Problems with new 500 f4 G

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).

Member's gallery
Beau Cotter said:
Hello, I recently got a 500 F4 G (nikon), upgraded from the 200-500. I am experiencing some issues with it sadly. Almost every shot I get out of this lens is soft. When in an enclosed environment when I test the sharpness between this lens and the 200-500, they are pretty close in sharpness, so much that it should be impossible to tell in the field. Then, when I go out with this lens, it feels great, the AF is super snappy, and the f4 bokeh is amazing! But when I come home, I see that most, if not all of the shots I took are really soft. I have AF fine-tuned this lens, and again, in a controlled environment, it is pretty accurate and sharp, maybe not quite as sharp as the zoom but oh well. (using normal AF) What in the world is going on??? Ive tried shooting at high Shutter Speeds with VR off, and I still haven't gotten anything tack sharp, even at f/5.6!!! From all the research Ive done this prime lens should be noticeably sharper than the 200-500, but so far that has been anything but the case. Any ideas of what I could do? One thing that I did notice is that it feels like the AF motor is constantly adjusting and being super erratic compared to my zoom... (again shooting at f4 is going to have a thinner DOF so I thought a bit of this would be normal, I don't know)

I really really want to get this figured out, I love this lens but if it cant take sharp photos than I am in a major pickle!!!

Example photo below
Click to expand...
If the lens is used then if may have had an impact causing an element to come loose. ... 🦘
 
Member's gallery
May be frowned upon here lol but I got it on eBay, which I have never had any problems with before, (and I still believe it's worth it for me to get stuff on that platform.) I got it on Oct 31st, and have taken it out probably around 4 or 5 times.
So with that considered I have a feeling I should try to stick with it for a bit and really try to figure out whats the matter, rather than just trying to return it because its not working for me...
 
If you can shoot a static target on a tripod in good conditions and get a sharp result then maybe, if no and you can return it, I would return it.
 
Member's gallery
PhotoLover said:
I'm not sure I agree. I go down to 400, 320 handheld, occasionally a bit lower with the 500 pf on a D500 and the keeper rate remains high; the VR is pretty good. It may be the 500 F4's VR is not as good, and of course a heavier lens is harder to manage.

I'll go down to 640 or 500 at times with the 1.4 converter on. But again, I haven't used the lens in question, only a different 500 prime (one that is really easy to handle).
Click to expand...

Well, the range of variation is pretty big, so - as very often - the truth wobbles around the middle somewhere.

As @Steve mentions regularly, we are not all the same in terms of steadiness when trying to keep still while balancing and maneuvering an object with considerable weight. And .it also depends not only on the weight, but also its distribution.

E.g. the 500 f4 E is "only" about 800g lighter than the G model, but due to the FL front element and modified design the E model is much less front heavy, which makes you think and feel the weight difference must be much bigger.

When shooting them "really" handheld (i.e. no other support, nothing to lean on) side by side for me the 1 / focal length (1/500) rule is the limit with the G model and because of front heaviness the keeper rate already starts to drop a little. The E model I can shoot at 1/250 and sometimes even a little less plus I can hold it longer before getting fatigue isssues. Lenses like the 500PF, Z 600 6.3 etc. are a totally different story. They are designed to be a "walkabout lens", while the big fast glass will probably be used with some kind of support the majority of time.
 
Member's gallery
Woodpecker said:
Well, the range of variation is pretty big, so - as very often - the truth wobbles around the middle somewhere.

As @Steve mentions regularly, we are not all the same in terms of steadiness when trying to keep still while balancing and maneuvering an object with considerable weight. And .it also depends not only on the weight, but also its distribution.

E.g. the 500 f4 E is "only" about 800g lighter than the G model, but due to the FL front element and modified design the E model is much less front heavy, which makes you think and feel the weight difference must be much bigger.

When shooting them "really" handheld (i.e. no other support, nothing to lean on) side by side for me the 1 / focal length (1/500) rule is the limit with the G model and because of front heaviness the keeper rate already starts to drop a little. The E model I can shoot at 1/250 and sometimes even a little less plus I can hold it longer before getting fatigue isssues. Lenses like the 500PF, Z 600 6.3 etc. are a totally different story. They are designed to be a "walkabout lens", while the big fast glass will probably be used with some kind of support the majority of time.
Click to expand...
Well looking I see that the 500 G weighs 8.5 pounds? Yeah, that's a beast. I'd be on a monopod or tripod with gimbel with that thing almost all the time. I'm spoiled by walkaround lens.

So basically the OP needs to verify that the lens is sharp on a tripod (using good tripod technique) and if so, work back to handheld results.

