Telephoto Lens

[wLh photography]

I am looking to purchase a 500 MM lens. I have a Nikon D850 and currently have a Sigma 150-600 Lens 1:5 -6:3 DG and want to upgrade. I have wanted to get the AF-S Nikkor 500mm f/4E FL ED VR. but can not justify nor afford $10K +. I want to order and get on the list to get the newest Nikon, AF-S Nikkor 500mm f/5.6 E PF ED VR which is $3500. I am not real happy with my Sigma 150-600 Zoom. Does anyone have any other suggestions as to a lens?

 

[DRwyoming]

Does anyone have any other suggestions as to a lens?

The 500mm PF is a fantastic lens and probably my most used lens these days.

That said both the 500mm f/4 and 600mm f/4 G series lenses are even better than the 500 PF though they are a bit heavier than the newest E FL series lenses. When I'm not out walking around and handholding my 500mm PF, the 600mm f/4 G is usually mounted up for everything except large wildlife that will allow a close approach. It's not too hard to find a used 500mm or 600mm f/4 G lens in great condition, often from brick and mortar vendors that offer return policies and sometimes warranties on their used gear.

Anyway if your photo style is mobile and especially if you handhold a lot or take longer hikes with your gear it's really hard to beat the 500mm PF. But if you want to move into really big glass and can accept the changes to shooting style that implies such as solid supports and less mobility I'd take a good look at the 500mm or 600mm f/4 G lenses as they really are amazing lenses that can be found for a lot less than the latest super telephotos.

 

[EricBowles]

The non-FL version - the Nikon 500 f/4 VRII - is quite a bargain and is selling for around 40-50% of the original price or less. That's less than the 500 f/5.6 PF - and better optically. These lenses are different - the f/4 version is bigger and heavier, but a full stop faster and a little better optically. The PF is exceptionally compact and light, and is the choice if you need something very mobile. I find the f/4 version optics make a difference in some situations - backlighting, reflections, and out of focus areas may show differences. Personally - I prefer optics and can handle the weight. But it's also a good idea to have a plan when you need something "handholdable".

 

[Pistnbroke]

Tests of the N 200-500 v the N500 5.6 show no improvement in IQ just get the 200-500

 

[armchicago]

Agree with all the comments above:

The 200-500 is outstanding and 5.6 all the way through versus the 6.3 of the Sigma. I sold mine but there are days when I regret it.

If you want a pro prime, the 500 PF is fantastic. I shoot it on my D850 quite often and love it.

And as Eric states, a great condition 500G can be found very reasonable on eBay these days. These f4 lenses are superior in every way and not only is a full stop a major difference, a great advantage is that these lenses take teleconverters extremely well… you can really reach out and still be at it reasonable aperture.

I don’t believe there’s too many other options available?

 

[Woodpecker]

I am looking to purchase a 500 MM lens. I have a Nikon D850 and currently have a Sigma 150-600 Lens 1:5 -6:3 DG and want to upgrade. I have wanted to get the AF-S Nikkor 500mm f/4E FL ED VR. but can not justify nor afford $10K +. I want to order and get on the list to get the newest Nikon, AF-S Nikkor 500mm f/5.6 E PF ED VR which is $3500. I am not real happy with my Sigma 150-600 Zoom. Does anyone have any other suggestions as to a lens?

The non-FL version - the Nikon 500 f/4 VRII - is quite a bargain and is selling for around 40-50% of the original price or less. That's less than the 500 f/5.6 PF - and better optically. These lenses are different - the f/4 version is bigger and heavier, but a full stop faster and a little better optically. The PF is exceptionally compact and light, and is the choice if you need something very mobile. I find the f/4 version optics make a difference in some situations - backlighting, reflections, and out of focus areas may show differences. Personally - I prefer optics and can handle the weight. But it's also a good idea to have a plan when you need something "handholdable".

Agree ! I have the 500 f4 G VR a couple of year now and I love it.

