Thanks. May rent one this fall for the Sandhills.
Nikkor 600mm f/4 or Nikkor 500mm F/5.6 PF
- Thread starter PAUL50
- 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).
Thanks. May rent one this fall for the Sandhills.
Interesting, objective and valid arguments here. That said, I sold my 600 f/4 for the 500 PF. My main reason weight, maneuverability and the schlep of kilos of Wimberley heads, tripods and steel bases for the bazooka. Pushing 70, it is not that easy anymore to schlep the weight. Horses for courses. Do what your heart tells you to do if your pocket is deep enough.
I hear you Neil! That's why I'm agonizing over the decision. I appreciate your thoughts and advice. Thanks
Thanks. I am 70 and that is factoring into my decision. I've found though for the most part that I don't spend that much time trekking around and usually wind up pretty close to the road. Perhaps that's part of the problem. LOL!
Bill, that's an outstanding shot. Beautiful lens. I'm surprised at how good the resolution is with a 2.0 TC. I'll just keep agonizing over what lens to purchase for a while longer and then take the plunge. Thanks.
William (Bill) Anderson
Well-known member
Paul, I can sympathize and empathize with your dilemma, I’ve been there. I sold my 600mm f4.0g to purchase the 800mm f5.6e when it first came out in 2013. Since then, I’ve shot 10s of thousands of images with it, starting with the Nikon D4. There is no denying the price and weight but once set on a good tripod with gimbal head, it’s as easy to shoot as the 600mm. However, like the 600, practice is required to develop good long lens technique with or without TCs. Also, remember that the price includes the dedicated 1.25 TC, which I use more often than not. I also am 70+ years of age and not a big person (~5’8’’ and 145lbs). So, mobility can be a challenge, though I commonly move around for several hours and over a mile or more. This is also why the 500mm 5.6e pf is a nice complement to the 800 when mobility is needed, since it can be carried all day. I hope that this helps.
It definitely helps. It sounds like the ideal arrangement. I'll be doing a lot of thinking. Thanks very much.
Perfectly agree on that one. I own the 500f/4G and the 500 f/5.6 PF and when I got the 500 f/4 I had the opportunity to check out the handling of the 600 f/4 (the older, heavier version without FL) and purely from the handling perspective decided to forget the 600. We are talking about 1,1kg more weight and most of it is sitting at the front end. For me there was no way hand-holding this beast properly. I had to go for tripod or at least some other kind of support. With the 500 f/4 (also the older heavier one without FL) it worked pretty well, but still not for very long and sometime ago I was in contact with someone who had the old and the new 500 f/4 in use in parallel for a short period and he confirmed that the FL version is even better when it comes to hand-holding, because it is lighter overall and less front-heavy.
I actually use the 500 f/5.6 most of the time because of the mobility and agility I gain (only very rare chances to sit in camouflage with the big gear). If I know I will need the extra stop I take the 500 f/4 and if I need extra reach I take the 500 f/4 with TC14. I would say, forget about using the 500 f5.6 with a TC, because you loose a considerabble part of AF speed and accuracy. I have no experience with the higher end bodies but with my D750 the AF with 500 f/5.6 plus TC is definitely nothing I would call "pleasure to use".
MT_Mass
New member
I have the same problem using the 1.4 TC III with the 500 f/5.6 PF...sounds like it's a known problem from what I've seen other places. For fast/erratically-moving subjects like BIF, I tend not to use the TC anymore, but still use it in good light with slower or stationary subjects.
I have had the same result when using my 500 mm PF and 1.4x TCIII on my D500 and D850. Only a small number of focus points near the center of the frame work (I think the manual says 8 or 9 focus points, if memory serves) at f8. Works in some cases, but is not great.
I also have a Z7 body and I have used the 500 mm PF with 1.4x TCIII on it (with the FTZ adpater). It works quite well for me -- all of the Z7 focus points work across the frame and f8 is not an issue (at least for autofocus). I now choose the Z7 body if I want to use the 500 mm PF with my 1.4x TCIII. Of course, the Z7 autofocus works better for stationary objects and slowly moving ones (where I think it is actually better than the D500 and D850) than for fast action. Not as good as the D500 and D850 for birds in flight, and other fast action, but still usable -- I have used it with the Z7 for birds in flight, even with TC, with some success, especially with slower, larger birds.
