Nikon 500mm lenses (1 Viewer)

I am considering investing (yes investing seems the right word given the massive price) in an AFSII NIKOR 500mm lens. I currently use a Sigma 180-500mm APO lens. Which Nikon 500mm is the best for bird photography. Any ideas from those who have used these top end lenses would be appreciated.

Richard

I use the oldest 500/4 which is the AI-P version. It's manual focus only. Then there is the AFI, which has a slow autofocus. The AFS has a much faster autofocus, and the AFS II is lighter, and focuses closer. Finally there's the new AFS VR version, which has image stabilisation, as well as the nano crystal coating. It's called a meniscus protective lens (whatever that means).

Optically, they're all brilliant. The newer versions have more features which make them easier to use, but then they cost more as well. I've attached some shots that I've taken with the 500 and the 1.4B teleconverter attached.

Thanks Helios,
Your photos are excellent, really sharp. At the moment this is a bit of research. The prices of this kit do mean you have to get it right.

I have use da Nikon 600 f4 AFS-II for a few years now and love it. I used a 600mm f5.6 IFED Ai manual focus lens since the late 1970's and still have it. You will not regret the move from the Sigma and you will notice the image improvement immediately. Even my old lens is bitingly sharp and is brought out of retirement for foreign hols (light and short for a 600mm as well as bombproof). The Sigma being about I.9kg is considerably lighter than the Nikon 500 at about 3.4kg and the price difference is huge (£749 v £3500).
This said, if given the choice I would have a second hand manual Nikon over a modern Sigma zoom every time. you can get second hand Nikons for the same price as the Sigma is new!! If you can stand the extra cost and weight of a 500 Nikon, go for it but don't be tempted to do without a tripod- even with VR.

Thanks Dennis,

That seems very good advice, thank you.

I don't like the awful hunting I get with the Sigma on autofocus. Sounds a bit like a hair drier too! As I invariably use the lens at 500mm and seldom use the lower end of the zoom, I'm moving towards the benefits of a prime lens. Also in poor light the Sigma does not perform unless you jack up the ISO.

Richard

I am using the AFS EDII and I am extremely happy. Your right... It is an investment, but it is the ultimate bird photographer's tool. Really important consideration though.... You have to make sure you invest in a really good tripod like a Gitzo if you go this route.

When i first used this lens with my Manfrotto 099 legs, technically I was within the weight constraints. However, the Manfrotto legs could not provide a stable shooting platform even with the Manfrotto gimbal head (all this stuff is Bogen States side I believe). A few weeks ago, I bit the bullet and purchased an extra long 3 series from Gitzo. This past weekend, my keeper rate went up dramatically.

If you go for the lens, you have to get the right equipment to support it.

Helios said:

. It's called a meniscus protective lens (whatever that means).

Click to expand...

The front element of the big Nikkors is just not a lens as such, just a slab of glass.
That means its much cheaper to replace should you damage the front surface .
The attached image from the Nikon website shows a single thin element in front of the first biconvex lens.

rdspalm said:

I am considering investing (yes investing seems the right word given the massive price) in an AFSII NIKOR 500mm lens.

Click to expand...

No, "investing" is not the right word, unless this is an actual business for you. That's a dangerous way to think about a hobby. A real investment is a different animal entirely, with an entirely different goal in mind.

Personally I'd look at the 300mm VR and a teleconverter. (drool...) More flexible. IMHO.

Personally I find some threads amusing, in another under the Nikon area we are discussing the issues of quality when we add a single clear filter to our lenses to protect the primary optic but in the very next thread we discuss the possible merits of adding TC's (yes I'm also guilty of this) but a TC with multiple pieces of glass is far more likely to degrade an image than a HQ filter..........

Duke Leto said:

Personally I find some threads amusing, in another under the Nikon area we are discussing the issues of quality when we add a single clear filter to our lenses to protect the primary optic but in the very next thread we discuss the possible merits of adding TC's (yes I'm also guilty of this) but a TC with multiple pieces of glass is far more likely to degrade an image than a HQ filter..........

Click to expand...

