Nikon 500mm f4 versus Nikon 500mm PF

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).

Abinoone

Abinoone

Well-known member
Supporting Member
Marketplace
Member's gallery
I'm interested in upgrading my Nikon 200-500 f5.6 to a better lens. While it's been a real workhorse for me, and I've gotten pretty good results, I'd like to obtain sharper images, have faster AF, better weather sealing, and creamier backgrounds. I shoot a wide variety of wildlife - large and small mammals, birds, etc., with my two D850s. I've set my sights on a 600mm f4, but finding a good, recent model copy that I can afford has been a challenge, so I'm considering alternatives.

The 500mm f5.6 PF checks a number of the boxes and is certainly more affordable, but I'm hesitant about another 5.6 lens. Steve's video review of this lens gives it overall high marks, but also notes its limitations. Now, I'm looking at the Nikon 500mm f4, and it seems to meet all of my objectives, except perhaps weight. Unlike the 500 f5.6 PF, it takes a TC very well, without any compromise on IQ or AF. Is there much of a difference between the G and E model of this lens that would warrant spending the extra $$$ on the E model?

Any thoughts and suggestions would be much appreciated.
 
Member's gallery
If you want to use TCs on the d850 your only option is a 500mm f:4, I have shot the 500pf with TC on the D850 enough to tell you it’s not a pleasant experience (unless you enjoy missing shots consistently due to non acquisition of the AF of course). It’s much better on mirrorless, but on DSLR forget it.
‘I would go with the E, not just because of weight but for service as well - no idea when repair centers will stop supporting the G but you know it wil happen before the E.

The sigma is a great option too, but I don’t know how well it does on an FTZ adapter if you ever move to mirrorless (maybe fine, I just have no idea).
 
Member's gallery
The 500 f/4 E is lighter than the 500 f/4 G. Also, since the E is newer, it will be repairable by Nikon longer. However, I recently sold my 500 f/4 E while I kept my 500 f/5.6 PF. The bigger f/4’s certainly take TC’s well, but since I am back to traveling by air the PF is much easier to travel with. Also, I’m on the NPS waiting list for the new 400mm f/2.8 tc Z (part of the reason I sold the 500 f/4 E)…which will be my big gun when it finally comes in.
 
Member's gallery
If I could only have one, the F/4 for sure. The extra stop and background operation are worth to me. However, it's not a light lens so you have to "weigh" the options carefully, if you'll pardon the pun. For some, the versatility of the lighter easier to handle 500 PF outweighs the extra stops for others not so much. From your post, I think you'd like the F/4 better.
 
Member's gallery
Regarding a G versus E model, mine was a G model and soooooo dang sharp! I still regret selling it and would take it back in a heart beat. The E model might be a tad better, and about a pound lighter. Also consider age. The G models have been around a long, long time. I don't know "when" repair parts will become hard to get. Maybe check with APS and other repair centers to see what they think about availability of spare parts.
 
Member's gallery
Nikon is required to supply parts for 7 years after discontinuance. The 500 f4 E is still current so it will be many more years before parts become an issue. I had a G and it was ok, never thought it took a 1.4 very well. The 500 E on the other hand has been stellar and takes a 1.4 EIII very well. The weight difference is well worth the extra price. My 600E is about the same weight as the 500G and when I switch to the 500E it seems so light by comparison. Given your choices, I'd say the 500 f4E is the better one and gives you more options. Add a 1.4 and you have 700mm @ f5.6.
 
Member's gallery
Abinoone said:
I'm interested in upgrading my Nikon 200-500 f5.6 to a better lens. While it's been a real workhorse for me, and I've gotten pretty good results, I'd like to obtain sharper images, have faster AF, better weather sealing, and creamier backgrounds. I shoot a wide variety of wildlife - large and small mammals, birds, etc., with my two D850s. I've set my sights on a 600mm f4, but finding a good, recent model copy that I can afford has been a challenge, so I'm considering alternatives.

