Nikkor 500mm D Lenses?

[kenafein]

Are the Nikkor 500mm/4 D lenses even worth considering at this point? They're certainly budget friendly, but I don't see anyone talking about them. Are they too slow, too loud or too short on features to consider? Is the optical perfromance sub par? There are so many versions of these long teles from Nikon that it's hard to know what's good. How do the D lenses work with TCs? If anyone has some resources that will help, I'd appreciate them. I haven't found much. I also haven't seen much from this community on the Sigma 500 Art. It looks to be a very nice piece of glass and goes for about the same price as the G lens, used. I have a D850, if that helps.

 

[DRwyoming]

Are the Nikkor 500mm/4 D lenses even worth considering at this point? They're certainly budget friendly, but I don't see anyone talking about them. Are they too slow, too loud or too short on features to consider? Is the optical perfromance sub par? There are so many versions of these long teles from Nikon that it's hard to know what's good. How do the D lenses work with TCs? If anyone has some resources that will help, I'd appreciate them. I haven't found much. I also haven't seen much from this community on the Sigma 500 Art. It looks to be a very nice piece of glass and goes for about the same price as the G lens, used. I have a D850, if that helps.

All of the Nikkor 500mm f/4 lenses even going back to the P (manual focus) or AF-I series are fantastic optically and take teleconverters just fine (at least the TC-14 and maybe the TC-17 but that's personal taste) But when you go farther back than the AF-S lenses you'll notice it in terms of AF performance and lose features like instant manual focus override. The 500mm D, IF-ED, AF-S lens and it's mid production run upgrade II version are AF-S lenses so they'll work with all modern Nikon DSLRs. Of course VR also came in as a later feature in the G series lenses which is part of why they demand such a high price. If you'll shoot primarily off a tripod with this big lens the VR might not be super important but if you'll try to handhold much you might miss it.

It really depends on your budget and your primary shooting interests. I owned and really liked the 500mm D IF-ED lens and it delivered great performance but did lack VR which can be nice in some situations. I would generally advise folks interested in action photography to stick with at least an AF-S lens (which this is). That said, my first serious long glass was the Nikkor 600mm f/5.6 P series manual focus lens and I loved that lens when I had it. It was completely manual focus but I still managed some action shots. though with nowhere near the success rate of my newer lenses.

Bottom line, you can't go wrong optically with any of the big Nikkor primes but from a features standpoint the G series adds VR and the E series substantially lightens the load and adds fluorite glass to the front element with a substantial redesign (the flaring front part of the lens). Are these changes worth the extra cost? Tough call and a very personal decision but if I was in the market for a 500mm or 600mm f/4 prime on a budget I certainly wouldn't hesitate to buy one of the Nikkor D series IF-ED AF-S lenses.

In terms of the Sigma Art, I haven't shot with that particular lens but do own a couple of Sigma Art series lenses and I've gotta believe it's a very good lens. But the price isn't so compelling that I'd necessarily take it over a similar used Nikkor lens in good condition.

 

[kenafein]

All of the Nikkor 500mm f/4 lenses even going back to the P (manual focus) or AF-I series are fantastic optically and take teleconverters just fine (at least the TC-14 and maybe the TC-17 but that's personal taste) But when you go farther back than the AF-S lenses you'll notice it in terms of AF performance and lose features like instant manual focus override. The 500mm D, IF-ED, AF-S lens and it's mid production run upgrade II version are AF-S lenses so they'll work with all modern Nikon DSLRs. Of course VR also came in as a later feature in the G series lenses which is part of why they demand such a high price. If you'll shoot primarily off a tripod with this big lens the VR might not be super important but if you'll try to handhold much you might miss it.

It really depends on your budget and your primary shooting interests. I owned and really liked the 500mm D IF-ED lens and it delivered great performance but did lack VR which can be nice in some situations. I would generally advise folks interested in action photography to stick with at least an AF-S lens (which this is). That said, my first serious long glass was the Nikkor 600mm f/5.6 P series manual focus lens and I loved that lens when I had it. It was completely manual focus but I still managed some action shots. though with nowhere near the success rate of my newer lenses.