Perhaps you'd amuse and confuse yourself less if you didn't try to tie together completely unrelated threads and topics? I suggested the alternative of a 300+TC with flexibility and a touch of thriftiness in mind. It certainly won't allow anyone to explore the theoretical limits of IQ, but the OP didn't indicate that as a specific priority.

As the other users say you won't look back after getting a 500/4 or 600/4. If you can afford it then get one as they will last you forever. Neil.

Would I achieve decent results with a 300mm f2.8VR and a teleconverter, or is there a marked difference with a true 500mm lens? I'm talking practical field shots of wildfowl and raptors where I may have to carry equipment for 1-3 miles.

The idea of a 300mm rig attracts me for the following reasons:
1 Price £2800 - £3000 as opposed to £5000
2 Weight 1-2 kg weight saving
3 Aperture, if I'm right the 2.8 VR lens would become an F4 with tc attached?

I suppose adding the extra glass elements will degrade the results? Will this degradation be significant or not?

My current rig is a D200 and a Sigma 170-500mm APO f5.6-6.3. Its pretty crap in low light situations encountered frequently in Irish field conditions.

I was photographting a Buzzard on Sunday ISO 400 1/1000 sec and was pretty much wide open.

I would welcome some expert advice before I dare "splash the cash".

Richard

rdspalm said:

Would I achieve decent results with a 300mm f2.8VR and a teleconverter, or is there a marked difference with a true 500mm lens? I'm talking practical field shots of wildfowl and raptors where I may have to carry equipment for 1-3 miles.

The idea of a 300mm rig attracts me for the following reasons:
1 Price £2800 - £3000 as opposed to £5000
2 Weight 1-2 kg weight saving
3 Aperture, if I'm right the 2.8 VR lens would become an F4 with tc attached?

I suppose adding the extra glass elements will degrade the results? Will this degradation be significant or not?

My current rig is a D200 and a Sigma 170-500mm APO f5.6-6.3. Its pretty crap in low light situations encountered frequently in Irish field conditions.

I was photographting a Buzzard on Sunday ISO 400 1/1000 sec and was pretty much wide open.

I would welcome some expert advice before I dare "splash the cash".

Richard

Click to expand...

Richard,
I have the 300/2.8 AFS and the 300/4 AFS as well as the 500/4. The quality out of the 300/2.8 is fantastic and is very fast even with the 1.4x, but it suffers from a lack of reach. I used the 300s a lot last year for duck flight shots (have a look at my Gallery for Dec/Jan/Feb ) but I ended up having to crop too much. Don't forget the 500 is almost twice the magnification of the 300. It does depend a lot on what you photograph. If you want to photograph waders out and about on the mudflats then 300 is not enough reach. Often 500 is not enough either so I'm taking my digiscoping gear out tomorrow so I get to over 2000 mm . Neil.
Neil.

rdspalm, dont know if this would help , posted a few photos that i took with my 300mm 2.8 lens (nikor) &1.4 con, manual lens, this lens is very sharp, i dont see much difference with the 1.4 con , or without it , i always keep them together, this lens was my birding lens ,but now i've got the sigma 150-500 lens, i didnt want this lens for reach i was quite happy with my 300& 1.4con , but i did need auto focus , i could not afford the new 300 2.8 , if i had the money to buy the new 2.8 auto lens, i would all the time, even with the 2.0 conv theres not much loss in picture quality, its a nice carryaround all day lens...

Thanks Mark & Neil,

Your comments are very helpful. I am keen on the idea of the 300 f2.8 and a teleconverter. If the image quality is that good there is a fair degree of weight saving and of course the price difference.

Richard

rdspalm said:

1 Price £2800 - £3000 as opposed to £5000
2 Weight 1-2 kg weight saving

Click to expand...

If price is a big issue, have you considered the Sigma 500mm f4.5? This is a cracking lens for the money - I bought a mint, new version of the lens for less than £1500. It works very well with my D300 and will take the Kenko Pro 1.4x converter with no problems except slightly slower focus lock.

The other advantage of the Sigma over a Nikon 500mm f4 is that it weighs quite a bit less. I can walk around all day with it on a tripod slung over my shoulder.

