Nikon 500 mm f/4 VR

[birdied]

<p>I have had the 500mm f/4 VR for almost one year now. The lens is stellar at short distances (MFD up to around 60'). I really had never tried to shoot at extremely long distances or infinity until recently. I know I should have tried shooting at infinity sooner.<br>

I am not at all pleased with the acuity of the shots at longer distances. The longer the distance the worse it gets.<br>

I have tried on 2 cameras (D7000 and D800) same results. <br>

I have used tripod and good longs lens techniques.<br>

I also have the Nikon 14eII TC . For the life of me I can not get this lens to take a sharp picture with the TC even at shorter distances. <br>

I have tried fine tuning with the TC. I can not get it to fine tune at any setting even up to +20 on the default and +20 on the adjustment . Again tried on 2 cameras with the TC.<br>

The TC works wonderfully on the 300mm f/4 .<br>

The 500mm works wonderfully bare except at longer distances.</p>

<p>My question is , should I send the lens , camera and TC to Nikon for adjustment? Or, is this just how this lens behaves. I have read many reviews, some say this is how it is with the lens , others say can take a TC.<br>

I must admit that sending all this off to Nikon scares the daylights out of me. I think I have read too many internet horror stories about Nikon repair.<br>

This was my "dream lens" that I saved for. Not a pro.</p>

<p>Thanks for any advice or suggestions.</p>

<p>Birdie</p>

<p> </p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Roberta, I do not have a 500VR (still stuck at dreaming about it...), but one generic notion - at long distances there are a number of other factors that do come into play - thermal haze, air pollution, things like that start to play a role. Also, in using the 300 f/4 with a TC17, I found that close to infinity the focussing actual becomes quite touchy - the difference between say 45m and 50m is just a light touch of the focusring (or AF), but actually a pretty dramatic difference. Certainly with moving subjects and continuous AF mode, it left me with quite a lot almost-focussed (hence, soft) photos.<br /> So, the true acuity of which these lenses are capable, I think it's not really going to happen on these long distances. Not much help, I know, but well, I also had to come to grips with the idea that my 300 f/4 (which I already found plenty expensive enough) never was going to shine at long distances, while at shorter distances it is very good.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>I have an much older 500mm/f4 AF-S, version 1, no VR, and it is very difficult to get really sharp images with the TC-14E on, especially on a camera with very high pixel density such as the D7000 and D800. Nowadays I have a hard time getting sharp images with the 500mm/f4 alone at f4 on the D7000 and D7100. Things improve a lot at f5.6.</p>

<p>I can get really sharp results from the 500mm/f4 + TC-14E on the D2X and D300 occasionally.</p>

<p>However, all you need is one really sharp image to know that the lens' optics is fine. The main issue is vibration. One thing you can try is to use two tripods, one for the lens and one for the camera body. It is a super-inconvenient set up, but if you can get one sharp image, you know that it is not the optics. Again, stopping down helps.</p>

[Gup]

<p>I don't have any first hand knowledge, Birdie, but here are a few shots taken recently with a similar set-up to what you described above. How does your experience compare with these?<br /> <a href="/nikon-camera-forum/00bUfH?unified_p=1">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00bUfH?unified_p=1</a><br>

Look for the submission by P.netter Georges about 4 posts down.</p>

[GlennS]

<p>A suggestion that might narrow down the problem. If you have a clear night, photograph the moon. It's certainly far enough away and has lots of fine detail as well as a sharply defined edge. It also happens to be near full at the moment.<br>

Exposure will be close to "sunny sixteen", it is in full sunlight after all. I would use manual exposure and pick an opening where the lens is sharpest, usually down a stop or two. Good luck, I'm waiting for a suitable day to try the above technique with a D3200 and Questar 1400mm scope. A suitable tripod has been my biggest problem with long glass. I recently picked up a huge Majestic with geared head that may solve the problem of stability but at the cost of mobility.</p>

 

[User_6502147]

<p>The other day I saw the 500 AF-S available...and it dawned on me that it's foreseeable that the guy had issues with it too. Indeed, atmospherics play a huge role in that kind of magnification. My suggestion is to go to the mountains (hopefully you have some available nearby) and check your lens around infinity....the clear air should help. Also, it might be that the lens is not designed to be optimised at infinity (guessing). I took some with 300 (almost @ infinity) around Mt Baker/Mt Shuksan and after looking at the results, I would be able to enlarge the image to 20x30....or even 40x60 if viewed at around 3 feet. But, I didn't include the image, since it's like comparing apples to a barn. Good luck.</p>