The 500mm f5.6 PF checks a number of the boxes and is certainly more affordable, but I'm hesitant about another 5.6 lens. Steve's video review of this lens gives it overall high marks, but also notes its limitations. Now, I'm looking at the Nikon 500mm f4, and it seems to meet all of my objectives, except perhaps weight. Unlike the 500 f5.6 PF, it takes a TC very well, without any compromise on IQ or AF. Is there much of a difference between the G and E model of this lens that would warrant spending the extra $$$ on the E model?

Any thoughts and suggestions would be much appreciated.
Click to expand...

This kind of decision is always a tough call. It really depends a lot on what and how you photograph. It also depends on a broader view of your kit and how different options are used.

I put the 500 f/4 and 500 PF f/5.6 in different categories with different use cases. The 500 f/4 is a long telephoto that can be handheld but will be used on a tripod much of the time. The 500 PF is smaller with a slower aperture, but with that comes improved portability and the ability to handhold much more often.
There is a similar trade-off decision in deciding between the different versions of the 500 f/4. Given that it is an F-mount lens, when you move to a mirrorless camera you would be using an adapter. The adapters are fine, but you might consider a native Z-mount lens. You could choose a bargain price on an older 500 f/4 G knowing you'll likely sell it in 4-5 years or less, and taking advantage of the lower price and lower depreciation. The E version is harder to find used, so the effective cost might be a lot more today with more depreciation if you sell it later. Optically they are very similar with an edge to the newer lens, but the price difference is substantial.

You might also think about where you are going. For bird photography, a 600 f/4 might be an option, and it's meaningfully different from what you have.

If you give up the 200-500, how will you cover the 200-400mm range? A 70-200 with TC might work, or a 300 f/4 is an option. It's a popular range for mammals and 500mm can often be too long.

I like the 500 PF because of it's relatively small size and portability. If you want to go a different direction, it's a popular lens and can easily be sold at a good price. I would avoid that lens if your real goal is using it with a teleconverter to photograph small birds, but for mammals and without the TC it's a very good option.
 
Member's gallery
It's a tough decision. I sold my 500 f/4 after acquiring the PF, and I still regret it. But I wouldn't get rid of the PF either. I had real trouble finding any difference in image quality between the two. The 500 f/4 handled backgrounds better, but I was usually shooting it a little closed down to get some DOF. The f/4 also handled the TC-14e better, well enough that it was hard to tell the difference with it on. With the PF I could tell the difference but if I needed the reach I could live with it. But the PF is a great 'walk around' or boat lens (it was great on several pelagic bird trips).

As noted, the f/4 is definitely a tripod lens. That being the case you might consider how important VR is to you. There's optically almost no difference between the D, G, and E versions, and a used D is a lot less expensive than a new E. I shot the D and G alongside each other and couldn't see any difference in the images. Of course if you shoot a Z the VR question is moot because the body has VR.

Either one will give you joy over your 200-500, I think. Get both! :)
 
Member's gallery
EricBowles said:
This kind of decision is always a tough call. It really depends a lot on what and how you photograph. It also depends on a broader view of your kit and how different options are used.

I put the 500 f/4 and 500 PF f/5.6 in different categories with different use cases. The 500 f/4 is a long telephoto that can be handheld but will be used on a tripod much of the time. The 500 PF is smaller with a slower aperture, but with that comes improved portability and the ability to handhold much more often.
There is a similar trade-off decision in deciding between the different versions of the 500 f/4. Given that it is an F-mount lens, when you move to a mirrorless camera you would be using an adapter. The adapters are fine, but you might consider a native Z-mount lens. You could choose a bargain price on an older 500 f/4 G knowing you'll likely sell it in 4-5 years or less, and taking advantage of the lower price and lower depreciation. The E version is harder to find used, so the effective cost might be a lot more today with more depreciation if you sell it later. Optically they are very similar with an edge to the newer lens, but the price difference is substantial.

You might also think about where you are going. For bird photography, a 600 f/4 might be an option, and it's meaningfully different from what you have.

