Nikon 500mm f5.6 pf vs 200-500mm

PatrickO

PatrickO

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,808
Name
Patrick
Edit My Images
Yes
I have the Nikon 200-500mm f/5.6 which I use for wildlife (mainly birds). I'm considering the 500mm f/5.6 pf now that used ones are a little over £2k.

Has anyone used both and able to comment on the image quality differences?

I have found that to get the best image from the 200-500 I need to back off to about 400mm and also a stop or two down from f/5.6.

Thanks, Patrick
 
I've used them both. The pf is an excellent lens with its only downside is the relatively slow aperture - not so much of an issue nowadays as it used to be with the higher ISO capabilities of modern cameras and the high quality noise reduction software now available.

The 200-500 is a lot more variable in IQ. Some of them are excellent and can all but match the IQ of the prime lens, but I've also seen poor copies. Obviously it comes with the zoom benefits

If you normally shoot at distances that require 500mm and you have the cash then its a pretty safe bet

Mike
 
Personally, I would look for a good second-hand 500 prime. The extra stop of light at f4 is very useful for wildlife and 'BIF', especially as most creatures are more active at dawn and dusk!

Of course, a 'prime' is heavier, but I only shoot from a tripod and gimbal, so not a problem for me. - You will always want more reach and a 500 f4 prime will take a 1.4 converter, better than either a PF 5.6, or the 200-500 (you will lose one stop of light with any of the lenses, with a 1.4 converter attached).

Prior to getting my 500 f4 prime, I was also using a 200-500 and the difference in image quality is 'night and day'!

Good luck with whatever you choose.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top