Pro:

• Although it is not a E seris lens with FL it is a very sharp lens. There are comparisons of pro's out there that claim that if you have a G there are only very few reaons that would make you upgrade to the E series lens.
• It harmonizes very well with the TC-14EII as well as III with minium impact on IQ. Many people actually have "glued" it to the lens .
• Price levels might be differetn in the US but I have seen mint copies going over the table for significantly less than the 500PF costs new.
• AF is very fast and accurate and the speed loss is much smaller than with other 500mm alternatives.
• You can actually use it with TC bcause it is f4, with the 500PF you loose most of your AF points because you go to f8 when attaching the TC and speed as well as low light AF drops significantly

Cons:

• It (the G) is a beast weighing almost 4 kg, the E series ist amost one 1kg lighter.
• It is much more fron-heavy compared with teh E series lens making it more difficult to handhold, but you can get used to it.
• Some people report very rare cases of pictures that are slightly darker than the rest if shooting bursts, because as opposed to the E series it doesn't have the electonic diaphragm control. However, this seems to be a issue depending on the lens copy. My friend, who sold the 500 G to me was shooting it for years on a D4S and he didn't have this problem and I am using the same camera and didn't envounter any problems with this.

I have no idea how this lens isxworking with a FTZ adapter on one of the Z' series cameras, but maybe there is someone around here who has experience, just in case this is - or will be - an issue for you.

I have the 500 PF as well and it is perfect for being ultimatively mobile and travelling "light", but if I have the choice I prefer to take the 500 f4. The D7200 with the 500PF gives me 750 mm f5.6 with very low weight, but a DX sensor with 24 MPixel and a f5.6 lens is simply not the same in low light. There you have clear advantage in terms of AF speed andd accuracy as well as IQ with a FX sensor and a 500mm f.4 or 700mm f5.6.

The other TC's (17 and 20) you can just forget, because they don't couple well with the 500 F4 G and cost too much IQ.

If you see a good one, grab it and I am sure you'll love it ... if you can live with the weight.

 

[joe43]

I also agree that the 500mm f4 G version is a very viable option for you. If you need that extra stop of light consider it over the 500mm f5.6 pf. If hand held birds is flight is your main need, them I suggest the 500mm f5.6 pf.

 

[thelordofthelight]

+1 on the 500 F4G. I was using it with my D850 before i upgraded to 400 F2.8. It is an amazing lens and works very well with the 1.4TC. I feel the 500 PF will be a bit limiting if you are already used to shooting at 600mm focal length. If handholding is important, no other lens can beat the 500 PF but the one stop difference the 500G offers can be really handy in low light, F4 renders the backgrounds better than the PF at 5.6 and with the TC you get a fantastic 700mm 5.6.

Having said that, if you are more in to photographing larger mammals, 500 PF can work great. It is such an agile lens that lets you react so fast compared to any of the big telephotos. But if you are more in to birds or mixed wildlife, 500 F4 G it is!

 

[Woodpecker]

+1 on the 500 F4G. I was using it with my D850 before i upgraded to 400 F2.8. It is an amazing lens and works very well with the 1.4TC. I feel the 500 PF will be a bit limiting if you are already used to shooting at 600mm focal length. If handholding is important, no other lens can beat the 500 PF but the one stop difference the 500G offers can be really handy in low light, F4 renders the backgrounds better than the PF at 5.6 and with the TC you get a fantastic 700mm 5.6.

Having said that, if you are more in to photographing larger mammals, 500 PF can work great. It is such an agile lens that lets you react so fast compared to any of the big telephotos. But if you are more in to birds or mixed wildlife, 500 F4 G it is!

Pefectly agree on this on. Something I do frequently is going to a spot sitting there with the 500 f4 G + TC sitting on the Gimbal in front of me and having a second body with the 500PF or 300PF attached on my laps to be able to quickly react on what's happening around me being too close for the big one on the tripod or in an angle that I can't reach with it.

 

[glsmith9823]

Like you, I was on the "waiting list" from H*** with 2 major camera body/lens retailers in NYC. Finally in desperation, I reached out to Stave...thinking he might have heard some news as to when the lenses would hit state side or had some type of inside information. His response was "Hey contact my friends @ ProCam.com with sites in Cincinnati, Cleveland & Detroit....4 days later, I had in my hands a new 500mm F/5.6 PF....When I spoke to these folks, they explained that there are numerous stores that are getting them...just NOT in the quantity that the NYC stores are. Another great spot to try would be Roberts Cameras (https://robertscamera.com/)in Indiana...Dallas is another hotspot...Good Luck..it is a fantastic lens

 

[Woodpecker]