If you give up the 200-500, how will you cover the 200-400mm range? A 70-200 with TC might work, or a 300 f/4 is an option. It's a popular range for mammals and 500mm can often be too long.

I like the 500 PF because of it's relatively small size and portability. If you want to go a different direction, it's a popular lens and can easily be sold at a good price. I would avoid that lens if your real goal is using it with a teleconverter to photograph small birds, but for mammals and without the TC it's a very good option.
Click to expand...
All very good points, Eric! I already have a 70-200 2.8, and the 1.4 III TC, and sometimes use them together for mammals. Even if I bought the 500 f4 or the 600 f4, I wouldn't give up the 200-500 - it just wouldn't get as much use as it does currently. I know that a Z9 is in my future, but probably not for another year or two - I'm perfectly happy with my two D850s for the time being.

Recently, I was in eastern NY photographing snow geese (more than 600,000 in one place!), and the 200-500 performed OK on a tripod, but I wasn't entirely pleased with the IQ, AF, and bokeh for many of the shots (I don't think it was my field technique, but you never know). I remember thinking that I might have gotten many more keepers had I had a faster prime lens. As for the 500 f5.6 PF, I'm not sufficiently convinced that it would give me that much better IQ to warrant spending $3500, although the better AF and light weight are attractive. That's what is tipping me towards the 500 or 600 f4. On the other hand, you make a very good point about the 500 & 600 sometimes being too long to be useful in certain situations. I have a nice, long trip planned to AK this fall mainly for bears, and the 500 f4 might be too much for Brooks and Katmai, but helpful for Denali. Now, if money were no object, then I'd just buy one of each - 500 f5.6 PF, 500 f4, and 600 f4!🥴
 
Member's gallery
I have owned everything you mentioned. Here is my 2 cents.

If you can handle the size of an F4 lens I would buy it and not even think twice. I would really try and find the 600F4 if you shoot anything small. The extra horsepower is really nice. As for G to E the E is worth it if you can find one. Lighter and nicer hood.

I don't think I would buy the 500PF. I liked mine but I like my F4 glass a lot better. Plus you have the 200-500 for when you want something smaller.

If you are staying in the DSLR camp for a while then that gives me another vote for the F4 lens. You will be able to use a tele and have a much more versatile package. If going mirrorless than sure the 500PF could work better but you really start cranking up those ISO values at F8 and beyond.

Yeah it isn't cheap but it is a lens that will last you a very long time, especially if you buy the E version. If it is a lens you plan on keeping I would really get an E. Say you have the lens for 10 years, the G is going to be very old by than plus if you have to replace a motor it is $1K and likely as the years pass less and less places to have that work done.

I shoot a lot of birds so the 600 is the better choice over the 500 as you likely will have a tele on it even with the 600.

Forward thinking is the Z 200-600 is going to come out and while you likely plan on staying DSLR at some point Nikon is going to drop a body at a good price point with more Z9 like AF. When they do that you will likely want that body and when you do the F4 will adapt well and than you can replace the 200-500 with the 200-600 which I suspect will be a great lens.

The 500PF really gives you nothing over size and price. Long term thinking the F4 will serve you better. The only way I wouldn't go F4 is if you can't handle it, if that is the case the 200-500 is still likely a good choice or the newer 200-600.
 
Member's gallery
Eric summed it up pretty well. If you don't mind using a tripod and/or if you want to use a TC and/or plan to shoot wide open at f4 to minimize DOF, then the f4 is the way to go. If you plan to keep it short term and don't mind an extra pound and a half then the G version is fine. If planning to keep it long term and perhaps use it adapted to Z then I'd spend the money and go with the E version. If you want ultimate portability and/or prefer to shoot BIF handheld then definitely the PF.

FWIW I had an f4G and found that for BIF I always shot it at f5.6 to give a little more DOF for less than perfect focus. I also typically shot at f5.6 for large mammals to optimize sharpness and for added DOF. Reviewing EXIF data for thousands of shots in LR and realizing I almost never shot at f4 is what convinced me I could live with only the 500PF in favor of selling the f4G and getting a 600mm f4. Unfortunately my plans to get the 600 went on hold so now I wish I still had the 500 f4 purely for when I'd like to use a TC for extra reach.
 
