Nikon 500mm F4 G & Z6II

silure130

silure130

Suspended / Banned
Messages
869
Name
Rick
Edit My Images
No
Hi
I’ve recently picked up a 500mm F4 G lens. I have it fitted to my Z6II but it just doesn’t feel right. I think it’s down to the lightness of the Z6, and also the fact that I have to use the ftz adapter. Even worse when I have the 1.4 teleconverter on, and rotating the lens via the collar it feels like it’s flexing on the mount. I’m thinking of getting a 2nd body to use with the lens, either a used D850 or new D500. I’m not keen on using the teleconverter, so maybe the extra reach of the D500 is better. Any advice appreciated
thanks
 
silure130 said:
Hi
I’ve recently picked up a 500mm F4 G lens. I have it fitted to my Z6II but it just doesn’t feel right. I think it’s down to the lightness of the Z6, and also the fact that I have to use the ftz adapter. Even worse when I have the 1.4 teleconverter on, and rotating the lens via the collar it feels like it’s flexing on the mount. I’m thinking of getting a 2nd body to use with the lens, either a used D850 or new D500. I’m not keen on using the teleconverter, so maybe the extra reach of the D500 is better. Any advice appreciated
thanks
Click to expand...
Are you using it on a tripod or handheld?
 
I have found that the 500mm and 600mm f4 AF-S Nikons not to be as sharp as what you may have expected - don't get me wrong, they are both very good lenses, but when people talk about these super Nikon long primes there is a (great) expectation that they will be "super" particular when you consider the price tag. They also take some time getting used to and they can be frustrating to use

BUT, they can deliver a very good image but it's particular to each lens and for example when compared with the 300mm and 500mm PF lenses, which are very sharp with an almost instant AF, the AFS lenses are different and the technology is a lot older.

I have found that they can also be "light" dependant, maybe more so than other lenses,

I believe that the Nikon Z mirrorless have new sensors, (i.e. they are difference from those in the, say, D850) and maybe the older AFS lens are just not that appropriate for this new technology.

I am also finding that when looking at images from the Z cameras, they have a different "look" to images from the DSLR's - but maybe I'm wrong, but it would be nice to see a side by side comparison.

(probably if you put 2 images side by side, I'd have difficulty telling!!).

Although I have never used a Nikon Z, from what I read and see I don't think Nikon are "there" yet with the Z technology and longer primes and the TC's do not do them any favours - just my opinion
 
Last edited:
BillN_33 said:
I have found that the 500mm and 600mm f4 AF-S Nikons not to be as sharp as what you may have expected - don't get me wrong, they are both very good lenses, but when people talk about these super Nikon long primes there is a (great) expectation that they will be "super" particular when you consider the price tag. They also take some time getting used to and they can be frustrating to use

BUT, they can deliver a very good image but it's particular to each lens and for example when compared with the 300mm and 500mm PF lenses, which are very sharp with an almost instant AF, the AFS lenses are different and the technology is a lot older.

I have found that they can also be "light" dependant, maybe more so than other lenses,

I believe that the Nikon Z mirrorless have new sensors, (i.e. they are difference from those in the, say, D850) and maybe the older AFS lens are just not that appropriate for this new technology.

I am also finding that when looking at images from the Z cameras, they have a different "look" to images from the DSLR's - but maybe I'm wrong, but it would be nice to see a side by side comparison.

(probably if you put 2 images side by side, I'd have difficulty telling!!).

Although I have never used a Nikon Z, from what I read and see I don't think Nikon are "there" yet with the Z technology and longer primes and the TC's do not do them any favours - just my opinion
Click to expand...
Interesting point, I’ve got (different, of course!) the R5 and the 600 F11 abs that is absolutely razor sharp, even thought is a pretty basic set up. Amazing on the RP and R too, so any chance it could be user error at all as those Nikons I’d expect to have greater tech than a sub £700 F11 lens..
 
stickytape said:
Interesting point, I’ve got (different, of course!) the R5 and the 600 F11 abs that is absolutely razor sharp, even thought is a pretty basic set up. Amazing on the RP and R too, so any chance it could be user error at all as those Nikons I’d expect to have greater tech than a sub £700 F11 lens..
Click to expand...

Is the 600mm f/11 a Nikon AF-S lens?

Does it stop down to f/4?

Is it "made" for Nikon Z camera's?

What are the OOF areas like?

I think that you are comparing apples with bananas!
 
Last edited:
BillN_33 said:
I have found that the 500mm and 600mm f4 AF-S Nikons not to be as sharp as what you may have expected - don't get me wrong, they are both very good lenses, but when people talk about these super Nikon long primes there is a (great) expectation that they will be "super" particular when you consider the price tag. They also take some time getting used to and they can be frustrating to use

BUT, they can deliver a very good image but it's particular to each lens and for example when compared with the 300mm and 500mm PF lenses, which are very sharp with an almost instant AF, the AFS lenses are different and the technology is a lot older.

I have found that they can also be "light" dependant, maybe more so than other lenses,

I believe that the Nikon Z mirrorless have new sensors, (i.e. they are difference from those in the, say, D850) and maybe the older AFS lens are just not that appropriate for this new technology.

I am also finding that when looking at images from the Z cameras, they have a different "look" to images from the DSLR's - but maybe I'm wrong, but it would be nice to see a side by side comparison.

(probably if you put 2 images side by side, I'd have difficulty telling!!).