Like you, I was on the "waiting list" from H*** with 2 major camera body/lens retailers in NYC. Finally in desperation, I reached out to Stave...thinking he might have heard some news as to when the lenses would hit state side or had some type of inside information. His response was "Hey contact my friends @ ProCam.com with sites in Cincinnati, Cleveland & Detroit....4 days later, I had in my hands a new 500mm F/5.6 PF....When I spoke to these folks, they explained that there are numerous stores that are getting them...just NOT in the quantity that the NYC stores are. Another great spot to try would be Roberts Cameras (https://robertscamera.com/)in Indiana...Dallas is another hotspot...Good Luck..it is a fantastic lens

Imaging we could have something like 600 f4 PF harmonizing with a TC14 the same way as we are used to have it with the good old 500 f4G ... oh, I forgot to mention my wish still relates to the good old F-Mount. But looking at the size and weight savings when using PF lenses, I just wonder whether they could do some really nice long lenses for the Z-Mount as well. A handholdable Z 600 f4 PF not rewuiring VR components because of IBIS could be a breeeze to shoot with ....

Heck, did I just get excited about the Z-Mount ???

 

[Ken Miracle]

Like you, I was on the "waiting list" from H*** with 2 major camera body/lens retailers in NYC. Finally in desperation, I reached out to Stave...thinking he might have heard some news as to when the lenses would hit state side or had some type of inside information. His response was "Hey contact my friends @ ProCam.com with sites in Cincinnati, Cleveland & Detroit....4 days later, I had in my hands a new 500mm F/5.6 PF....When I spoke to these folks, they explained that there are numerous stores that are getting them...just NOT in the quantity that the NYC stores are. Another great spot to try would be Roberts Cameras (https://robertscamera.com/)in Indiana...Dallas is another hotspot...Good Luck..it is a fantastic lens

Similar got my 500PF from a "local" brick and mortar store Yellowstone Camera in West Yellowstone Montana this and Perfect Light Camera in Idaho Falls are owned by the same person and the two stores is where I get almost all of my camera gear even though they are about a 5hour drive from Boise, ID where I live. I picked up the 500 PF and was in Yellowstone NP shooting in the late afternoon about 10 days after I called and ordered it.

 

[Deleted member 115]

Tests of the N 200-500 v the N500 5.6 show no improvement in IQ just get the 200-500

I can't speak for the Sigma but if it is like the Tamron all he will do is miss the extra reach of the 150-600mm. imho

 

[Ken Miracle]

Tests of the N 200-500 v the N500 5.6 show no improvement in IQ just get the 200-500

I have not read many "tests" but I do remember @Steve tests and the 500PF came out on top. I have owned both, but not at the same time, but looking at images take by both I would give the nod to the 500 PF for IQ and definitely for AF speed.

 

[Steve]

I have not read many "tests" but I do remember @Steve tests and the 500PF came out on top. I have owned both, but not at the same time, but looking at images take by both I would give the nod to the 500 PF for IQ and definitely for AF speed.

Yup, the 500PF is both faster and slightly sharper than my copy of the 200-500 (which I believe is an excellent copy of that lens). The 200-500 is very close to nearly identical dead-center, but the 500 beats for sharpness as you move out. And like you say, AF speed isn't even a contest. Plus, the 500PF is smaller and lighter. One of my favorite lenses.

 

[Ken Miracle]

I can't speak for the Sigma but if it is like the Tamron all he will do is miss the extra reach of the 150-600mm. imho

I have owned a Sigma 150-600 Sport and now a Sigma 60-600 sport they are tough and heavy with great IQ. That being said I use my Tamron 150-600 G2 far more than my Sigma but I still own them and sold my early copy of the Nikon 200-500 some time ago after it's 3rd trip to Nikon for warranty and recall repair (it worked great after that) ... that extra 100 mm makes a difference to me.

 

[Ken Miracle]

Yup, the 500PF is both faster and slightly sharper than my copy of the 200-500 (which I believe is an excellent copy of that lens). The 200-500 is very close to nearly identical dead-center, but the 500 beats for sharpness as you move out. And like you say, AF speed isn't even a contest. Plus, the 500PF is smaller and lighter. One of my favorite lenses.