<p>Les</p>

[andre_noble5]

<p>Don't discount the effect of atmospheric haze. Look there first.</p>

[don_cooper]

<p>I have the 600mm F4VR, previously had the 500mm F4VR. I've been generally pleased with both lenses even with teleconvertors (1.4 & 1.7) except at distances near infinity or further. I have read many times this is an issue with Nikon long lenses that is not an issue with the Canon equivelants. I guess I've got one problem similar to yours (extreme distances), and another situation that I don't find problematic (teleconvertors). I'm obviously of no help at all, sorry! </p>

[pge]

<blockquote>

<p>My suggestion is to go to the mountains</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>except at distances near infinity or further.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Gave me a good smile : )</p>

[harveysteeves]

<p>Can you get a sharply focused image by manually focussing? What does your long lens technique consist of?</p>

[birdied]

<p>Thanks everyone for the comments.<br>

Shun, I really don't think it is the bare lens. I can get razor sharp shots at reasonable distances.<br>

However , when I put the TC on, nothing is razor sharp. </p>

<p>Gup, those are wonderful shots. However it is really hard for me to tell the sharpness with the small size they are posted. It does look like they are sharper than what I get.</p>

<p>Wish I could go to the mountains , but have to settle for the flat marsh of south Louisiana :)</p>

<p><strong>Can you get a sharply focused image by manually focussing? What does your long lens technique consist of?</strong><br>

Harvey S-<br>

As to my long lens technique-<br>

Manfrotto Tripod<br>

Jobu Blackwidow Gimbal<br>

RRS long lens support <br>

I push my face into the viewfinder to help steady everything and place my left hand on the middle top of the lens to help stabilize. I have even tried to place a 2 lb. bean bag type thing on the top of the lens.<br>

If there is something else I can do, please do let me know.<br>

Manual focus does not seem to help. I will get the green focus indicator, however there is a definite lack of sharpness at long distances .</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><strong>I have read many times this is an issue with Nikon long lenses that is not an issue with the Canon equivelants. I guess I've got one problem similar to yours (extreme distances), and another situation that I don't find problematic (teleconvertors). I'm obviously of no help at all, sorry!</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks Don!! Sorry that you are having one of my problems , but at least you can use a TC !<br>

For me this is a very expensive lens , and maybe my expectations were too much. I would expect it to perform at least as well as the Canon lens :)</p>

<p>Birdie</p>

<p> </p>

[User_6502147]

<p>Roberta, you didn't mention utilizing Live View to focus under magnification. Your compadre from LA (Ronnie Gaubert) used 500mm v. effectively (like his work), though not necessarily in infinity....in his earlier days he used 300mm.<br>

http://www.pbase.com/ronnie_14187</p>

<p>Les</p>

[ArthurRichardson]

<p>Roberta, send the lens to me. I will do all sorts of testing for you and will be happy to report my findings. Please allow five years for testing. Of course this will be free of charge. </p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>Can you tell whether you can focus that far ie, it gets better and better as you focus further but never gets good enough before you reach the stop ....<strong>OR</strong>....it's more...</p>

<p>Very Bad>Bad>Better>Much Better>Maybe OK?>Worse>Much Worse>Awful?? </p>

<p>I'm trying to see if it's a physical or optical limit, if you get what I mean!</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>Manual focus does not seem to help. I will get the green focus indicator, however there is a definite lack of sharpness at long distances .</em></p>

<p>The green dot is not all that precise. Use live view, zoom in all the way and focus manually based on the image on the LCD. It can be tricky with a long lens due to vibrations in the zoomed-in image, but it <em>can</em> be done and in my experience, at long distances, results are markedly improved by using this focusing technique vs. using autofocus. If your RRS support makes contact with the barrel at a second point along the long axis then it should be quite stable (though gimbal heads are convenient but not necessarily the most stable, and Manfrotto tripods are cost effective but not necessarily the best for eliminating vibrations in long lenses). Could you post a picture of your tripod and camera support setup with the lens attached?</p>