Member's gallery
At $3500 you can get a used 500 f/4 G VR for the same price. A 500 PF is running around $2700+ used.
www.nikonians.org

I Want to Sell

Want to sell some of your Nikon gear? Available to all Nikonians on Silver membership and higher. Please notice that participating in this will be at
www.nikonians.org www.nikonians.org

I find the 200-500 sometimes has an odd bokeh in the background - almost as though it has clarity added. Without question, the 500mm lens options are sharper.

One added thought - choose your spots where you really need maximum sharpness, and compare that to where you need something light and portable. I've got the 200-500, 500 PF, and 600 f/4 G. The 200-500 won't make my next trip, but both the 500 PF and 600mm lenses will go with me. The 600mm will be for shorebirds and the 500PF will be for a boat trip in the Okefenokee paired with a 70-200 and a wide lens.
 
Member's gallery
dtibbals said:
I have owned everything you mentioned. Here is my 2 cents.

If you can handle the size of an F4 lens I would buy it and not even think twice. I would really try and find the 600F4 if you shoot anything small. The extra horsepower is really nice. As for G to E the E is worth it if you can find one. Lighter and nicer hood.

I don't think I would buy the 500PF. I liked mine but I like my F4 glass a lot better. Plus you have the 200-500 for when you want something smaller.

If you are staying in the DSLR camp for a while then that gives me another vote for the F4 lens. You will be able to use a tele and have a much more versatile package. If going mirrorless than sure the 500PF could work better but you really start cranking up those ISO values at F8 and beyond.

Yeah it isn't cheap but it is a lens that will last you a very long time, especially if you buy the E version. If it is a lens you plan on keeping I would really get an E. Say you have the lens for 10 years, the G is going to be very old by than plus if you have to replace a motor it is $1K and likely as the years pass less and less places to have that work done.

I shoot a lot of birds so the 600 is the better choice over the 500 as you likely will have a tele on it even with the 600.

Forward thinking is the Z 200-600 is going to come out and while you likely plan on staying DSLR at some point Nikon is going to drop a body at a good price point with more Z9 like AF. When they do that you will likely want that body and when you do the F4 will adapt well and than you can replace the 200-500 with the 200-600 which I suspect will be a great lens.

The 500PF really gives you nothing over size and price. Long term thinking the F4 will serve you better. The only way I wouldn't go F4 is if you can't handle it, if that is the case the 200-500 is still likely a good choice or the newer 200-600.
Click to expand...
Thank you! Good advice, and in line with my own thinking!
 
Member's gallery
There's another thing that I don't think has been mentioned yet and I forgot to include above. The 500PF is sharp wide open whereas the f4 lenses tend to be sharper stopped down to 5.6. It's just something about the optical design. I'm not an optics engineer but have to assume there is something unique about the PF design otherwise surely they would make the others the same way.
 
Member's gallery
Abinoone said:
I'm interested in upgrading my Nikon 200-500 f5.6 to a better lens. While it's been a real workhorse for me, and I've gotten pretty good results, I'd like to obtain sharper images, have faster AF, better weather sealing, and creamier backgrounds. I shoot a wide variety of wildlife - large and small mammals, birds, etc., with my two D850s. I've set my sights on a 600mm f4, but finding a good, recent model copy that I can afford has been a challenge, so I'm considering alternatives.

The 500mm f5.6 PF checks a number of the boxes and is certainly more affordable, but I'm hesitant about another 5.6 lens. Steve's video review of this lens gives it overall high marks, but also notes its limitations. Now, I'm looking at the Nikon 500mm f4, and it seems to meet all of my objectives, except perhaps weight. Unlike the 500 f5.6 PF, it takes a TC very well, without any compromise on IQ or AF. Is there much of a difference between the G and E model of this lens that would warrant spending the extra $$$ on the E model?

