Upgrade from Nikon 500mm P lens ????

<p>I have been shooting birds for three or 4 years , the last couple with a Nikon 500mm P lens, which I rate highly. I do not have a problem with my inability to get flight shots with this lens , nor with the fact that my % of good shots is low, I set my standards fairly high. I have noticed recently as my field technique gets better and I am able to get nearer to my subject, that my % of keepers dramatically falls away, I am still within the minimum focus distance of the lens, so I assume my problem is to do with the decreasing depth of field as I get nearer to my subject. Focusing on subjects , say 30 to 50 feet away is no problem.<br>

My question is would I see a dramatic improvement in results with a 500mm AFS. I am heading for retirement my eyes will no doubt deteriorate in the future. I could just about finance the lens, would it be a worthwhile investment. So often it is said that photographer makes the image not the equipment, would that hold in this case. Your comments and experiences would be appreciated.</p>

<p>Regards Stephen</p>

<p>You might want to check for focus error on the near side if your body has the adjustment. It is a nice lens and the replacement is $$$$.</p>

<p>I have to say, in wildlife the equipment does matter these days. I read Art Morris say that in 20 or so years photographing flying birds with manual focus lenses he had only a handful of what he considered perfectly sharp pictures, whereas now he gets them every day!<br>

I'm still struggling with AF after years with MF but it seems that it is definitely the way to go!<br />Steve</p>

 

<p>Stephen, having used AF with 500mm lenses (currently 500mm VR) for some time I can't imagine going back to manual focus for the type of subjects you're shooting. The keepers go up dramatically with AF unless you're the best there is at manual focus. Maybe you could rent one for a weekend, I'll bet that would seal the deal.</p>

I think the issue here is "father time". When I was in my 20s and 30s I had pretty mad focusing skills and could shoot sports, birds, drag racing without much difficulty, now at 50 I go mad focusing, ha-ha.

<p>I upgraded from the 500mm/f4 P to the first AF-S version back in 1998. Now 12 years later, I still use the AF-S. To me, that was an excellent upgrade, since having AF is critical for wildlife photography.</p>

<p>I have never used the VR version. I am not sure having VR is that important, but having AF is.</p>

<p>

 

<p>As a user of the 500 P and the 300 AF from the same era, I share the opinion that AF is a must for any kind of action like wildlife. The difference in percent keepers between these 2 ancient lenses is huge, just from having the AF alone. I'm planning the upgrade myself fairly soon. As Shun said, I have the strong sense that THE upgrade of the century was AF, and other bells and whistles are secondary (though no doubt also valuable). Someone with a 10 year old AF lens that still works should be good for another decade, or 2. But, as someone above said about Art Morris's observations, I agree, the difference between what lenses can do today with the computer helping you vs what was happening until the early 90s is simply night and day in terms of capturing candid action. </p>

<p>I don't think it's anything to do with aging, it's all about technology. When I look back at published photos older than 15 years, now I notice that action was rarely attempted, and when it was the keepers were few and tended to be "artsy" (read: soft). And, back in the day pros were the only ones capable of getting even these action shots because they could afford to go through 300 roles of film in a 1 week safari. The rest of us could never match that output, and thus those rare in-focus or otherwise acceptable action shots with manual focus lenses eluded us for the most part.</p>

 

</p>

<p>Shun, agree about the VR. I've got the 400 2.8VR and find it pretty much a waste of time. It'd be good if you hand held it at slowish shutter speed - but strangely enough I'm not doing that much!<br>

I also found that on a tripod or rested on rocks/car door etc., the VR actually softens the image. I checked it with the techs and they confirmed that when the camera is rock solid the VR element stills moves and gets out of line and messes up the optical path a bit, even in so called "tripod" mode.<br />Steve</p>

 

<p>So, Steve, what do they say is the purpose of VR in super teles? Monopod mode only? Or do they expect people to do serious hand-held work with them? </p>

<p>Hi Stephen,</p>

<p>I'm sure that by now you are convinced about having AF-S on long tele. I don't have the 500mm but the 600mm. I can't imagine MF for anything other than still life.</p>

<p>Regarding VR, I tested its functionality at varying shutter speeds. On tripod and gimbal head locked down, VR in normal mode was messing up focus at shutter speeds about 1/200th and below. In fact, it was adding motion blur; that's probably as a result of VR element moving. On tripod mode, that "motion"/VR blur was significantly reduced. When I'm using this lens, its usually on safari with the camera/lens on window mount and wimberley head - I keep the VR on normal mode, but the shutter speed 1/500th or more majority of the tim. The images come out really sharp but 'm not even sure whether VR is of any help as the shutter speed is reasonably high.</p>

<p>Cheers,<br /> Senthil</p>

<p>I agree with you Sen, I thought there might be some benefit with reducing vibrations of the mirror or my trigger finger on the shutter button but I did side by side shots with VR on and off and those with it off actually looked better.<br>

Why have VR on these super teles? Partly because you can and to keep up with Canon. What practical use? Well it does make the viewfinder image a bit more steady and I suppose at pretty slow shutter speeds (like 1/60th) you might just get away with a few handheld shots. So might as well have it as not, all I'm saying is that if say you saw a second hand 600mm f4 for £3000 and a 600mm f4VR for £5000 I wouldn't worry about not having the VR, I'd rather save the money.<br>

I bought my 400 2.8 new, and the non VR ones have pretty much sold out and those few that are left are not far off the price of the VR ones, so a no brainer really.<br>

Steve</p>

 

<p>Rep</p>

<p>Hello<br>

I've been using the 500 f4P for many years, and I love that lens. Now, I upgrade 6 months ago, to the VR version, and...I'm still missing my old 500 f4 P. I expected more from this lens. I thought that 20 years of technology will makes the difference, and in fact, that was true, but not in the way I'll hope. There is something SOFT in this new 500 f4 VR that...I don't like. I'm sorry but it's what I feel, and my budget feels like, too. Just today I've seen a test with a 500 f4 IS (Canon) with 7D vs this 500 f4 VR with a D300s and now I'm really, really worried about.<br>

If there are people with this bad vibration about this lens, please let me knows. I'm a mess with it.</p>