Bottom line, you can't go wrong optically with any of the big Nikkor primes but from a features standpoint the G series adds VR and the E series substantially lightens the load and adds fluorite glass to the front element with a substantial redesign (the flaring front part of the lens). Are these changes worth the extra cost? Tough call and a very personal decision but if I was in the market for a 500mm or 600mm f/4 prime on a budget I certainly wouldn't hesitate to buy one of the Nikkor D series IF-ED AF-S lenses.

In terms of the Sigma Art, I haven't shot with that particular lens but do own a couple of Sigma Art series lenses and I've gotta believe it's a very good lens. But the price isn't so compelling that I'd necessarily take it over a similar used Nikkor lens in good condition.

Thanks for the information. It was very helpful. At first, I was set on getting the 500 PF, but reading through this forum, it seems that that extra stop of light also deserves some consideration, and my Tamron 150-600 is very hand holdable already. The fast glass would be stuck on a tripod, if I go that route.

 

[Boat Guy]

The 500PF is a remarkable lens. Stats aren't as good as an f4 but the net keepers are excellent simply because it is so light and maneuverable. I have both a 500PF and a 500f4 FL ED VR and actually use the PF more. I've ordered the Wimberly monopod gimbal Steve recommended so carrying the f4 may be more doable for me than that the f4 and a tripod so for shorter hikes the f4 may work well. So we'll see but unless your shots are mainly tripod work give the PF serious thought.

 

[VStammer]

All of the Nikkor 500mm f/4 lenses even going back to the P (manual focus) or AF-I series are fantastic optically and take teleconverters just fine (at least the TC-14 and maybe the TC-17 but that's personal taste) But when you go farther back than the AF-S lenses you'll notice it in terms of AF performance and lose features like instant manual focus override. The 500mm D, IF-ED, AF-S lens and it's mid production run upgrade II version are AF-S lenses so they'll work with all modern Nikon DSLRs. Of course VR also came in as a later feature in the G series lenses which is part of why they demand such a high price. If you'll shoot primarily off a tripod with this big lens the VR might not be super important but if you'll try to handhold much you might miss it.

It really depends on your budget and your primary shooting interests. I owned and really liked the 500mm D IF-ED lens and it delivered great performance but did lack VR which can be nice in some situations. I would generally advise folks interested in action photography to stick with at least an AF-S lens (which this is). That said, my first serious long glass was the Nikkor 600mm f/5.6 P series manual focus lens and I loved that lens when I had it. It was completely manual focus but I still managed some action shots. though with nowhere near the success rate of my newer lenses.

Bottom line, you can't go wrong optically with any of the big Nikkor primes but from a features standpoint the G series adds VR and the E series substantially lightens the load and adds fluorite glass to the front element with a substantial redesign (the flaring front part of the lens). Are these changes worth the extra cost? Tough call and a very personal decision but if I was in the market for a 500mm or 600mm f/4 prime on a budget I certainly wouldn't hesitate to buy one of the Nikkor D series IF-ED AF-S lenses.

In terms of the Sigma Art, I haven't shot with that particular lens but do own a couple of Sigma Art series lenses and I've gotta believe it's a very good lens. But the price isn't so compelling that I'd necessarily take it over a similar used Nikkor lens in good condition.

Agree with these thoughts 100%. I previously owned the 500 AF-S and loved it and now own the 600 AF-S and am loving it as well. I shoot a D500 and a D850 and they both work well with these cameras. As far as teleconverters I have had reasonable success with the 1.4 and have rarely utilized my 1.7 so I can't speak much on that one. I never dreamed of owning prime glass like this but if you shoot off tripods/monopods then it makes them an affordable option to join the big glass club!

 

[kenafein]

The 500PF is a remarkable lens. Stats aren't as good as an f4 but the net keepers are excellent simply because it is so light and maneuverable. I have both a 500PF and a 500f4 FL ED VR and actually use the PF more. I've ordered the Wimberly monopod gimbal Steve recommended so carrying the f4 may be more doable for me than that the f4 and a tripod so for shorter hikes the f4 may work well. So we'll see but unless your shots are mainly tripod work give the PF serious thought.

