500 f/4 vs 500 f/5.6

arshuter

Senior Member
Trying to decide which way to go. Is the 1 stop worth the extra weight? What about image quality? Will probably have a TC1.4 attached most if not all the time. Oh I hate these decisions. I'll be 62 in March, so weight will be a factor soon, and do a lot of hiking to get away from the crowds. Thoughts/recommendations please. Thanks, Alan
 

Bengan

Senior Member
Unless you're a professional (and I doubt that you would ask here if you were), I would think that the 5,6 is quite sufficient. The cost difference alone would make up my mind.
If you're going to use the D850 I would not use a TC, not even one as good as the 1.4. I would crop instead. The 5.6 is a very, very good lens.
 

Whiskeyman

Senior Member
I'll say go for the f5.6, but it really depends upon your needs. (I have a 500 f/4, and I plan on getting a 500 PF E f5.6, if that tells you anything.)

WM
 

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
Nearly 60% of the photos I've taken this year are with the 500 f5.6, mostly backyard birds and critters (thanks Covid). If I eliminate those I shot with a Sigma 150-600mm that was remote triggered near a woodpecker nest I'm closer to 70%. I marvel at the image quality and the fact that I can handhold it all day long. Try hiking through the woods carrying the f4 without a tripod. I have a 1.4x TCii but I don't use it with it - I don't have the need, but they work in good light.

Unless you have a specific need to spend that much money then get the f5.6 and use the savings to grab a D500 to stick it on instead of the TC. I've got a pair of them and the 500mm has not come off of one of them in over a year, and that was for travel. You can see a bunch of the results here.
 
Last edited:

arshuter

Senior Member
Nearly 60% of the photos I've taken this year are with the 500 f5.6, mostly backyard birds and critters (thanks Covid). If I eliminate those I shot with a Sigma 150-600mm that was remote triggered near a woodpecker nest I'm closer to 70%. I marvel at the image quality and the fact that I can handhold it all day long. Try hiking through the woods carrying the f4 without a tripod. I have a 1.4x TCii but I don't use it with it - I don't have the need, but they work in good light.

Unless you have a specific need to spend that much money then get the f5.6 and use the savings to grab a D500 to stick it on instead of the TC. I've got a pair of them and the 500mm has not come off of one of them in over a year, and that was for travel. You can see a bunch of the results here.

Looks like your doing exactly what I do. Nature, wildlife and landscape. BTW when I looked at your FB page I could smell the cigar smoke.
 

hark

Administrator
Staff member
Super Mod
Contributor
Thanks for the help guy I think you've help me make up my mind. Thanks again, Alan

Eventually I went with the Nikon 300mm f/4 PF and the Nikon 1.4x TC based on the images Jake posted a while back. I have no complaints about the IQ. When the 500mm f/5.6 PF was announced, Jake jumped on board. Once he started using that lens, just about all his wildlife images are taken with it. I remember him mentioning this Nikon 500mm PF to be sharper than his Sigma Sport zoom as well as the weight being so much more comfortable. And based on his results, it's definitely an amazing lens (and he knows how to get the best from it). :encouragement:

Looking forward to seeing future images with yours. :)
 

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
Looks like your doing exactly what I do. Nature, wildlife and landscape. BTW when I looked at your FB page I could smell the cigar smoke.

Fully 60-80% of the images you see on there involve said cigar smoke wafting while I wait for the next shot. ;)

Seriously, if you're shooting a lot of wildlife adding a D500 to your arsenal won't hurt you. It'll give you 3 more fps than the D850 and you'll get a few extra pixels per bird. If you have the budget to consider the 500mm f4 I think you'll be better served and far more pleased with the D500 and the 500mm f5.6.
 
Last edited:

arshuter

Senior Member
Fully 60-80% of the images you see on there involve said cigar smoke wafting while I wait for the next shot. ;)

Seriously, if you're shooting a lot of wildlife adding a D500 to your arsenal won't hurt you. It'll give you 3 more fps than the D850 and you'll get a few extra pixels per bird. If you have the budget to consider the 500mm f4 I think you'll be better served and far more pleased with the D500 and the 500mm f5.6.
The f/4 I'm looking at is owned by one of the people in a photo club I belong to. It looks to have hardly been used. $3000.00 My main concern is in the carrying all the extra weight. I usually take both bodies a couple lenses for landscape a couple for macro and a 2-5 for wildlife. Add tripod filters etc. ounces equal pounds, pounds equal pain.
 

hark

Administrator
Staff member
Super Mod
Contributor
I know you mentioned you will be using a tripod. The difference in weight looks to be 6.8 pounds for the f/4 vs. 3.2 pounds for the f/5.6. If you would ever handhold the f/4, that extra stop of light won't factor in simply because you'd have to use a faster shutter speed to compensate for the extra weight of the lens. In all honesty, how often would you ever even shoot at f/4? The compression of a telephoto lens would make the depth of field extremely shallow so you'd probably be shooting at f/5.6 or higher anyway.