How much IQ do you give up with the TC on the 500PF? Like several others have noted on this (or maybe it was another one) thread…I almost always use my Tamron G2 at max zoom of 600…the 500PF is clearly going to be better by itself and likely better even with the TC on it…although I would have to figure out whether the 1.4 or 1.7TC was the way to go. The Tamron is known to my wife and I as "the bird lens" and only rarely is at less than full zoom…and although it's decent enough on my 7500 if I use the whole frame…if I have to crop the image down it does start to get soft in the detail areas. I'm toying with the idea of adding a Z series to my arsenal…I'm not a professional but firmly believe that pixels on target is the largest contributor to IQ so would likely get either the Z50 to keep the crop sensor focal length multiplication factor or go to the Z7 for the higher pixel density which puts more pixels on target than the same lens on a DX sensor.
Doesn't the Z7 have the same 45.7 Mpixel sensor as the D850? If so then when shooting in DX crop mode (or shooting smaller subjects that fit well within the DX crop area) you actually get fewer pixels on subject than Nikon's current crop of DX format cameras. The D850 in DX crop mode gives you around 19.4 Mpixels of remaining resolution when cut down to the DX crop area (granted that's plenty for most uses) where the D500 has around 21 Mpixels.
Sure if you can fill your viewfinder and sensor beyond the DX crop boundaries you'll get more pixels on subject in a D850 or Z7 but once the image size goes down below the DX crop region the dedicated DX cameras actually put more pixels on the subject.
First of all, bcause it is a f5.6 lens, it technically becomes a f8 fi you combine it with a TC14 and as a consequence you loose the majority of the AF sensors and AF speed. The exact number depends on the camera model, but the problem is the same including the top pro bodies. So I would say forget about the TC with the 500PF unless you make long distance shoots of dead animals
...., well slow moving objects should be o.k. Apart from that the effect of TC's on IQ varies depending on the lens/TC combination, but there is somebody who wrote some interesting stuff about it that is probably worthwhile to take a look at.One is a general article around TC's including giving a kind of guideline for estimating IQ drop by TCs (exemplary test done with a 70-200 FL VR), the other one looking at the differences between TC-14E II and III. Would be interesting to compare this with experiences made by the people here.
Well, before anybody starts to shout "forget lab tests, go out and try": I know that there is always a difference between lab and real world but I think that as always the truth is somewhere in the middle. This is why I like the things @Steve is doing in his reviewsso much, where he does a decent real world fied test combined with tests that are more "lab-like" just to make it easier to see the effects he is talking about. One good example related to TC is his 500PF review. There he compares the 500PF and the 300PF + TC14 showing that beside a TC being able to decrease resolution it also can add CA with lenses that normally has a problem with that (in this case the 300PF).
In this context I would love to know if somebody out there has experience with comparing the 70-200 FL VR + TC14 with the 300PF.
I guess I am more bullish on the 1.4x TCIII on the 500 mm PF. (It is also very good on the 300 mm PF.)
Yes, you lose a stop of aperture and focus can be slower. You also lose focus points on DSLRs (at least the D500 and D850, I have not used a D5 or D6). You do not lose focus points on the Z7 and Z6 bodies, so I find myself using a Z7 when I want to use the 500 mm PF with the 1.4x TCIII.
As to optical quality, I think it is quite good with the 1.4x TCIII. I have used the 500 mm PF with the 1.4x TCIII on a Z7 extensively this year. Perched warblers, water birds and wading birds from a kayak, eagles & osprey, mammals, etc. It’s not the best for birds in flight, but I find it very good for everything else. And decent for birds in flight.
Steve did a video a while back on TCs versus cropping and I think he concluded, if memory serves, that TCs were often better for optical results than cropping.
I am not a pro or a lens tester, so take this with a grain of salt. But I’d certainly recommend trying it. For much of what I do, the extra reach is very useful. (On additional benefit, the TC does not change the minimum focusing distance. Often nice for butterflies and dragonflies.)
Yes, you lose a stop of aperture and focus can be slower. You also lose focus points on DSLRs (at least the D500 and D850, I have not used a D5 or D6). You do not lose focus points on the Z7 and Z6 bodies, so I find myself using a Z7 when I want to use the 500 mm PF with the 1.4x TCIII.
As to optical quality, I think it is quite good with the 1.4x TCIII. I have used the 500 mm PF with the 1.4x TCIII on a Z7 extensively this year. Perched warblers, water birds and wading birds from a kayak, eagles & osprey, mammals, etc. It’s not the best for birds in flight, but I find it very good for everything else. And decent for birds in flight.
Steve did a video a while back on TCs versus cropping and I think he concluded, if memory serves, that TCs were often better for optical results than cropping.
I am not a pro or a lens tester, so take this with a grain of salt. But I’d certainly recommend trying it. For much of what I do, the extra reach is very useful. (On additional benefit, the TC does not change the minimum focusing distance. Often nice for butterflies and dragonflies.)