You're not making the decision easy

 

[kenafein]

Agree with these thoughts 100%. I previously owned the 500 AF-S and loved it and now own the 600 AF-S and am loving it as well. I shoot a D500 and a D850 and they both work well with these cameras. As far as teleconverters I have had reasonable success with the 1.4 and have rarely utilized my 1.7 so I can't speak much on that one. I never dreamed of owning prime glass like this but if you shoot off tripods/monopods then it makes them an affordable option to join the big glass club!

A 600/4 D is especially compelling.

 

[Capelle Ch]

Qui pourrait m'expliquer ce qui se passe si je photographie avec un 300 mm et que je recadre comme si je tirais avec un 500 mm? Merci

 

[Pistnbroke]

Buying old D lenses is never a good idea.
Capelle CH said ...
Who could explain to me what happens if I shoot with a 300mm and crop like I'm shooting with a 500mm? Thank you.

If you shoot with a 500mm lens the image on the sensor ie bird ( DX or FX ) is bigger than using a 300mm. So it has more pixels on that image. That depends on the lens quality but should give an image with more IQ ( image quality)..please use a language translator next time.

or in Frog.

Si vous photographiez avec un objectif de 500 mm, l'image sur le capteur (DX ou FX) est plus grande qu'avec un 300 mm. Il y a donc plus de pixels sur cette image. Cela dépend de la qualité de l'objectif donne une image avec plus de QI (qualité d'image). Veuillez utiliser un traducteur de langue la prochaine fois.

 

[Capelle Ch]

Buying old D lenses is never a good idea.
Capelle CH said ...
Who could explain to me what happens if I shoot with a 300mm and crop like I'm shooting with a 500mm? Thank you.

If you shoot with a 500mm lens the image on the sensor ie bird ( DX or FX ) is bigger than using a 300mm. So it has more pixels on that image. That depends on the lens quality but should give an image with more IQ ( image quality)..please use a language translator next time.

or in Frog.

Si vous photographiez avec un objectif de 500 mm, l'image sur le capteur (DX ou FX) est plus grande qu'avec un 300 mm. Il y a donc plus de pixels sur cette image. Cela dépend de la qualité de l'objectif donne une image avec plus de QI (qualité d'image). Veuillez utiliser un traducteur de langue la prochaine fois.

ok, I forgot to deactivate the translator

 

[Capelle Ch]

[QUOTE = "Capelle Ch, message: 9098, membre: 1018"]
ok, j'ai oublié de désactiver le traducteur
[/CITATION]
En effet, c'est logique même avec un 46 MP, si l'on veut avoir une image de qualité. Je vais m'en tenir à mon sigma 150-600 mm. Au moins je vais garder sa souplesse pour la composition. Pour le BIF, je pourrai comparer mon D850 + sigma contre des Z7 et 500 PF et un Sony alpha 7 RIV + lors d'une prochaine sortie entre amis?

 

[AlfC]

I don't know what the older 500 f/4 s cost but I can certainly vouch for the Sigma 500 f/4.0 Sport. Brad Hill did a very extensive review a couple of years ago and found it to be as good as the Nikon 500 f/4E. http://naturalart.ca/artist/fieldtests/500mmwars_sigma_nikon.html

 

[kenafein]

I don't know what the older 500 f/4 s cost but I can certainly vouch for the Sigma 500 f/4.0 Sport. Brad Hill did a very extensive review a couple of years ago and found it to be as good as the Nikon 500 f/4E. http://naturalart.ca/artist/fieldtests/500mmwars_sigma_nikon.html

Quite a lot of info to unpack there. The Sigma does seem to be hightly regarded. I thought about getting it for my sony instead, but i guess it doesn't play well with TCs using the sigma adapter. I saw one for 4k the other day, for Nikon, so it's seriously tempting.