As I noted below my early 200-500 copy got 3 round trips to Nikon for warranty and recall but it came back doing well and I took some great shots with it after it got fixed. Thanks to reading your reviews etc. about the 500PF and the Hejnar foot I bought the 500PF and the foot and for portable, fast hand held wildlife it rocks.

 

[Don Linn]

The 500mm PF is a fantastic lens and probably my most used lens these days.

That said both the 500mm f/4 and 600mm f/4 G series lenses are even better than the 500 PF though they are a bit heavier than the newest E FL series lenses. When I'm not out walking around and handholding my 500mm PF, the 600mm f/4 G is usually mounted up for everything except large wildlife that will allow a close approach. It's not too hard to find a used 500mm or 600mm f/4 G lens in great condition, often from brick and mortar vendors that offer return policies and sometimes warranties on their used gear.

Anyway if your photo style is mobile and especially if you handhold a lot or take longer hikes with your gear it's really hard to beat the 500mm PF. But if you want to move into really big glass and can accept the changes to shooting style that implies such as solid supports and less mobility I'd take a good look at the 500mm or 600mm f/4 G lenses as they really are amazing lenses that can be found for a lot less than the latest super telephotos.

That's good advice, thank you.

 

[Laurence Jackson]

The Sigma 500 f4 Sport is a great lens and cheaper than the Nikon 500E, at least as good optically also....

 

[Ralph]

I can only speak for myself. In a perfect world, everyone would love to have the 500f/4 or better yet the 600 f/4 if price and weight were not an issue. But unfortunately , price and portability does matter and compromises have to be made. So I had to decide what’s most important. I went through this process a year ago. The 500 and 600 f/4’s were out because of my price range and I also didn’t care for the added weight. This is a hobby for me and I couldn’t justify the cost. And to be honest I have found no issues with a f/5.6 lens. The next question was whether I should get the 200-500 zoom or the 500PF. I went to my local camera store and played with the zoom. It is a heavy lens (5lbs) compared to the PF(a little over 3lbs). I also know that I would rarely if ever use it at anything less than 500mm because I shoot almost birds exclusively. So the only other issue was price. $1400 vs $3600. I made the decision that I would rather have something I was completely satisfied with and the extra $2000 was worth it. I have not regretted my decision. The 500PF is light and takes great photos. And I have not found it to have any shortcomings with my style of use. Hope this helps.

 

[Woodpecker]

I can only speak for myself. In a perfect world, everyone would love to have the 500f/4 or better yet the 600 f/4 if price and weight were not an issue. But unfortunately , price and portability does matter and compromises have to be made. So I had to decide what’s most important. I went through this process a year ago. The 500 and 600 f/4’s were out because of my price range and I also didn’t care for the added weight. This is a hobby for me and I couldn’t justify the cost. And to be honest I have found no issues with a f/5.6 lens. The next question was whether I should get the 200-500 zoom or the 500PF. I went to my local camera store and played with the zoom. It is a heavy lens (5lbs) compared to the PF(a little over 3lbs). I also know that I would rarely if ever use it at anything less than 500mm because I shoot almost birds exclusively. So the only other issue was price. $1400 vs $3600. I made the decision that I would rather have something I was completely satisfied with and the extra $2000 was worth it. I have not regretted my decision. The 500PF is light and takes great photos. And I have not found it to have any shortcomings with my style of use. Hope this helps.

I'j just like to confirm what @Ralph Bruno said. If someone needs the flexibility of zooming in this range, the 200-500 or another tele zoom would be it.
After Steve made me curious with his review of the 500PF I had it side by side with the 200-500 and it was a matter of two days just to send the 200-500 back. From my perspective a zoom in this range would make sense if I do "opportunistic" shooting in an environment where I encounter big variety in subject size and/or I am privileged to go shooting in areas where the subjects get closer to me than in normal environment. Some years ago I owned a 200-400 f4 and when I had the opportuinity to get hands on the 500 f4 G I own today, the decision wa made based on looking at the shots taken with the 200-400 and about 90% of them were taken at 400 with occasional attempts to use a TC on top.

I can just speak for myself but if I know I might get in a situation where I have to go shorter, I use a second body with the 300PF. Considering that 500PF plus 300PF together are still slightly lighter than the 200-500 alone, you have faster AF and both are a breeze to handle compared with the 200-500 mm. I know it is very subjective, but for me this zoom simply doesn't feel right. Even considering the additional weight the old 200-400 felt much better to me while using it.