<p>What kind of shutter speeds are you using? If they are on the slow side, you may want to avoid LLT, and use a cable release with M-UP to take the exposures (do not touch the lens or the camera). Turn VR off. In my experience, VR helps only in fairly specific circumstances and often can cause slight blur and other anomalies.<br /> <br />With TCs, the benefit in magnification has to be weighted against the loss in shutter speed - usually, the sharpest images with long lenses are obtained at high shutter speeds. In addition to the 1 stop lost with the TC (f/4 -> f/5.6) the lens+TC combination should probably be stopped down by 1 stop to get good sharpness (that is generally my experience with TCs). So you're at f/8. With the D800, I only start expecting the full sharpness potential of the camera to be realized at 1/1000s or even 1/2000s if I can make it; this can be difficult to achieve at f/8.</p>

<p>Regarding AF, focus fine tuning can be a tricky thing to do. Usually the focus targets made for that purpose are suitable only for relatively short distances, and there can be a distance-dependent effect on the optimal focus fine tune value. E.g. when I shoot at a distance of 20 x focal length with my 200/2, I get a zero crossing on the ruler at -2. However, real world testing has shown that a fine tune setting of -4 is optimal over distances required to shoot e.g. figure skating (this is on my D800). This is not a large difference close up, but at longer distances the difference is quite clear at the pixel level. I would start by using live view to focus your images to determine what kind of quality you can get with your lens over long distances (or the distances that you intend to use), and to study the effect of atmospheric conditions, TC use, stability of camera support, and so on, on the quality of the image you can get. Shooting at night can help avoid temperature effects, but then the light ... well, in Finland there can still be light in the summer at midnight, but after sunset it is quite calm and I've obtained excellent results of urban landscapes in these conditions over distances of several km. After you've established the optimal results you can achieve with your lens, investigate focus fine tuning and try to replicate the results you get with live view focusing (which is not affected by fine tune) to optimize real world results (of moving subjects, which typically cannot be easily done with live view).</p>

<p>My experience with TCs is that with several Nikon long lenses, they work reasonably well up close, but towards longer distances there is increased shot to shot variability due to autofocus. I think in the long distance long focal length lens scenario, the use of a prime lens without TCs is the best option, and TC use is best reserved for increasing magnification at close-up distances, when there is enough light to stop down the lens, though with care, good results can be obtained stopped down especially in nighttime conditions also with TCs and long distances, using live view to focus. This however is highly impractical for moving subjects.</p>

<p>I am generally happy if my lenses perform well without TC. If you need further magnification, consider the D7100. I tested it a bit with my 200/2 II and 70-200II and I felt the sensor delivered surprisingly clean detail up to the pixel level, and autofocus was virtually instantaneous on the 200/2 and did not hunt, whereas the D7000 AF gave me a lot of problems with my (at that time the older Mk I) 200/2. I don't know how it works on your 500/4 but I would give it a try. I think the D7100 is probably a better option for increased detail over long distances than using a 1.4X TC on your D800.</p>

<p>Finally, I would like to note that in general, I find it to be true that photographs look better when they are taken from a position close to the subject. Perhaps a subject which is too far away to be photographed with the 500mm, is simply too far. ;-) I know that there is the human desire to see more and more that we cannot see with the naked eye, but if you're looking for the highest quality photographs then perhaps 500mm is already long enough. ;-) I know I always want more and more, but gradually I've come to think that that may not be the right approach in the end, unless the purpose is to study the origins of the universe. ;-) Even with a 800/5.6, you will still get some images and miss others. </p>

[kari_oinonen]

<p>Ilkka wrote more than I was thinking of:<br>

LLT: The best is hands off. Tested with 300 + 2x tc. Even with reasonably good support: Gitzo systematic series 3 and ArcaSwiss B1 head and third party lens collar - I could see difference in vibration levels at speeds around 1/30. Was comparing remote trigger to manually triggering the camera.<br>

Live view: Can be recommended - if it is possible. Note also: When zoomed in fully and when focused, you probably can see the vibrations that your left hand is causing when resting in the middle of the lens.<br>

Focus tuning: see Ilkka's writing.</p>

[birdied]

<p>Thank you everyone for the additional replies ! I gave incorrect info on the tripod. It is a Gitzo series 3. I got it several months ago to improve my stabilization. How I could forget that expense is amazing !<br>

Arthur - :)<br>

Mike H. The longer the distance the worse it gets. <br>

Ilkka , thank you for your detailed reply. I will try and get a shot of the set up and post.<br>