Any thoughts and suggestions would be much appreciated.
Click to expand...
I had the 200-500 f5.6 and it was a sharp lens, just the AF was rather lethargic. I have the 400 f2.8E FL VR and the 500 f5.6 PF and I sold the 200-500. I don't use the 400 f2.8E FL VR as much any more simply because the 500 f5.6 PF is so good. Yes the 400 f2.8E FL VR is way sharper (possibly Nikon's sharpest lens) even with the 1.4x TCIII is is still sharper then the 500 f5.6 but the 500 PF is just so easy to use and lug around and is as sharp wide open as it is stopped down. Admittedly, I was using the 400 less due to the fact it was a little big for use on my Z7II, didn't balance well, but now I have the Z9 that has changed and I will probably use the 400 a little more. Even so, my choice is to go the 500 PF due to it's light weight and size. The 500 f5.6 PF will take the 1.4x TCIII very well with very little IQ loss, but really only on a ML camera like the Z9.
 
Member's gallery
The older G lens is 1.7 lbs heavier and this is definitely noticeable. I had the 500mm f/4 G lens but replaced it with a 600mm lens to get the 44% larger image size with the lens without a teleconverter. In places like Costa Rica the 500mm was as good as the 600mm as subject distances were not that great. But in Costa Rica on my last trip I took the 80-400mm, 500mm PF, and the 600mm f/4E lens and the 600mm was very seldom used.

My favorite kit now is a 500mm PF along with the 100-400mm zoom lens and both fit in a 18 liter backpack with no problems and no need for a tripod. Shooting from a boat the 500mm and the 100-400mm zoom work very well and a large 500mm f/4 or 600mm f/4 lens would not work nearly as well. My plan going forward is to replace the 600mm f/4 with the new 800mm f/6.3 S lens when it becomes available.

The suggestion to consider the Sigma 500mm is misguided as you would need to buy Sigma teleconverters for this one lens. I already have two sets for my F-mount and S-mount lenses and 4 teleconverters is enough of a pain. Adding another two teleconvers for use with a Sigma lens is not something I would ever consider.
 
Member's gallery
Abinoone said:
I'm interested in upgrading my Nikon 200-500 f5.6 to a better lens. While it's been a real workhorse for me, and I've gotten pretty good results, I'd like to obtain sharper images, have faster AF, better weather sealing, and creamier backgrounds. I shoot a wide variety of wildlife - large and small mammals, birds, etc., with my two D850s. I've set my sights on a 600mm f4, but finding a good, recent model copy that I can afford has been a challenge, so I'm considering alternatives.

The 500mm f5.6 PF checks a number of the boxes and is certainly more affordable, but I'm hesitant about another 5.6 lens. Steve's video review of this lens gives it overall high marks, but also notes its limitations. Now, I'm looking at the Nikon 500mm f4, and it seems to meet all of my objectives, except perhaps weight. Unlike the 500 f5.6 PF, it takes a TC very well, without any compromise on IQ or AF. Is there much of a difference between the G and E model of this lens that would warrant spending the extra $$$ on the E model?

Any thoughts and suggestions would be much appreciated.
Click to expand...
I had a 500 f4 G and traded it in on a 600 f4 G. Absolutely no complaints about the 500 f4 other than reach. Eventually purchased a 500pf and to me they complement each other, image quality is sharp with both. Downsides the 500f4 is heavier and will be used on a tripod most of the time, 500pf is a stop slower and more difficult to control background. Advantages the 500pf you can grab it a go.
 
Member's gallery
I love the 500pf with my Z9 or D500. I traded in my d850 for Z9 and also got 100-400. It appears that 100-400 will stay on z9 and 500pf on d500 when shooting in an environment where i anticipate larger animals close by. However, if i am photographing birds exclusively, then the 500pf goes on the z9 as a one camera lens combo. Hopefully, as more lenses and smaller bodies with stacked sensors are released all this will change. Weight considerations and shooting handheld while traveling light are my main concerns, and these lenses seem to deliver immense quality without sacrificing much.

