Nikon AF-S 500mm f/5.6E PF ED VR Lens (Page 4): My wife and I both have the 200-500 lens. We shot football last season coupled with Nikon 850s It performed exceptionally well. Sharp...

muphoto

Pixelpixie88 wrote:

I am still using my Tamron Gen 1 lens. Wondering if anyone in here uses the Nikon lens that is in the title bar as I am thinking of doing an upgrade.
How do you like it for image quality, etc. Any pros or cons.
My camera body is a Nikon D7200.
Thanks,
Marsha

My wife and I both have the 200-500 lens. We shot football last season coupled with Nikon 850s
It performed exceptionally well. Sharp and fast autofocus. The only thing we had to get use to was the long turn necessary to go from 200-500. But we soon got the hang of it.

fantom Loc: Colorado

amfoto1 wrote:

FWIW, by all reports the Tamron 150-600mm G2 is a very good step up from the G1.

But it weighs almost 40% more than the Nikon 500.

Pixelpixie88 Loc: Northern Minnesota

Nickaroo wrote:

I have both Versions that you have listed here and the 500 and 300 PF lenses with a TCIII 1.4 works like a gem. But for my really important work, I have to bring out the Armored Tanks.

Do notice much loss in image quality on the 500 with the 1.4?

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

I find my Nikon 500 PF lens to be a wonderful choice for well lit (daytime) sports. I have used it on a D5, D6 and now a Z9 with the FTZII. A monopod is not absolutely needed. The Nikon 300 PF is also a winner should you need something shorter. Best of luck.

Nickaroo

Pixelpixie88 wrote:

Do notice much loss in image quality on the 500 with the 1.4?

The IQ might show a slight degradation according to some Photographers, but when you Couple a Lens with a TC 1.4, you really won't notice any loss of Image Quality. It has performed very well when doing Wildlife, BIF's, and Sports. Today's Teleconverters, especially mounted to a Good Lens onto a Good Camera will yield great results.

Pixelpixie88 Loc: Northern Minnesota

Nickaroo wrote:

The IQ might show a slight degradation according to some Photographers, but when you Couple a Lens with a TC 1.4, you really won't notice any loss of Image Quality. It has performed very well when doing Wildlife, BIF's, and Sports. Today's Teleconverters, especially mounted to a Good Lens onto a Good Camera will yield great results.

Thank you.

GLSmith Loc: Tampa, Fl

I replaced my older Nikon 400 mm f/2.8 in favor of the 500mm F/5.6 E. Besides the difference in weight, the speed in auto focus is noticeably quicker. I have used it various daytime treks doing wildlife either handheld or on a monopod. In addition I do a lot of nighttime shooting of rocket launches & a tripod is needed. Missing out on the F/4-F/5.6 is not noticeable at night except when I have tried to add a teleconverter. I think the F Stop then becomes F/11..I had bought a Nikon 200/500 but sold it quickly due to the length of the lens hood...On a tripod where I need absolute steadiness wind gusts ruined shots. I use the 500mm with either my D850 or with one of my D-500s. The only negative thing I have to say is if you are planning on using a monopod or tripod with your shooting, the foot on the 500 will have to be replaced with an ARCA style foot Attached shot was taken from roughly 3 1/2 miles from launch pad & altitude was about 40,000 feet using a D-500

Orphoto Loc: Oregon

Agree with BilNikon.

The 500 PF is much better than the 300 PF, or even the AF-s 300 2.8. I use it under more controlled landscape conditions. I lack experience with the Tamron so can't compare directly, but have very strong hunch it would be a step up. I use the d850 and am a real stickler for technique and clarity. The 500 PF is outstanding, on par with the Zeiss 135 f2.

Pixelpixie88 Loc: Northern Minnesota

Orphoto wrote:

Agree with BilNikon.

The 500 PF is much better than the 300 PF, or even the AF-s 300 2.8. I use it under more controlled landscape conditions. I lack experience with the Tamron so can't compare directly, but have very strong hunch it would be a step up. I use the d850 and am a real stickler for technique and clarity. The 500 PF is outstanding, on par with the Zeiss 135 f2.

Thank you!

joecichjr Loc: Chicago S. Suburbs, Illinois, USA

GLSmith wrote:

I replaced my older Nikon 400 mm f/2.8 in favor of... (show quote)

Fabulous 💙💙🔥💙💙

Sinewsworn Loc: Port Orchard, WA

Orphoto wrote:

Agree with BilNikon.

The 500 PF is much better than the 300 PF, or even the AF-s 300 2.8. I use it under more controlled landscape conditions. I lack experience with the Tamron so can't compare directly, but have very strong hunch it would be a step up. I use the d850 and am a real stickler for technique and clarity. The 500 PF is outstanding, on par with the Zeiss 135 f2.

D850, 300pF. What do you think?

(Download)

Orphoto Loc: Oregon

Good catch (x2).

Sinewsworn Loc: Port Orchard, WA

Orphoto wrote:

Good catch (x2).

Critter about 60 feet away. Overcast, cool, breezy. Managed low ISO handheld!

Orphoto Loc: Oregon

Ok, This should give you a realistic idea. The major criticism of the lens is that shooting into bright lights creates odd artifacts.

Below are 3 images, taken within a few mins of each other. No sharpening applied in post processing.

The 1st is merely a 50mm image, (full frame) to show you the scene. Taken with a Zeiss Milvus 50mm 1.4, f8, iso 125 using d850

The 2nd is full frame using the 500pf of a building under construction about 1/2 mile away. again at f8 & iso 125.

The 3rd image is a 100% crop taken near the center of image #2.

(Download)

Nickaroo

Pixelpixie88 wrote:

Thank you.

You are very welcome. I have been doing Photography for 42.5 years now and I learn new things everyday. Best of Luck.