 

[Robin]

I am looking to purchase a 500 MM lens. I have a Nikon D850 and currently have a Sigma 150-600 Lens 1:5 -6:3 DG and want to upgrade. I have wanted to get the AF-S Nikkor 500mm f/4E FL ED VR. but can not justify nor afford $10K +. I want to order and get on the list to get the newest Nikon, AF-S Nikkor 500mm f/5.6 E PF ED VR which is $3500. I am not real happy with my Sigma 150-600 Zoom. Does anyone have any other suggestions as to a lens?

As you might have realised a lot of shooters have the 500pf , a testimony in itself. It’s definitely a great lens for just roaming about and sitting in a hide.
Using a 500/600 f4 is really a different kettle of fish. I would suggest that you would be using it mainly for hide use, even the lighter models can become heavy without a support, curtailing it’s flexibility . Logically a f5.6 will never be an f4 but they are not worlds apart
You state that you’d like a 500 so the pf is probably the best choice?

Dare I suggest a 300pf plus 1.4 convertor coupled to a cropped sensor D500.
This would give you such a great combo, very light, sharp, over 600mm reach and probably less than a pf 500 alltold.

 

[Woodpecker]

As you might have realised a lot of shooters have the 500pf , a testimony in itself. It’s definitely a great lens for just roaming about and sitting in a hide.
Using a 500/600 f4 is really a different kettle of fish. I would suggest that you would be using it mainly for hide use, even the lighter models can become heavy without a support, curtailing it’s flexibility . Logically a f5.6 will never be an f4 but they are not worlds apart
You state that you’d like a 500 so the pf is probably the best choice?

Dare I suggest a 300pf plus 1.4 convertor coupled to a cropped sensor D500.
This would give you such a great combo, very light, sharp, over 600mm reach and probably less than a pf 500 alltold.

Yup, I tried the 300PF plus TC on FX before I got my 500PF and it gave good results. As @Steve pointed out in his review you might get some CA that you don't have with the 500PF, but it depends on the lens copy and the TC you use. I was probably lucky to get a real good copy of the lens and I use it with an old TC-14E II with almost no CA, while the other one (that is "glued" to the 500f4) is giving less good results with the 300PF.

Of course the combo is not on the level of a straight 500 PF or even a 500 f4, but if you have to go light the PF's are really hard to beat. I had the privilege to work in Ireland last year for a couple of months and after the project there I rewarded myself with the 500PF when back at home. One argument was not only the extreme agility and mobility but also to have 500 mm (FX) or 750mm (DX) reach in my hand luggage when flying (!). Unfortunately a guy called Covid got in the way, otherwise I would probably have been there again once or twice this year with the 500 PF walking the coast lines with all the sea birds and seals as well as the country side in the south west.

Yes, f5.6 is not f4 - and this applies to both the 500PF and teh 300PF plus TC - , but having one of these really small backpacks with a standard zoom, a 300PF, a 500PF plus two bodies (1 FX plus 1 DX) is a great combo giving you a range of 24-750mm equivalent reach without using TCs - with some compromise in low light IQ at 750mm due to use of DX body though. Against this background the use of TC's with the 500PF isn't an option for two reasons. One is the AF being cut down at f8 lenses and the 500PF plus TC14 is considered as an f8 lens by the camera. Two is that with 1050mm reach in combination with a DX sensor providing considerably smaller pixels I get to my personal limits for handholding.

If I go out at home strolling around to find "somebody" I usually have my gear in the backpack, but the 500PF with a body attached stays outside hanging off the belt most of the time.

I am a big fan of the 500PF and I can't thank @Steve enough to make me curious about it .

 

[Woodpecker]

For anyone being interested, here is an extract of a little private analysis tool I have started after being introduce to PL and the lens reviews by a friend there some years ago. I use it just for myself for putting test results of lenses side by side. Because the data comes from the same source and the author puts quite a lot of effort in keeping the figures consistent to allow comparison between oder and newer lenses I think it is still not the absolute truth, but at least worthwhile considering.

Sorry for the missing translation, but ...

Zentrum = Centre
Mitten = Mid range
Ecken = Corners

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

Here you can see what I mean. The 600E is better than the G without TC but with TC it is the other way round .