heimbrandt Posted September 14, 2018 Share Posted September 14, 2018 It is the same when I compare the hood that comes with the 300 PF to that of the 300/2.8. That PF hood is roughly about half the length of the 2.8 lens hoods. I understand why Nikon has made the hoods shorter on the PF lenses, maneuverability and price. However, just like several super teles come with two tripod feet (a normal and a short one for monopods), it would have been nice for the PF lenses to come with full length lens hoods as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_halliwell Posted September 14, 2018 Share Posted September 14, 2018 (edited) I guess it shouldn't be beyond the tech of the design engineers to have 2 hood sections that telescope and click lock. Price, really? It's only a piece of injection moulded plastic. I guess it's not rolled carbon fibre tube like the big f4 tele hoods? Edited September 14, 2018 by mike_halliwell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted September 14, 2018 Share Posted September 14, 2018 Well, the 500/4 FL hood costs $400. I think many 500/5.6 PF customers prefer something less expensive. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_halliwell Posted September 14, 2018 Share Posted September 14, 2018 I agree, but it's the f4 over-priced hoods rather than the 'cheap' 5.6 PF's! I kinda assumed most hoods were as long as possible, ie just short of vignetting in the same way petal hoods are sculptured to offer the maximum shade with no vignetting. If they knew PF lenses are not very flare resistant, an extra 50mm or so on hood length isn't going to break the bank! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heimbrandt Posted September 14, 2018 Share Posted September 14, 2018 Yes, the PF's lens hood is made of plastic. Illka, I think all customers prefer cheaper lens hoods. I am not saying it needs to be a carbon fibre and metal one, just a longer one. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted September 14, 2018 Share Posted September 14, 2018 One reason for a shorter hood may be that photographers tend to put the lens down on its front in the ground (often with the camera mounted on top), and in the case of such a long and narrow lens, toppling over is a risk. A very long and narrow hood would increase the risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_halliwell Posted September 14, 2018 Share Posted September 14, 2018 Designing something to accommodate user bad practice at the expense of being fit-for-purpose is perverse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted September 14, 2018 Author Share Posted September 14, 2018 Most people would put the hood on backward for storage. Since the 500mm/f5.6 PF is a much shorter lens by design, a long lens hood wouldn't fit backward due to the tripod collar. The old 600mm/f4 and 400mm/f2.8 have the tripod collar towards the front side of the lens due to the heavy front element, Nikon had to use a two-section lens hood for them to fit backward. The new FL version of the 600mm/f4 and 400mm/f2.8 don't have that issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heimbrandt Posted September 14, 2018 Share Posted September 14, 2018 Illka, while I agree with you in part, the HB-48 hood that Nikon Supplied with the 70-200/2.8 VRII begs to differ. Same goes for the HB-23 that comes with the 16-36/4VR and the DX 12-24 and 10-24 (and probably other lenses too). (I use the HB-29 hood from the first version of the 70-200/2.8 on my VRII because the HB-29 is longer and allows me to put the camera down on the lens - which I know you should no, but I often do.) Shun, there are several inches between the reversed hood and the tripod foot on the 500 PF. Same holds true for the 300PF with a mounted tripod collar, there is lots of room for a longer lens hood. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted September 14, 2018 Share Posted September 14, 2018 The hood for 70-200/2,8G II was a really bad design (curved edge, basically begging to fall over) but they listened to the users and fixed that problem in the E FL version's hood, which is straight as it should be. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heimbrandt Posted September 14, 2018 Share Posted September 14, 2018 Here are some of the test photos I took with the 500/5.6 PF and the D850. The last two are with the TC-14EIII. Please note All are taken for my personal evaluation of the lens, they have no artistic merits. I wanted to test for ghosting but also to get a sense for what it could deliver when ghosting is not an issue. Except for the one I recovered in post, no settings were adjusted in post. I only cropped the handle of the Vespa, all other photos show the entire FX image area. Photos without the TC are taken at F5.6 and the two with the 1.4 TC are taken at F8. Below is with the sun to the right, outside the frame: Below is with the sun outside the top left corner the left taken with the sun at the same distance from the edge of the frame as the previous photo: Below is with the sun just above the image: This is what I could rescue in post: Having that horrible ghosting out of the way, I want to show what I liked about the lens. Here is a photo taken with the TC-14EIII at F8 (700 mm, handheld): And here it is at 100 %: Below is a candid photo taken with TC-14EIII, also at F8 (700 mm handheld): To conclude: I am confident the 500/5.6 PF will produce excellent results, as long as you can control the ghosting. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_halliwell Posted September 14, 2018 Share Posted September 14, 2018 I guess I'll have to wait until it turns grey, but it looks a winner to anyone who needs 400mm plus....as a prime. What was the filter thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted September 14, 2018 Author Share Posted September 14, 2018 What was the filter thread? 95mm, same as the 200-500mm/f5.6 E AF-S VR. They are both 500mm/f5.6. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_halliwell Posted September 15, 2018 Share Posted September 15, 2018 That's what I hoped!! Is it the same bayonet? An aftermarket long-tube would fit both if it was the screw-in variety...:-) ... not that I've ever noticed much flare on my 200-500mm, but in tracking BIF, I have occasionally seen the sun approaching. To be avoided! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul_b.1 Posted September 15, 2018 Share Posted September 15, 2018 The hood for 70-200/2,8G II was a really bad design Indeed a bad design...I have version 1 hood mounted on my 70-200/2,8G II... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_halliwell Posted September 15, 2018 Share Posted September 15, 2018 If the 500mm PF hood fits the 200-500mm, where does it start to vignette on a DX body? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joseph_smith3 Posted September 15, 2018 Share Posted September 15, 2018 My copy arrives next week. I will try and remember to do some vignetting testing as I have both DX and full frame bodies. And I will be using it hand held as well as on a tripod with a gimbal head. I was surprised to get it so soon as I am not a member of Nikon's NPS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_halliwell Posted September 15, 2018 Share Posted September 15, 2018 Hi Jo, I hope you won't find any vignetting, the hood is designed for FX! I want to know how this hood will work on a dx bodied cam with the 200-500mm 5.6. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joseph_smith3 Posted September 19, 2018 Share Posted September 19, 2018 (edited) lens arrived this afternoon. I put it on my D 810 and took some test shots of passion flowers in my backyard with bumble bees flying around in search of pollen. Lighting was mostly strong sunlight. I used a tripod with a ball head but the camera and lens were never fully locked in. The ballhead was set loose so I could compose as needed. Camera was set to Continuous High. AF was set to AF-C "S" for shots 1 and 2 and Dynamic D 9 for shots 3 and 4. The tracking shot of the bumble bee was greatly helped in that the bee was mostly in hover state waiting his turn to land on the passion flower. EV was at a minus.7 on all shots as best as i can recall. Matrix metering and A mode with the aperture set at 5.6--wide open for all shots. . No processing was done to any of the images and all are full frames with no cropping. All I did was to create jpegs from the RAWs at 950 pixels along the longest side. Based on this test run, this lens will get a lot of use. Edited September 19, 2018 by joseph_smith|3 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted September 19, 2018 Author Share Posted September 19, 2018 lens arrived this afternoon. I put it on my D 810 and took some test shots of passion flowers in my backyard with bumble bees flying around in search of pollen. Lighting was mostly strong sunlight. Thanks Joseph. Congrats on the new lens. Since you also have the 500mm/f4 E FL AF-S VR, it would be a good comparison between the two lenses. Once again my main concern is AF speed on the f5.6 PF lens, especially when the light is dimmer. Just curious, did you order from one of the major mail-order stores? It looks like a number of people, especially in Europe, have taken delivery already. One thing I am a bit concerned about is that the 500mm/f5.6 PF is made in China. In the US, it may be subjected to additional tariff soon. That could potentially add a couple hundred dollars to the price tag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mary Doo Posted September 19, 2018 Share Posted September 19, 2018 Thanks Joseph. You mentioned you used a tripod with the ballhead at movable condition. Was VR on or off? It is perplexing that the two Dynamic D 9 shots @1/2000s are not any sharper than the first two AFC-S shots set at 1/100s and 1/200s respectively. All shots focused on the bee except for #3, I wonder what hand-holding with VR would yield? Need to find out more about how this lens behaves. Thanks again Joseph. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joseph_smith3 Posted September 20, 2018 Share Posted September 20, 2018 Hi Mary, in all four shots VR was off. In image 4, the reason for the lack of sharpness was that the focus point was not placed on the bee flying away as it still was pointing at a portion of the passion flower. In taking these kind of images, to get sharp images, placement of the focus point is super critical, then a fast enough shutter speed and the right amount of depth of field. When you have competing elements for the focus point to grab onto, you sometimes have to tweak the focus manually (if you have the time to do it.). In my experiments with VR on Nikon long lenses when mounted on a tripod or gimbal head, I usually turn off VR in that I do not see the benefits often mentioned in articles about VR. Perhaps that is because my shooting techniques are not as good as they should be. When I use a monopod, I turn VR on. I just finished some tests of this 500mm f5.6 lens on my D 500. I will post these later. This combination is even more remarkable. But getting that focus point in the right place is still the key to sharp images. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joseph_smith3 Posted September 20, 2018 Share Posted September 20, 2018 Here are four images taken with my D 500 and my 500mm f5.6 Nikon PF lens. Camera and lens were mounted to a tripod and ballhead but with them loose on the head. Aperture set to f 5.6 for images 1 and 2, then f 6.3 for image 3 and 4. . VR Off, AF-C dynamic 25. Matrix metering. Aperture priority mode. ISO 800. Time of day, late afternoon. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joseph_smith3 Posted September 20, 2018 Share Posted September 20, 2018 Shun, on my D 810 acquiring AF was pretty good even when the flower was in shadow. On my D 500, AF acquisition was even better. I will try and do a comparison with my 500mm f4 E VR this weekend if not sooner. Here are some cell phone pictures comparing the size of the Nikon 300mm f4 PF and the Nikon 500mm f55.6 PF. The 500mm is mounted on a D 810 and the 300mm on a D 500. Joe 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted September 20, 2018 Author Share Posted September 20, 2018 Thanks again, Joe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now