eShootout: Nikkor 500/4 AI-P, 600/4 AI-S, 400/2.8 AI-S

[bruce_stevens]

OK Guys. I am once again on the market for a new super telephoto for bird photography. I have decided for

budgetary reasons after great internal debate to go manual focus. This is an unofficial continuation of the

thread I started

<a href="http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00OL2h">here</a>.

<br><br>

To wrap up the previous story, I "upgraded" from the AF Nikkor 300/4 to the AF-S Nikkor 300/4. I shouldn't be the

first to say that this really is an upgrade. Most importantly, the optics are definitely improved. I never really

considered the amount of CA exhibited by the old 300 to be a problem until I used the newer one. In addition to

that, AF speed is noticeably faster, and it stays faster through my new TC-14E. I shoot mostly handheld with that

setup and hence have never upgraded to a third party tripod foot, but we all probably know the story of "The

Tripod Collar that Couldn't" by now.

<br><br>

In my previous thread, Alex Lofquist turned me on to the idea of using a 300mm as a 'grab lens' while having a

super tele mounted on the tripod. Now that I have also changed to the D200 from the D80 I can make this a

reality. Without further ado, the reason for this thread: I want as many (biased or unbiased) opinions as I do

hard facts about which of these three lenses you think is the best for bird (or other telephoto) photography:

<bR><bR>

(1) Nikkor 600/4 AI (-S)<br>

(2) Nikkor 500/4 AI-P<br>

(3) Nikkor 400/2.8 AI-S (OK let's put the Nikkor 400/3.5 AI (-S) in as well)<br>

<bR>

Bjørn Rørslett reviews all three of these lenses on his page <a

href="http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html">here</a>.

<br><br>

There is overwhelmingly more info and (positive) reviews out there about the 500 P than the other two. Is this

because more people really endorse this lens or is there some other reason (larger production run, greater

compatibility with DSLRs, etc.)? Since most people able to answer this post have likely only used one of these

lenses and not all three, let's focus on some specific questions. How would you rate the sharpness? If you use a

TC, which and how sharp? How easy do you find it to focus (given viewfinder, focus confirmation dot, gearing of

focus ring, etc.)?

<br><br>

All of these lenses require similar support, so I don't think we need to get into tripods/monopods/heads. Thanks

to anyone who reads this post, and especially those who reply. Hopefully we can compile enough data here that

people in my situation can use this thread in the future.<br><br>Bruce

[bruce_stevens]

I'll start us off :) This was the response when I put the general question of "best lens" to Bjørn:

<Br><Br>

<blockquote>

amongst these three, I would pick the 500/4P as the most versatile. Light,

good quality already wide open, the lightest of them all and handles well

(except for its wimpy tripod mount, but that sad story applies to all

current long Nikkors I'm afraid). With an FX camera you'll observe some

light fall-off (applies also to the others), but on a DX camera this

should not be of much concern. A well-maintained 500 will focus very

smoothly and swiftly. Its main drawback, apart from the tripod mount, is

the need to use the over-long lens hood and this in conjunction with the

physical length of the lens makes it more prone to being buffeted by wind.

</blockquote><br><blockquote>

the 400/2.8 AIS doesn't do too well on the D200, but is much better on the

D3. Still needs more correction of residual CA than the 500, but both are

manageable with the better RAW conversion software. In terms of sharpness,

it might beat the 500 on a D3 but not on a DX camera.

</blockquote><Br><blockquote>

It's a while since I traded my 600/4 for the 500/4, both for lower weight

and a better image quality. So I haven't used that lens on the newest

DSLRs.</blockquote>

[carl_becker2]

I chose the 500mm f4 P as the best compromise of price, focal length, weight and quality. I am very pleased with it mounted on a tripod. I just started using a TC-14 and am still happy.

[cwphoto]

Same opinion as Carl. I bought the 500 P before DSLR'S to save some money. Currently use it on a D2X & D700.

[bruce_stevens]

Can any past or present users of the 500 P comment on compatibility with modified TC-xxE converters? Particularly, is the CPU lens info still transmitted to the camera? How about the image quality?

[bjørn rørslett]

The TC-xxE will transmit all needed info to the camera. Obviously, the data as such is false (thus, f/4 + TC-14 still reads f/4, 500mm is 500 mm etc.), but the light meter responds properly and accurately to the new effective apertures. Image quality is still very good with the TC-14E, not equally good with TC-17E, and the TC-20E loses out both on its own plus the increased sensitivity to vibrations. Shooting a long-barrel refractive optic 1000mm f/8 is not for the faint-hearted (even the Reflex-Nikkor 1000/11 is easier to deal with).

[alan w]

Ive recently replaced my 400mm f2.8 ais, for a 400mm f3.5 ai.

 

Coming from 35mm bird photography {and also 645}, i found the 400mm range to be ideal for bird photography with a dx body {fov= 600mm on 35mm}.

 

The 400/2.8 effectively gave me three high quality 'fast' long teles, with the addition of tc's, but the weight eventually took its toll, and i am glad to have switched to the 3.5 version {which is hand-holdable, and therefore more versatile all-round}.