I agree with the IQ aspect. I find the Nikon 500mm PF pairs really well with the TC-14 iii from a pure optics standpoint and I'm quite happy with the images I've taken with that combo. But as has been pointed out a number of times the AF performance of that combo isn't great even on static subjects and that's even with a D5, D850 or D500 which have very good AF capabilities.
I was photographing a perched hummingbird just outside our kitchen window with the 500 PF and decided to slap on the TC-14 iii just to completely fill the FX frame. The image quality was no problem, but the bird was in soft light and even with the center focus point selected the AF was hit or miss, either nailing the focus or hunting back and forth across the entire focusing range. That was true on both the D5 and D850 as I tried both hoping one would be better in that situation. Prefocusing manually and then just a quick touch up with the AF worked in that light but even on a still subject filling the frame with Single Point selected the AF couldn't really be trusted. I've had better luck with the AF of that lens combo with higher contrast subjects in bright light but I generally don't seek out subjects in bright mid day light.
I suspect the Z series cameras take care of a lot of these AF issues but for DSLR shooters I wouldn't recommend rushing out to purchase a TC-14 iii just for the 500mm PF lens.
I would be using the Z7 in FF mode and not DX mode…I did the math compared to the D7500 and for FF 38MP turns out to be the crossover point…more than that and the FF has more pixels on target and less the DX does. Since pixels on target is the single biggest contributor to overall IQ…especially when cropped in for just the subject and then viewed on a computer monitor which is how most of my images get looked it (travel blog) then if I were to go FF I would either have to get the Z7 or else I would need the TC to get at least the same pixels on target as with the D7500.
Yeah…using a FF in DX mode doesn't make much sense. What I would actually probably do is have the TC as well as the Z7 and limit the TC usage for better light as it does slow the lens down…although I would have to experiment and make sure that was the best way to go over just using the TC and cropping less. I would test my current Tamron 150-600 with the Z7 and maybe rent a 500PF and TC to test as well before dropping over 4K on upgrading the lens…even though the Tamron is effectively shorter with FF it stlll has more pixels on target with the Z7. The Z6 not so much.
Most likely I'll upgrade my wife's camera first and that will be the DX Z50 with the 2 kit lenses to lighten her load…then I can pop my Tamron on that body and test there while waiting on the Z7s or whatever they call it to come out and fix the known issues with the mirrorless…as Steve noted in several of his videos the Z bodies are less capable for action wildlife than the DSLRs are…but since Sony has figured it out Nikon should be able to as well.
Perhaps we're saying different things here and it does all come down to the subject size within the frame regardless of whether you actively crop in camera. But the D500 has a slightly tighter pixel pitch (4.22 microns) than the D850 or Z7(4.34 microns). That means if the subject fits within the DX crop area, again regardless of whether you actually use the in camera crop feature, then the D500 is actually putting more pixels on the same sized subject.
If you want a FX camera with the same pixel pitch as the D500 you'd need roughly a 48 Mpixel camera.
Last edited:
I think we're mostly saying the same things. My original question was whether adding the TC to the 500PF affected the IQ significantly. If not…then going to the Z6 with the TC gives me effectively about the same reach in camera before cropping and provides an alternative to consider along with the Z7 which without the TC puts somewhat more pixels on target. The. alternative is to get the Z50 and stay with the DX effectively longer reach with the same lens. Again…I'm not down to making any decisions at this point…just exploring alternatives and gathering info for whenever I decide to upgrade.
I see where you're coming from and yeah from the perspective of filling the FX frame via a teleconverter vs filling the DX frame without the converter, yup you get more pixels on the subject with the FF TC approach. I figured we were coming at this from different viewpoints
FWIW, I posted this elsewhere today but I'm very happy with the IQ of my 500 PF with a TC-14 iii on my D850, D5 or D500 so I personally think the optics hold up really well. But I shoot DSLRs so my AF really struggles with the TC on my 500 PF but that shouldn't be an issue for you running the mirrorless bodies.
I see where you're coming from and yeah from the perspective of filling the FX frame via a teleconverter vs filling the DX frame without the converter, yup you get more pixels on the subject with the FF TC approach. I figured we were coming at this from different viewpoints
FWIW, I posted this elsewhere today but I'm very happy with the IQ of my 500 PF with a TC-14 iii on my D850, D5 or D500 so I personally think the optics hold up really well. But I shoot DSLRs so my AF really struggles with the TC on my 500 PF but that shouldn't be an issue for you running the mirrorless bodies.