Maybe @BackdoorArts can tell you how often he shoots at f/5.6 vs. a smaller aperture (say maybe f/8 or f/9) in real world shooting. Will that one stop at f/4 really be advantageous for your situation? No one can make that choice other than you.
 

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
I live at f8. When you shoot small, moving things that are 20 feet away at 500mm at f4 you have about 1.5" depth of field. At 5.6 you have about 2" and at f8 and you add another inch. That can make all the difference in your keepers, particularly with bigger birds. For something stationary where you're on a tripod then nailing eye focus is fairly easy, so go ahead and shoot wide open. But when you've got something hopping from branch to branch with a camera in your hands you want the shot first and foremost. I can always enhance OOF areas in post but I can't unmiss the shot. (Note: this is with my D500, and with a D850 you add a bit of depth of field at that distance, but you've also lost 50% of your focal length and need to crop.)

There's a video someone shared with me (can't find it) from a European wildlife photographer where he's shooting with a 600mm f4 (Canon) and he talks about how shooting wide open gives him great backgrounds, but poor subjects because not everything interesting is in focus. f8 fixes that. I'm far more concerned with shutter speed adjustments, changing between 1/640 and 1/2500 depending on what I'm trying to get.
 
Last edited:

arshuter

Senior Member
Just as a side note both the 750 and 850 can be put into DX(crop) mode but way have all those megapixals if your not going to use them. Most of my photography is done in the early morning and late evening. That said game(deer) here in western pa is spooky and often hard to get any any kind of a standing shot of, most of mine are walking.
 
Last edited:

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
Just as a side note both the 750 and 850 can be put into DX(crop) mode but way have all those megapixals if your not going to use them. Most of my photography is done in the early morning and late evening. That said game(deer) here in western pa is spooky and often hard to get any any kind of a standing shot of, most of mine are walking.

Yeah but that's only worthwhile on the D850 since you're down to about 11-12MP's on the D750 in DX mode. Thing I hate about DX mode on a non-mirrorless is that you have a full viewfinder but and need to keep the subject in the center 40%. I tried that when I replaced my D7000 with a D800 and wound up buying a D7100 a couple months later. DX mode is impossible to shoot birds in flight with and the raw files are too damn big for what you get out of them.
 

arshuter

Senior Member
Yeah good point wasn't thinking in that direction, moving objects. I gave my 7100 to my youngest daughter hoping she would learn to love this hobby/obsession.
 

STM

Senior Member
Eventually I went with the Nikon 300mm f/4 PF and the Nikon 1.4x TC based on the images Jake posted a while back. I have no complaints about the IQ. When the 500mm f/5.6 PF was announced, Jake jumped on board. Once he started using that lens, just about all his wildlife images are taken with it. I remember him mentioning this Nikon 500mm PF to be sharper than his Sigma Sport zoom as well as the weight being so much more comfortable. And based on his results, it's definitely an amazing lens (and he knows how to get the best from it). :encouragement:

Looking forward to seeing future images with yours. :)

My go-to bird lens is usually the 600mm f/4 ED-IF AIS Nikkor on the D850, but undeniably it is a beast of a lens at over 14 pounds, one that cannot be hand held unless you are a body builder, something at 5'9' and 160 lbs (not to mention almost 63) I will never be. It is, however very useable and mercilessly sharp with a monopod and of course a tripod. When I got my 400mm f/2.8 ED IF AIS Nikkor, I found that I could use the D500 and get the same effective magnification, with somewhat less weight and bulk. It is somewhat hand holdable, demonstrably more than the 600mm f/4 but is still best on a monopod at least. it too is mercilessly sharp. The extra stop in maximum aperture is helpful for when the light levels drop, however. Although I don't ever recall using my TC-14B on either of them, both remain very sharp using the TC-300 (2x).

My "bird beasts", 600mm and D850 and 400mm and D500

Bird Beasts.jpg
 
Top