Post Your D500 Shots
- Thread starter Woodyg3
- Start date
Fortkentdad
Senior Member
Down by the river early this a.m. and got this with my D500 and the 200-500 Nikkor
Osantacruz
Senior Member
From a couple weekends ago
Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk
Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk
Owning the same D500 / 300mm F4 PF combo, I couldn't agree more. There is always a risk of thinking that your own choice is the right one and everyone else just doesn't get it. In this case, though, I've done fairly thorough testing myself and studied the (few) serious test reports about the lens. As a result, I just don't understand why there aren't more Nikonites raving about this lens. Substantial optical performance at a substantially lower weight than any alternative, bar none, means you are far likelier to get great shots. In my case, that is not in motorsports but in wildlife and BIF.
Thanks, Nikon!
Thanks, Nikon!
Because the only benefit I see over my 200-500mm lens is the size and weight difference. 1,900 dollars for an f/4 lens that only goes out to 300 mm is not for me. Throw a 1.4TC on it, (another 3-400 bucks} and you're still at 420mm f/5.6. Now you're looking at 2,200-2,300 dollars for a 420mm f/5.6 lens that I kind of doubt surpasses the 200-500mm f/5.6 lens in optical performance, let alone substantially.
Having said all that, I very much researched this lens and believe you and me, if I ever get to the point where I can't sling my 200-500 around, that would be the lens I would buy.
As well as the 300mm I took the 24-120mm with me for some paddock shots as well as panning shots and again the D500 delivered exactly what I wanted.
I am yet to try the camera for BIF (not an avid wildlife man but it is a challenge to set myself) - I am also interested to see that Moab Man uses the 300 for macro and the close focussing on this lens will be a real advantage especially when it offers a 450mm f4 coverage on the D500.
I am yet to try the camera for BIF (not an avid wildlife man but it is a challenge to set myself) - I am also interested to see that Moab Man uses the 300 for macro and the close focussing on this lens will be a real advantage especially when it offers a 450mm f4 coverage on the D500.
I understand and respect where you're coming from, Blacktop. Admittedly, the weight makes lenses like the 200-500 no-go's for me since I do a lot of travel hiking and am not exactly in my twenties any more. As far as the TCs go, I tested my 300 F4 PF with different ones and eventually bought the 2x rather than the 1.4x - with the latter, I was getting the same image quality with TC as I was by simply zooming up in Photoshop, while the 2x clearly beat that alternative. Sure, the TC-20E III leaves me with an effective F8 minimum aperture, but given how good the VC on the 300mm lens is, that does not worry me all that much. I can shoot fairly reliably at 1/60s without a tripod and even got a few pin-sharp pics at 1/30s (with an effective length of 900mm!).
You got me curious, though, so to test your theory, I just ordered a 200-500 and will compare the two lenses side-by-side. Should be interesting.
Last edited:
MoabMan, great shot. That's the non-PF version of the lens you got, right? If so, imagine the kind of macros you'd be getting with the PF version, which focuses down to 4.6 feet instead of the 8 feet of the non-PF lens.
I read this review by Nasim Mansurov a while back, https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-300mm-f4e-pf-ed-vr
some interesting findings in there with comparisons to other lenses including the 200-500.
The results are pretty close, but depending on what your uses are the 200-500 comes out slightly on top at 500 vs the 300+1.7TC. I am not sure if the 1.7 performs as good as the new 2xTC.
Saw that review, as well, back when I was in the market for a good tele. The 1.7 TC has a pretty shabby reputation, though. Every review I saw said it's optically not as good as Nikon's other two, at least in their latest incarnations. That's why I only tested the 1.4 and 2.0.
You're probably right, that IQ will likely be pretty close between the different lens/TC options we're discussing here. Since that's what I am most interested in, I always test two options, both shot handheld, at maximum aperture and at a distance that's realistic for birding. One serves to figure out the lens' realistic minimum shutter speed, the other to test sharpness with faster shutter, i.e., in good light or at higher ISOs. Will report my findings when done.
You're probably right, that IQ will likely be pretty close between the different lens/TC options we're discussing here. Since that's what I am most interested in, I always test two options, both shot handheld, at maximum aperture and at a distance that's realistic for birding. One serves to figure out the lens' realistic minimum shutter speed, the other to test sharpness with faster shutter, i.e., in good light or at higher ISOs. Will report my findings when done.