Thanks…based on doing more research…if I decide to upgrade my Tamron lens I will most likely go with the 500PF and 1.4TC along with a Z7 body…that way I'm not losing any pixels on target without the TC involved and if reach is a issue then having another 1.4 on focal length will help.
I've realized that most of my IQ issues can be solved by the application of $15K or so…I can certainly afford it but like all of us hate to spend that much money.
I think the 500 mm PF is great on the Z7 with or without the 1.4x TCIII. And I think that the Z7 autofocus deals with the issues that DR mentioned above quite well for static or slowly moving objects. For birds in flight, I prefer the D500 or D850 and the 500 mm PF without a TC (I do not have a D5 or D6).
After reading Steve's reviews of the 500PF I ended up buying one and the aftermarket foot he recommened. I use it primarily on my D850 (with the battery grip and the big D4s-6 battery) and with my record button set for a fast switch to DX (crop sensor) mode I can quickly put the built in D500 to work (another Steve recommendation from the past). I am 72 but in pretty good shape and live in Boise, Idaho and chase birds of all types up and down some very steep terrain and through dense brush and accross the sage steppe. I am a very mobile photographer and although I have great tripods and a high end Wimberly they have not been used for wildlife photography in several years. As others have mentioned tripods and even a monopod slow me down when I need to get low or move fast. I prefer not to shoot from the famous tripod level everyone else shoots at. I shot target rifles in my youth, hunted birds and shot sporting clays so have been my own tripod for years. I lift weights 3 times a week to help keep my tripod steady I also use a Tamron 150-600 G2 on a D500 with the battery grip and the big D5 battery in it and if shooting mostly from my SUV or on shorter excursions use a hefty Sigma 60-600 on the D850. When following my chukar hunting (falconer and gun hunters) friends around in steep and rocky chukar terrain I use a much lighter combo a D500 (no grip) with a Tamron 18-400 that is married to it and it is an amazingly effective and versatile combo. I also carry it in a mindshift photocross bag with a Black Rapids strap over that for my D850 with the 500 PF then if I see a landscape, macro opportunity etc. I have the time to whip the photocross around and grab the shorter focal length set up.
I also use a Tamron 150-600 G2 on a D500 with the battery grip and the big D5 battery in it and if shooting mostly from my SUV or on shorter excursions use a hefty Sigma 60-600 on the D850. When following my chukar hunting (falconer and gun hunters) friends around in steep and rocky chukar terrain I use a much lighter combo a D500 (no grip) with a Tamron 18-400 that is married to it and it is an amazingly effective and versatile combo. I also carry it in a mindshift photocross bag with a Black Rapids strap over that for my D850 with the 500 PF then if I see a landscape, macro opportunity etc. I have the time to whip the photocross around and grab the shorter focal length set up.
I have both lenses and all teleconverters. I have found the 500PF quick to use. If I am traveling down a road in the Everglades and see something interesting, I am able to stop, and grab my 500PF already attached to me D5 and hand-hold the shot. If I am going to set-up in an area known for a particular species, I get the 600e and tripod/gymbal and attach my D5 then wait for some captures. If I am flying by air somewhere to do some shooting, I pack my 500Pf, a teleconverter and my gymbal monopod. I have not flown with the 600 or a large tripod. I like to travel by pick-up when carrying lots of photo gear.
I will add to your dilemma. I also traded a bunch of older photo gear and purchased a 180-400 Nikon lens. This lens has a built-in 1.4 extender and is becoming a well-used favorite. I like the fact that it uses the same internal filters as the 600e. I am able to use it hand-held and. when the world reopens from covid, I will include in some travel trips.
To summarize: if I had to keep one (what a foolish concept) of the lenses, the 600 e would be my keeper. The 600e has, in my photo experience, been an excellent lens with NO negatives. Big, yes, heavy, yes, needs a sturdy tripod and gimbal head, yes, but this is my passion.
I will add to your dilemma. I also traded a bunch of older photo gear and purchased a 180-400 Nikon lens. This lens has a built-in 1.4 extender and is becoming a well-used favorite. I like the fact that it uses the same internal filters as the 600e. I am able to use it hand-held and. when the world reopens from covid, I will include in some travel trips.
To summarize: if I had to keep one (what a foolish concept) of the lenses, the 600 e would be my keeper. The 600e has, in my photo experience, been an excellent lens with NO negatives. Big, yes, heavy, yes, needs a sturdy tripod and gimbal head, yes, but this is my passion.
It’s a lot to think about. Thanks for your thought,
I played around at a workshop in West Yellowstone with the 180-400 when it first came out ... Nikon reps had it there and would not let it go out the door could only use it in the conference hall. It was a bit heavy but very intriguing thank you or darn you for making me think again