 

Both lenses gave fine results, with tc's attatched, and although both lenses exhibited CA in certain conditions, Capture NX will almost {or completely} remove the fringing.

 

I consider both lenses to be usable wide open, although i rarely used them wide open {due to dof requirements}.

 

I do have regrets selling my 400mm/2.8, but it made sense for me, as the weight did restrict my bird photography in some circumstances.

 

A very useful bonus i found {with regards to bird photography} with both these lenses, was the pre-set focus ring {don't know if the 500mm f4 P has this}.

 

Ive only used these lenses on a D70 and D2h, so possibly the medium/low resolution of these cameras will not tax the IQ as much as a higher resolution body.

 

Alan

[bjørn rørslett]

The 500/4 P also has the preset focus ring.

[bruce_stevens]

Bjørn: So given ideal conditions with stability and wind, you find that the 500 P yields better images with the addition of a TC-301 than a TC-20E? Is this because the 301 is a better match optically for the 500 P?

<br><bR>

Alan: Thanks for posting. There is not a great deal of information out there about using either 400mm lens for bird photography with DSLRs. Do you use the TC-301 and TC-14B?

[alan w]

Meant to have added:

 

With regards to focusing, i found the 2.8 to be slightly easier for critical focusing than the 3.5, as the barrel/focus ring is much larger, although both lenses are extremely easy to MF.

 

With regards to the green confirmation dot, ive found it can be useful, if pheripal vision is used, although i generally find it quicker to just trust my eyesight.

 

Alan

[alan w]

Bruce,

 

I used the tc-14 and tc-300 on my 400mm/2.8, and found them both to give fine results.

 

When i got my 400/3.5, i got myself a tc16a , as this allowed me to gain a resricted type of AF, when using my d2h body {turning my 400mm/3.5 into a semi AF 640mm F5.6}.

 

I found my tc-16a to give 'very slightly' more punchy results than my tc-14, and ended up selling both my tc-14 and tc-300 with my 400mm/2.8.

 

Alan

[bruce_stevens]

Alan: Very interesting that the TC-16a appears to work on a handful of DSLRs. I found your post on this subject <a href=http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Meml">here</a>. I got very excited about this for a brief second until I realized it would not work on my D200. I sold my TC-16a along with my F4s, thinking it only worked on a handful of later film bodies. I would be very interested to hear whether this TC will AF on the D3/300/700 bodies.

[bjørn rørslett]

I would consider neither of these teleconverters (TC-20E, TC-301) a perfect choice for the 500/4P. I get quality

images with 500 + 1.4X (x= 14E or 14C), but the 2X converters have being more disappointing. The TC-301 was

probably in its time designed with the 300/2.8 ED-IF in mind. The TC-301 also works well with the 400/3.5 but the

final package becomes a slow f/7 and the need to stop down a little to gain better IQ means you go close to f/11

which is far from ideal unless you're in really bright sunshine.

[bruce_stevens]

I took the plunge and bought a 500 P last night. If this lens were only the best of the 3 (4) by virtue of its

optical quality, that would have been enough as that was my most important criterion. However, it also has the

advantage of being lightweight (3kg) compared to the 400/28 (5kg) or the 600/4 (6kg). It also transmits info to

the camera electronically which is a perk to a D200 owner, but necessary to owners of the D40 through D80.<Br><Br>

One of my biggest worries when buying this lens was that I wasn't going to be able to see or use it before buying.

Normally I don't make too big an issue about this, but when we're talking about a lens that has likely had 20

years to be affected by changes in humidity and temperature, not to mention bumps, I thought that my lens

purchase would ultimately be a fight (or maybe fluke) to get a good sample, and not necessarily the best

performer by factory specs. The 500 P I just bought has been CLA'd prior to auction, and I think that's the most

reassuring part of this whole process.<br><Br>

I encourage anyone who stumbles upon this thread to continue to post any pertinent information about the choice

of manual Nikkor super teles. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who has owned one of these lenses and has some

input to contribute is automatically an expert on it. There is very little info out there for people in my

position to make an informed decision.<br><Br>

I guess I had better get to work modding my TC-14E !<Br><BR>

Bruce

[alan_wilder1]

I currenly own the 500/4 P and find it to be an exellent optic. Sharpness with the TC-14E II is still excellent and with

the TC-20 AFI (earlier version of the E II) at least very good. Rather than modify each tele-extender, I chose to put a

notch in the prime lens mount. The lens has fantastic build quality and it's only drawback is the lack of AF,

something quite useful for shooting non-stationary subjects. However, AFS versions are quite expensive. Prior to this

lens, I briefly tried the 500/4 AFI. The price is about the same as the P version but it's a bit larger and heavier,

switching from AF to MF to tweak focus is not as fast or easy as the S versions and I've read of at least one

instance of motor failure. Unfortunately, I don't think parts for repair are available for the AFI version, so if the motor

dies, your stuck.

[kaiyen]

I don't have the thread handy, but Shun posted about a 500mm lens thread in general and his experiences with the 500/P and how he could not get consistent focus having to do manual while on a safari. So certainly it depends a ton on the setting.