Although I have never used a Nikon Z, from what I read and see I don't think Nikon are "there" yet with the Z technology and longer primes and the TC's do not do them any favours - just my opinion
Click to expand...
Thanks Bill
 
BillN_33 said:
Is the 600mm f/11 a Nikon AF-S lens?

Does it stop down to f/4?

Is it "made" for Nikon Z camera's?

What are the OOF areas like?

I think that you are comparing apples with bananas!
Click to expand...

No no, it was just I noticed this thread and thought it might be something along those lines, that was all!
 
stickytape said:
No no, it was just I noticed this thread and thought it might be something along those lines, that was all!
Click to expand...

I thought about moving to the Canon R5/R6 as I have in the past taken lots of bird images with the Nikon 600mm f/4 and 300mm f/2.8 with TC's and it really is a bind carrying the 600mm around with a heavy tripod plus taking them to South Africa each year.

The latest Canon and Sony now seem to have a very good AF system for moving subjects and Canon lenses have always been very good - the lens you refer to, the 600m fixed aperture f/10 and the similar 800mm, again seem to get good reports but they must been limited by the available light particular in the UK in winter.

I've always had an optical VF and never really been happy with the mirror-less set up.

The Nikon 500 f/5.6 PF, (which followed the 300mm), could be a bit of a "game changed" - (I've only had mine for a few weeks) as far as "birds" are concerned - it is light and in my experience good with the x1.4 lll TC.

I not "holding my breath" but maybe, just maybe Nikon will catch up with Canon/Sonly as far as eye AF is concerned ...... but somehow I just doubt it.



As far as Rick is concerned I'm sure if he stick to it he will get good results but long lens photography can be difficult even at the best of time.

I'd be interested to see some bird shots with the R5/R6 and the Canon 600mm/800mm lens
 
silure130 said:
Tripod mainly
Click to expand...
When I had it, I sometimes used my 500 f4 with a Nikon 1 V1, which is smaller and lighter than a Z6 and which also needed the FT-1 adapter.
In my case I used either a beanbag or a tripod and Wimberley Gimbal, either option enabled good balance and I don't recall problems with rotation ... is it too tight?
 
BillN_33 said:
I thought about moving to the Canon R5/R6 as I have in the past taken lots of bird images with the Nikon 600mm f/4 and 300mm f/2.8 with TC's and it really is a bind carrying the 600mm around with a heavy tripod plus taking them to South Africa each year.

The latest Canon and Sony now seem to have a very good AF system for moving subjects and Canon lenses have always been very good - the lens you refer to, the 600m fixed aperture f/10 and the similar 800mm, again seem to get good reports but they must been limited by the available light particular in the UK in winter.

I've always had an optical VF and never really been happy with the mirror-less set up.

The Nikon 500 f/5.6 PF, (which followed the 300mm), could be a bit of a "game changed" - (I've only had mine for a few weeks) as far as "birds" are concerned - it is light and in my experience good with the x1.4 lll TC.

I not "holding my breath" but maybe, just maybe Nikon will catch up with Canon/Sonly as far as eye AF is concerned ...... but somehow I just doubt it.



As far as Rick is concerned I'm sure if he stick to it he will get good results but long lens photography can be difficult even at the best of time.

I'd be interested to see some bird shots with the R5/R6 and the Canon 600mm/800mm lens
Click to expand...
I'll dig out what I've got and share here or in the R thread for sure. Definitly limited by light, I just leave the ISO on auto but it does creep up pretty high for sure. But I just lthink a sharper slighly noisy image is better, so leave it at that y'know
 
gramps said:
When I had it, I sometimes used my 500 f4 with a Nikon 1 V1, which is smaller and lighter than a Z6 and which also needed the FT-1 adapter.
In my case I used either a beanbag or a tripod and Wimberley Gimbal, either option enabled good balance and I don't recall problems with rotation ... is it too tight?
Click to expand...
It’s a bit tight, probably not been used much by the previous owner. One other thing, did you leave the VR on when using the tripod.
thanks
 
I'll dig some shots out Rik with my 600mm f/4 AFS ll lens - if anything your 500mm should be a bit sharper - although looking at images at web resolutions is not the best thing

I took these last week when I was comparing lenses

Taken at the Minimum Focus distance - 1/500sec @ f/5.6 and ISO 360
D850 on a tripod

first is the full image and the second is a crop from the first

(I'll look for some more at a longer range)

TP_600mm_110.jpg


TP_600mm_111.jpg
 
silure130 said:
One other thing, did you leave the VR on when using the tripod.
thanks
Click to expand...
There's different opinions and I can't say I ever saw bad effects with it on but chose to keep it off generally.
 
Here's a couple at typical "bird" distance

VR - on/off just depends how I feel - if I get a bad shot it's me not the VR!!

600mm f/4

D810 1/800sec f/4 - ISO 720 - Tripod

edit in LR

Full image then crop

TP_600mm_13.jpg


TP_600mm_14.jpg
 
Last edited:
I found my Nikon 500mm f/4 to be very sharp but not as good as my 300mm f/2.8 VR. Always used mine on either a monopod or tripod because of its size whereas the 300mm was hand holdable just about.
Recently though I used the 300mm on my Z6 and was not impressed with it compared to my D5 or D850 it’s mainly used with.
 
I just sold my 400mm AF-S and it was a very sharp lens and considering it was 20 odd year old could still focus pretty fast. I would think the 500 and 600 of that vintage were stellar in terms of optics. These long lenses do take some getting used to particularly with longer shutter speeds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top