I'll also note that the 500 pf works fine at any shutter sport with VR sport mode on. I may have missed it in this thread, but I don't know if the 500 G cares about VR with high shutter speeds (or very low ones) or not.
 
Member's gallery
bleirer said:
If you can shoot a static target on a tripod in good conditions and get a sharp result then maybe, if no and you can return it, I would return it.
Click to expand...
100%.

You need to go out in good light, shoot a static subject from a tripod from various distances, and see what the results are. I don't think anyone here can tell whether there is an issue based on photos of birds at 1/250 SS. I handhold exclusively and would never expect sharp shots at that shutter speed, either because I can't hold the lens steady enough or the bird is going to move. I'd also strongly encourage you to remove all fine tuning until after you know for certain there's an issue. The AF fine tuning obsession was always dramatically overblown, and I'd bet, led to worse results.

Finally, you shouldn’t be afraid to use your D500 up to ISO 8000 (or even more). Send me a PM, and I'll help you deal with the noise.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
Beau Cotter said:
May be frowned upon here lol but I got it on eBay, which I have never had any problems with before, (and I still believe it's worth it for me to get stuff on that platform.) I got it on Oct 31st, and have taken it out probably around 4 or 5 times.
So with that considered I have a feeling I should try to stick with it for a bit and really try to figure out whats the matter, rather than just trying to return it because its not working for me...
Click to expand...
In addition, do you know anyone near you who is a photographer? Do you have a newspaper office near you? If so, and if they still have dedicated staff photographers, try to contact them and see if they'll take a look at the lens with you. Or, is there a photo club nearby? If so, ask if anyone there can and will help you. And maybe join the club if you can.
 
Member's gallery
groob said:
100%.

You need to go out in good light, shoot a static subject from a tripod from various distances, and see what the results are. I don't think anyone here can tell whether there is an issue based on photos of birds at 1/250 SS. I handhold exclusively and would never expect sharp shots at that shutter speed, either because I can't hold the lens steady enough or the bird is going to move. I'd also strongly encourage you to remove all fine tuning until after you know for certain there's an issue. The AF fine tuning obsession was always dramatically overblown, and I'd bet, led to worse results.

Finally, you should be afraid to use your D500 up to ISO 8000 (or even more). Send me a PM, and I'll help you deal with the noise.
Click to expand...
Groob, I've found that the best way to deal with high-ISO noise is to ensure against an image underexposure. What are your thoughts on this?
 
Member's gallery
Whiskeyman said:
Groob, I've found that the best way to deal with high-ISO noise is to ensure against an image underexposure. What are your thoughts on this?
Click to expand...
Yes, but I think there’s been some debate with the more recent cameras about whether pulling up shadows results in more noise than exposing properly in the first instance. It’s not something I am an expert on because I expose to the right as much as possible. But the larger point I was going to make is that (in my opinion) the best workflow for both sharpening and noise reduction is to (1) resize for output prior to sharpening or reducing noise, (2) selectively sharpen the subject and (3) reduce noise selectively on the background. I’ve never been a Topaz person, and Photoshop’s ability to select the subject for you these days make this process incredibly easy and efficient. It’s also it as fast or faster than using Topaz, plus you retain full control.
 
Member's gallery
groob said:
Yes, but I think there’s been some debate with the more recent cameras about whether pulling up shadows results in more noise than exposing properly in the first instance. It’s not something I am an expert on because I expose to the right as much as possible. But the larger point I was going to make is that (in my opinion) the best workflow for both sharpening and noise reduction is to (1) resize for output prior to sharpening or reducing noise, (2) selectively sharpen the subject and (3) reduce noise selectively on the background. I’ve never been a Topaz person, and Photoshop’s ability to select the subject for you these days make this process incredibly easy and efficient. It’s also it as fast or faster than using Topaz, plus you retain full control.
Click to expand...
I believe you are correct saying that with most current sensors, pulling up shadows in post works pretty well. I am often undexposing a tad deliberately because when you do bird photography, it's very easy to blow the highlights. Egrets are the worst :) but even something like a Blue Heron ... you can easily wind up with blown highlights on the head. I mean, getting it perfect is better, but while you can fix too dark if it's not extremely underexposed, you can't fix truly blown highlights.

I believe the recommendation for LR denoise (which I think works quite well) is to denoise very early in the workflow; Steve has a video on how he does it and I find it works quite well.
 
Member's gallery
I have had three Nikon superteles with this issue. A 500VR, a 300VR and a 300VRll. It was ever so slight, but having had others for comparison, I knew they were wonky. No place I sent them had anything to offer in terms why or what to do. I ended up selling them to stores (I wasn't going to saddle someone else and hope they didn't notice). Anyway, now I only get big lenses from people or places with a return policy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top