I have not used live view as most of the subjects are not stationary. I also have the VR on to tripod setting. <br>

I am coming to the same conclusion that the bare lens is the way to go.</p>

<p><strong>Perhaps a subject which is too far away to be photographed with the 500mm, is simply too far. ;-) I know that there is the human desire to see more and more that we cannot see with the naked eye, but if you're looking for the highest quality photographs then perhaps 500mm is already long enough. ;-) I know I always want more and more, but gradually I've come to think that that may not be the right approach in the end, unless the purpose is to study the origins of the universe. ;-)</strong><br>

<strong> </strong><br>

<strong><br /></strong>This very well may be the issue. You have summed it up quite nicely. Since a 800mm is not in my future, I need to access what I want and what can be achieved with the equipment I have and the quality I seek.</p>

<p>Again, thank you everyone .</p>

<p>Birdie</p>

[dan_mccarty1]

<p>My first reaction was to avoid touching the camera and lens. When I use a tripod, I use a remote shutter release so I don't have to touch the setup. Touching the tripod, camera, or lens is asking to for movement transfer which is defeating the purpose of the tripod.</p>

<p>Thom Hogan has this to say in his review of this lens: </p>

<blockquote>

<p >If the 500mm has any real weaknesses, it would be again at infinity focus and converters. The infinity focus problem seems typical of the whole Nikon exotic line. While the 500mm remains pretty good at infinity, it's just not as snappy as it is at 100 yards or 200 yards or wherever else you've focused that's not infinity. This isn't the same as the problem I note on the 200-400mm: the 500mm f/4G doesn't get weak on anything past 100 meters as the 200-400mm does. But it <em>is </em>slightly weaker at infinity than it is at 200 meters. Typically, though, you're not shooting at infinity (heat waves make that impossible much of the time, anyway).</p>

<p >The big issue for me is teleconverters. I definitely feel you have to stop down one stop with the TC-14E (that would put you at ~700mm f/8). The TC-17E is marginal at best with the 500mm. Sometimes it will focus, sometimes it won't, but it'll always focus slower, and the optical results aren't quite as clean as I'd like. The TC-20E III is only usable in manual focus, and again, you need to be stopping down (so you're at f/11 best case, which gets you into the diffraction zone on a D3x or D7000).</p>

<p > </p>

</blockquote>

<p >The full review is here -> <a href="http://www.bythom.com/nikkor-500mm-f4-lens-review.htm">http://www.bythom.com/nikkor-500mm-f4-lens-review.htm</a></p>

<p > </p>

<p >Later,</p>

<p >Dan</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>I've yet to try something so long on my V1, but I'd be interested to see how the optical aspect performs. My 300mm f4 af-s works very well as an equivalent ~825mm f4 on my V1 and with careful support, produces usable results.</p>

<p>Whether putting this lens on a smaller chip is better than using a teleconvertor to produce better results is something I'd like to know too!</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>I wonder if the TC is a fraction too <strong>long</strong> and is acting as a minute amount of extension, not just magnification?</p>

<p>AFAIK TCs keep the same min focus of the lens. If you rack the lens to 'minimum' in MF and move something into focus and mark the spot and do the same with the TC attached, the distances should be the same.</p>

<p>Alternatively, you could mount the lens+TC on one tripod and a Canon DSLR on a focusing rack on another and see if accurate focus in Live View can be achieved. The shorter flange distance (44mm) will allow it to come into focus if it's too long for the 46.5mm Nikon flange.</p>

[sener]

<p>I have been using 500 vr for 4 years for birding. I've used all the tc's with this lens.<br>

My opinion for 500 vr is that:<br>

Excellent with bare lens,<br>

Excellent with tc-14e + at f/8, I am positive on this.<br>

What I can not determine is the performance with tc-17e. At f/9.5, with d600, sometimes the results are almost excellent but other times the results vary alot. I am not sure whether this is due to greater magnification that magnifies the heat effects, or the lens resolution itself. I am thinking that if one sharp image is all it is necessary for judging the lens sharpness, then tc-17e combo should be fine, but then I find that such sharp images with tc-17e combo are much rare than those with tc-14e combo in ratio.<br>

I would like to see 500 vr mtf with tc's, at max aperture as well as at f/8, but I don't think such mtf is published anywhere.</p>