter Kit. Anything heavier would’ve stayed at home. I never regretted my choice.
to sum up, IQ is important, but is not everything. What is not good enough for someone can be just perfect for someone else.
PS some lenses may test well on test charts that are made only a few meters away, but test poorly when tested with distant objects. It’s always best to test the lens at the distance it is intended to be used.
But IQ is not everything. a big and heavy exotic prime is worthless, when one doesn’t use it often enough, in my case favouring the 500 PF for its weight, size and compactness.
initially I had a 200-500 zoom. Back then IQ was sufficient for me. With more time and experience I wanted better IQ.. even if I could have afforded a 500 f4 (which I don’t), I would have still bought the 500 PF (as I did) because I knew from my experience with the 200-500 zoom that I wanted a lighter Kit. Anything heavier would’ve stayed at home. I never regretted my choice.
to sum up, IQ is important, but is not everything. What is not good enough for someone can be just perfect for someone else.
PS some lenses may test well on test charts that are made only a few meters away, but test poorly when tested with distant objects. It’s always best to test the lens at the distance it is intended to be used.
I'm amazed at all the discussion about the 500 pf - and yet very, very few people talk about the rendering of backgrounds. It is a somewhat personal assessment, but the reason I never liked the 500 pf was how it rendered OOF backgrounds. In some cases , the "squigglies" were very strong even when shooting wide open. So, there is more to consider than just subject IQ.
For those that love the 500 pf, (and there are a LOT of you!
), I'm glad you like the lens. Perhaps I just had a poor copy. I now use the Z 400mm f4.5 and love it.
For those that love the 500 pf, (and there are a LOT of you!
), I'm glad you like the lens. Perhaps I just had a poor copy. I now use the Z 400mm f4.5 and love it.
I guess I struck it pretty lucky with my 500mm PF lens. This image was shot with the TC-14E III attached. The main requirement for a nice smooth background, probably with any lens, it to have the background far behind the subject, otherwise bokeh can be messy.I'm amazed at all the discussion about the 500 pf - and yet very, very few people talk about the rendering of backgrounds. It is a somewhat personal assessment, but the reason I never liked the 500 pf was how it rendered OOF backgrounds. In some cases , the "squigglies" were very strong even when shooting wide open. So, there is more to consider than just subject IQ.
For those that love the 500 pf, (and there are a LOT of you!
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
It is true for any lens that having a good amount of separation between the subject and the lens aids in achieving a pleasing OOF area. However with most high quality lenses, if the background is closer, the background will just be more distinct. With the 500 pf if the background is cluttered and somewhat close, sometime the grasses or stems will take on a very odd squiggly look. Not all the time, but in some situations.
Ado Wolf
Well-known member
It’s a matter of taste, as you well pointed out. Not everyone likes “creamy separation”.. me personally I like to see a bit of the habitat, where the critter was photographed. So more documentary rather than artistic. It is true however that the 500 PF is not known to have the best bokeh. That’s the reason why I’m considering a native Z400 4.5 
ARClark
Well-known member
The 500 PF really is an outstanding lens. And I agree with your disagreement with PL over their assessment of the 800 PF. Somehow they really missed the mark on that one.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
Chris K
Well-known member
I have a few thoughts reading the article and this thread:
- That helicopter photo! Wow!
- What the heck is wrong with their 2x TC? CA width is 5x the bare lens.
- I find the “it makes noisy backgrounds” to be a non-issue, personally. If you have a noisy, sharp background, another lens might do a bit better. But for this kind of lens, those photos aren’t keepers anyway. So the issue is that “the images I’d already throw away photos are bad.”
- Between its performance, its ability to handle a 1.4x, its size, and now its price. I think we’ll look back in 20 years on the 500PF as one of Nikon’s best lenses.
I used the 500 mm PF lens and FTZ on both a Z7ii and a Z9. Sharpness certainly meet my standards even for relatively small birds where some cropping was necessary. The primary reason that I let it go was focus lock-on. For birds in flight, it seemed to take a noticably long time to find focus than the Z lenses.
Last edited by a moderator: