Does a 500mm F/4 P make sense?

<p>Hi,</p>

<p>I am currently using a 300mm F4 AF-S for wildlife images, with the addition of a TC-17 about 80% of the time. I find that most of the time I need even more reach but the 2x teleconverter never gave me sharp pictures. I cannot afford a modern super telephoto.</p>

<p>So my question is this. Do you think I should save for a used 500mm F/4 P (with the expectation that I will use it with a 1.4x TC often) ? <br>

With the TC on the 300mm I end up focusing manually most of the time so I am used to it.<br>

The only other alternative I see is waiting until I can afford one of the big AF-S lenses.<br>

In either case I worry about spending that kind of money on such an old lens with no warranty.<br>

What would you do?</p>

<div></div>

<p>Used super telephotos seem to hold their values well. I suspect if you buy a used 500 f/4P in good condition at something close to market price, you have a good chance of selling it for a similar amount in a few years when you have saved enough for a new AFS lens, if you take good care of it.<br>

So the alternatives are not 500 f/4P <em>or</em> a new AFS lens. 500 f/4P can be part of your savings plan for the new AFS lens.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Not sure, but the TC17 isn't a 2x TC? It's a bit confusing which one you have, but as you state the TC17... I've got the AF-S 300 f/4D with the TC17, and apart from AF issues (at f/6.7, to be expected), it optically never convinced me - at medium to long distances (15 metres and beyond), it just never got really sharp, not stopped down either. At closer distances, performance is actually quite good.<br /> My solution in the end was the TC14EII - much better performance, and the difference between 500mm and 420mm on long distances is a lot less than it sounds. If you already have the 1.4x TC, you could already give this a try, of course.<br>

[Edit] Sorry, I got all confused, though bottomline remains: I would not use any other TC on the 300 f/4 than the TC14E, and what comes out at that point can still be cropped to some point (*).</p>

<p>If all your TCs are the Nikon ones, the 500 f/4P probably will not mount on them, unless you modify the TCs. But, at this point, good a lens as it may be (and according to people who use it, it is), I wouldn't get it. I'd wait for the supply of 200-500 f/5.6 to settle down, or look at the Sigma/Tamron 150-600 options. They seem better value at his moment, and are lighter and smaller than the old MF prime.<br>

__<br>

(*) the example you posted does look pretty bad indeed, but it could partially also be due to thermal haze, which at long distances with long lenses is a problem - no matter how good a lens you throw at it.</p>

<p>I believe 500f/4P is compatible with the long discontinued TC-14B.</p>

<p>Would a 500mm mirror lens cover your needs? They're f/8, manual focus and have distinctive "donut" bokeh, but are far, far cheaper than an f/4. I have one and use it when I need to go super long. I don't use it enough to justify a more expensive lens.</p>

Chuck,

That is a good point and something I had not considered.

 

Wouter,

I have both teleconverters, the tc17 and the tc20.

I don't think the new zooms are an option for me because I am using an F4s and an F100.

 

Craig,

Since I am shooting film I don't think I could work with the slow max aperture of the mirror lens.

 

Thanks everyone for your responses.

<p>My first super tele was Nikon 600mm f/5.6 MF lens that was ultra sharp and quite portable. I had a 'chip' installed in the lens which allowed the camera to meter for exposure. I'm not sure if anyone is still performing that service anymore, but it resulted in a really nice MF tele for my uses until my eyesight changed. I see an article about the history of mounts and some info about 'dandelion chips' in the '<strong>Post chipped lenses: AI-P</strong>' section.<br>

http://blog.gerardprins.com/blog2.php/2014/10/20/the-nikon-f-mount-manual-focus-nai-ai-ai-s-ai-p-series-e-and-auto-focus-af-i-af-d-af-s-d-and-g-type-lenses<br>

On ebay I see quite a few of the old 600/5.6 lenses for sale. It's probably more straight forward to go with a 500/5 P to avoid the metering issue though.</p>

<p>I use a 500 f/4 AI-P, with a TC-14E (with the tab filed off) and, occasionally, with a modified TC-16A - which does give autofocus, over a limited range, but significantly hurts the optical quality. The 500 f/4 AI-P is very front-heavy, especially given where you have to hold it to grip the focus ring - for me, it's much harder to hand-hold than a 400 f/2.8, for which I eventually intend to exchange it. For now, it lives on a Manfrotto 393 gimbal mount, which isn't helping the weight any.<br />

<br />

Unless you're desperate for the aperture, I'd really look closely at the Nikon 200-500 f/5.6 or the Sigma 150-600mm sport, both of which appear to be much better than their predecessors. The 200-500, at least, is going for less than I paid for a used 500 f/4 AI-P not that long ago. I've not tried the new zooms, but they're getting good comments. The 500 f/4 AI-P is decent (although not quite as mind blowing as I might have hoped on a 36MP body), but manual focus is, for me, a massive pain. Because it's AI-P, the camera "knows" it's not autofocus, which means (I think, I've not checked recently) that trap focus doesn't work - unlike a dandelion chip, which can persuade the camera that the lens is trying to autofocus and therefore that the AF module should be controlling the shutter release.<br />

<br />

Just to clarify Wouter's confusion: the TC17 is a 1.7x teleconverter. But the TC200 and TC300 are both 2x teleconverters (the latter being more intrusive into the lens and being designed for longer lenses), which might have been the source of confusion?</p>

<p>The 200-500mm would be in consideration if I could use it on any of my camera bodies.</p>

<p>The 200-500mm/f5.6 E is the obvious choice. While it is not fully compatible with the F4 and F100, the key word is "fully." It should work just fine on the F4 and F100. The only limitation is that you won't be able to stop it down from f5.6. But what speed of film are you using? ISO 50, 100 or maybe 200. At 500mm, you shouldn't stop it down anyway since you have no access to the type of high ISO now available on digital, e.g. ISO 800, ISO 1600, to maintain a fast enough shutter speed. If anything, max f5.6 maybe too slow.</p>

<p>The three points in favor of 500f/4P are:<br /> 1. It's f/4. <br /> 2. AF indicator still works if you put a 2X teleconverter (with appropriate modification) on it.<br /> 3. It is already fully depreciated. If you take good care of it, you can probably sell it for as much as you paid for it should you decide to shift the funds to a fancier lens in the future.<br>

<br /> But functionality wise, I agree 200-500 is overall a superior, as well as cheaper, contender, especially considering the VR and the ability to frame the image with zoom. But if you pay new prices, which would likely be the only option for at some time, expect to lose 30%-40% when you resell it.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>From 1992 to 1998, I had the 500mm/f4 P lens. What convinced me that I really needed AF was during a trip to Kenya in 1997. I was photographing a pack of lion cubs, walking fairly slowly. I quickly realized that I wasn't able to maintain focus on them even though they were not moving very fast, and since I was paying a lot of attention to the manual focus, my composition was off. Therefore, a year later I upgraded to the 500mm/f4 AF-S, which I still own today.</p>

<p>Optically, the 200-500 zoom still compares favorably to the 500mm/f4. f4 remains to be critical for AF speed and accuracy during dim light. But the 200-500 zoom is much lighter and cheaper.</p>

<p>The 500mm/f4 P is really out of favor by now so that prices are dropping. Think about it, there are the 500mm/f4 AF-I, AF-S, AF-S II and AF-S VR after it. Some people are now upgrading to the latest 500mm/f4 E AF-S VR because it is much lighter. It pushes all other AF-S versions down in price. Only those who have a very limited budget would go for the AI-P nowadays because MF pretty much limits you to non-moving wildlife, e.g. bird in nest. The new 200-500mm also further depresses used prices for the AI-P.</p>

<p>Shun,</p>

<p>I am using ISO 50 and 100 mostly. <br /><br /><br>

The reason I'm leaning toward the 500P is because I plan to use it with a 1.4x TC. I think the addition of the TC on the 200-500E would be too slow.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Nick, as I said, I sold my 500mm/f4 P in 1998, so I have no experience using it on digital. On film it was excellent as long as you don't mind manual focus.</p>

<p>All used 500mm prices are going down due to the various new lenses such as the 500mm/f4 E and the 200-500mm/f5.6. If you can wait a bit and let the dust settle, maybe you can even afford a 500mm/f4 AF-S. I would probably avoid the 500mm/f4 AF-I as it is essentially impossible to get parts for the AF-I motor any more.</p>

<p>Personally, I find the manual-focus restriction unacceptable for a long tele. On the other hand, zooms don't work well with teleconverters. I have used the TC-14E III on the 200-500mm. I need to stop it down by a stop to get good results. When you are using ISO 100 film, it is not going to work.</p>

<p>I'm with Shun on this one Nick, and generally consider AF to be an indispensable part of the final sharpness result. Today's AF is so good that I would expect a 500mm AF shot to excel a 700mm MF result most of the time. I can't tell you how many times from back in my MF days I was in some fabulous place with an incredible subject and was just off a smidgen or a lot on the focus due to movement or my eyesight or ??? And as Shun mentions, there is a lot of overhead in dealing with MF, often at the expense of framing or exposure or missing the critical moment.</p>

<p>I can certainly wait and see if the prices on the big AF-S lenses come down. A 600mm AF-S would be ideal but currently out of my price range.</p>

 

<p>I use to own the 500/4 P and notched it's mount to allow use of their superb AF-S extenders. The lens was a great performer and would likely handily outperform the new 200-500 zoom especially with a 1.4 extender. The biggest problem is if that if your subject isn't static (like landscapes or a bird perched on a branch), you won't get many keepers given the low ISO and the need to track action or freeze event slightly moving subjects. The 200-500 makes the most sense as it will keep the lens focused on moving subjects but unfortunately won't help in freezing motion on moving subjects unless you significantly boost shooting ISO.</p>

<p>During the last 3 years I used a couple of opportunities to comment on my personal experiences on living with an old super-tele in 'real life'. In my case an 11-months Africa trip with my beloved wife and daughter .. and my beloved 400/3.5 on D300. The conclusion was obvious - photographers made beautiful images this way: you can do it, and it is hard work!</p>

<p>Considering your question reagrding the 500/4.0P, I'd say you 'should' only buy one when..:<br />- it is really in good condition AND really really cheap<br />- you are really really good at manual focusing<br />- you already have the necessary tripod and -head.</p>

<p>Image: Dusky Sunbird, western Namibia 2012, D300 & Nikkor 400/3.5 -© A.Hunia-<br>

<img src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7066/6950325786_6a4e6d8a7a_n.jpg" alt="" width="320" height="213" /><br>

good luck!</p>

<p>..And given the choice, I would definetely chose a modern super-zoom over the old super-tele for such an occasion now.</p>

Both F100 and F4 have interchangible focusing screens. I believe for the F4 there are split prism focusing screens to

make manual focus fairly quick and certain. I don't think there are split prism screens designed for the F100, but those for

the F4 or F5 can be modified to fit.

 

With split prism focusing screen, MF is a lot easier and surer than people who have only tried it on a DSLR might think, particularly with a real MF era lens that has the right drag and no slop in the manual focus ring.

<blockquote>

<p>The conclusion was obvious - photographers made beautiful images this way: you can do it, and it is hard work!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As long as you restrict yourself to non-moving subjects, including wildlife, you can capture beautiful wildlife images with a manual-focus 500mm/f4 P.</p>

<p>Albin, the sample image you provided isn't exactly wildlife in action, is it?</p>

<p>I would much rather not having such severe restriction, though.</p>

<p>As far as suitability for digital is concerned, the image quality is there if you can focus it. I've used one with a DX digital camera, and gotten nice results, but even on a tripod sturdy enough to get a good shot with self timer or remote, it can be hard to achieve critical focus owing to the vibration and the sheer size. It's difficult to touch the focusing end without setting the whole rig in motion.</p>