I bought the lens nearly a year ago and I reckon I could easily get back back what I paid for it if I sold it on again.

bkrownd said:

No, "investing" is not the right word, unless this is an actual business for you. That's a dangerous way to think about a hobby. A real investment is a different animal entirely, with an entirely different goal in mind.

Personally I'd look at the 300mm VR and a teleconverter. (drool...) More flexible. IMHO.

Click to expand...

Not all investments have to have financial benefits although I understand the point.
I look at all my photographic equipment as an investment in pleasure !

As for lens's. I started with the Nikon 80-400mm VR which I chose in preference to the Sigma because it had VR. My original intention was a pure walk about lens and this lens is exactly that. An investment in a tripod soon persuaded me that was the best way to get decent results in low light conditions but the 80-400 can struggle with auto focus and is noisy too. A foreign holiday in the Gambia made me realise the lens was capable of really sharp photo's and quicker focus when the sun was out. I decided my next move would be the 300f2.8 VR. This lens would be well suited for a walk about as well as being able to deal with the poorer light we get in the UK. The added bonus is the ability to take TC's. I have the 1.4 and 1.7 TC's.
It's a great lens, lightening fast AF without the TC's, very fast with the 1.4 but not quite as good with a 1.7. Am I satisfied with this combination ? No !
The 500mm reach with the 1.7 is still insufficient and the image quality does suffer so I really would like, and I'm seriously contemplating, a 500 or 600mm next.
Have a made a mistake ? Certainly not, the 300mm f2.8 VR is a keeper for life. Very flexible, portable and produces superb images. Ultimately it won't satisfy your desire for more reach though but it will far outperform the Sigma 50-500 in every way ( and should at the price).
Would I trade in the 300 for a 500 or 600mm. Again, certainly not ! The 300 is brilliant for BIF, taking on longer hikes, grab shots from the car, taking as hand luggage on aircraft etc, etc. There will be times when you want more reach though.
Interestingly two friends who have 500 and 600mm lenses have both seen the benefits of my smaller lens and since purchased one.
Me, I just enviously eye up theirs and dream about owning one. Whether or not my desire will be satisfied then I don't know. When you have the biggest there is no where else to go but will it still be long enough.
My other thought is that this is an hobby. I have all the time in the world to spend on it as I have retired. Sooner or later, the opportunity will arise when that target species is close to and a big lens unnecessary. My field craft is improving. Instead of going walk about I now have the patience to sit and wait. It's the least expensive option ! After all , when you have taken all these shots, what do you do with them ? File them away, just as you do your holiday snaps. The real pleasure is achieving the shot and maybe there is more pleasure the longer it takes to get there ?

Hi rdspalm,
I have used a Nikon AF-S 300mm F/2.8 with a 1.7x TC for a couple years now and have been 100% delighted. For most of the time, you forget that you are actually using a TC. However, a birder always wants a bit more power and last week I made the plunge and bought a used 600mm F/4 Nikon. I have only taken about 200 shots in really dull weather. Initial thoughts are that I am very pleased though I'm sure the best is yet to come. Given the size and weight of the 600 (the 500 is pretty close in size and weight as well), I think I will keep the 300mm for lighter weight ops, as mentioned in the previous thread. I also will concur with soemone previously that you will also need to completely review the kit it will sit on! You can view a stack of bird images taken with the Nikon lenses on my blog site : www.swopticsphoto.blogspot.com

Richard,

Rioja has written good sense. As I emailed you I don't think that you can go far wrong with any of the lenses mentioned, you have to choose which procedure suits you best. Only if your finances can stetch, and you want mobility, have a look at the 400mmVR, borrow one if possible or try out at a shop or Nikon show.

Thanks for all the good advice. Yes I was originally thinking on buying a 500mm VR but the cost is pretty high new. If I could get hold of a recent used 500mm that would be good. What sort of prices do they go for?

I think the portability is the most important factor for me. If I can get decent shots with a 300 + TC then that might be the way to go.

I'm currently using a carbon fibre manfrotto tripod but have an old Benbo from which you could moor a battleship! The Benbo is a rock solid platform but a brute to carry for long distances.

Richard