Also wanted to add that I am still with d500 for the reach of a cropped sensor and AF performance. I could get a second z9 (and i have thought about this a lot), but cant justify the cost and weight for now. However, the 500 pf is noticibly better on z9 despite AF tuning done meticulously on d500 ( prob still not perfect) .
You will likely have better IQ and sharpness with f/4 stopped to down to f/5.6 on dslr at some cost of portability.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
NorthernFocus said:
There's another thing that I don't think has been mentioned yet and I forgot to include above. The 500PF is sharp wide open whereas the f4 lenses tend to be sharper stopped down to 5.6. It's just something about the optical design. I'm not an optics engineer but have to assume there is something unique about the PF design otherwise surely they would make the others the same way.
Click to expand...
I suspect you just let the cat out of the bag here. I am keeping my 200-500 f5.6. My next closest lens is a 24-120 f4. it is a great landscape lens for my purposes. I just got a 500 PF f5.6. This thing is amazing! It gets pro grade pics of small birds when I do my part. I like my subject to be the focus of my shots. I took the 810 out the other day to play with and found that I had left it set for f5.6 with the 24-120 f4 lens. There is just something I like about shooting critters at f5.6 no mater what the lens or body. DOF at f5.6 gets me better pictures with excellent reflections in water of ducks etc. Bokeh makes or breaks a photo under these circumstances. If everything is in focus, the frame really sucks! That is my story and I am sticking to it! :)
 
Member's gallery
Abinoone said:
I'm interested in upgrading my Nikon 200-500 f5.6 to a better lens. While it's been a real workhorse for me, and I've gotten pretty good results, I'd like to obtain sharper images, have faster AF, better weather sealing, and creamier backgrounds. I shoot a wide variety of wildlife - large and small mammals, birds, etc., with my two D850s. I've set my sights on a 600mm f4, but finding a good, recent model copy that I can afford has been a challenge, so I'm considering alternatives.

The 500mm f5.6 PF checks a number of the boxes and is certainly more affordable, but I'm hesitant about another 5.6 lens. Steve's video review of this lens gives it overall high marks, but also notes its limitations. Now, I'm looking at the Nikon 500mm f4, and it seems to meet all of my objectives, except perhaps weight. Unlike the 500 f5.6 PF, it takes a TC very well, without any compromise on IQ or AF. Is there much of a difference between the G and E model of this lens that would warrant spending the extra $$$ on the E model?

Any thoughts and suggestions would be much appreciated.
Click to expand...
The advantage of the 500mm PF and 200-500mm are their size/weight.
Unless you are really picky few people will see any difference between the 500mm PF and 200-500mm except in their wallet.
The 600mm seems to be the sweet spot for birding. although anything over 500mm and then I need a tripod.
If I need to travel any distance from the car then my 600mm and 200-400mm are often left behind mostly because of the weight. 🦘
 
Member's gallery
I have a 500mm F/4 G for sale and other DSLR lenses (70-200mm f/2.8; 16-35mm f/4 and 105mm f/2.8 macro as well as a D850 with grip). Anybody is interested? The only problem is I live in Montreal and I don't know how to deal with the Custom Duty .
 
Member's gallery
Tibor Hrnko said:
If you want to go 500 F4 way, you may consider Sigma 500 F4 as well. It is great lens too.
Here is the article which made me to consider it as a valid option: Field Tests: 500mm Wars - Sigma vs. Nikon.
The lens work fine with FTZ adapter as well.
Click to expand...
I'd be careful about going for the Sigma 500 f4 but I guess that I was unlucky as it's now working fine after 2 years of hassle!? - see my previous posting. https://bcgforums.com/index.php?thr...-quality-performance-with-teleconverter.3746/

As for your question I'd go for the f4 evertime, certainly in the UK where the light is often poor. I do have a Nikon 200-500 f5.6 which is my walkabout lens. I have experienced no problems with this tough piece of kit although I never use it with a TC. I'm on the hunt now for a good scond-hand Nikon prime and will get rid of the Sigma whilstit's working well!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Roy
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top