AF-S 500/4D ED Version I

[kk_hui]

<p>I've had a AF-S 500/4D ED (version 1) from new since 1998. Thinking of pairing it with a D800. <br />I'd like to hear any actual user experience. Is it optically 'good enough' for the high pixel body like the D800?</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>I have no experience with this lens, but just for your consideration: <em>what if it's not</em>?<br>

You will still render more details than a camera with less megapixels does; maybe not the "full" 36, but there will still be a resolution advantage over a, say, 12MP body. If are you going to look at these photos at 100% magnification, then yes, you might see flaws of your lens (and more likely: your technique and tripod). If you look at the photo itself instead, it will show more detail than a D700 can render. Ask yourself: what is more important, the photo or pixel-perfection?</p>

<p>In short: if you're happy with this lens today, there is no serious reason to think it'll suddenly not be good enough tomorrow.</p>

[jan_deiman1]

<p>It was made for film bodies... what do you think the resolution of a good film negative is....no reason to worry in my opinion</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<blockquote>

<p>what do you think the resolution of a good film negative is?<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't know. Do tell!</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>Let's not. My opinions always get me in trouble here. Suffice to say that you will be more than happy with your 500/4 on the D800. You will be very excited with what the additional pixels can get you and I only went from a D2X to 5D II with a "lowly" Nikon 400/2.8 AIS. I can only imagine what the D800 will do with the 500/4 AF.</p>

<p>Both Canon and Nikon made a huge leap in lens quality when they went to autofocus. It must have been the coinciding increase in computer aided manufacturing/design in the late 80's because they were both able to reduce CA in their best lenses to virtually zero! They may have tweaked resolution very slightly since, but that was the single largest achievement that both made, even more important than VR/IS in my opinion.</p>

<p> </p>

[rick_m.]

<p>We are mere humans. We are not allowed to hold this lens. Here is the review you are looking for. </p>

<p><a href="http://www.ishootshows.com/2013/02/07/review-nikon-500mm-f4-and-nikon-d800-for-event-photography/">http://www.ishootshows.com/2013/02/07/review-nikon-500mm-f4-and-nikon-d800-for-event-photography/</a></p>

<p>Let we mortals know how it works out for you.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>I bought that same model of 500mm/f4 AF-S also back in 1998. It was great no my F5 and F100, D100, D2X, D200 and D300, and I typically used it wide open at f4. Once I began using it on the 16MP D7000, I started noticing that the camera out-resolves that lens at f4. If I stopped down to f5.6, it is still excellent. (I tested that with manual focus via live view, has nothing to do with AF.)</p>

<p>The same is true using it on the D800, D800E and most recently the D7100. You need to stop down by a stop to get the best results.</p>

[georges_pelpel]

<p>I am new to this lens as I just got it a couple of months ago but I am in love with my AF-S 500 f/4 II on the D800.<br>

No problem even wide open and with a TC-14E.<br>

The D800 will even auto-focus with a TC-20EIII although with a limited number of AF points.</p>

[kk_hui]

<p>Thanks for all the input especially from Shun's user experience! Looks like the D800 is viable for this combo. I normally have the aperture stops down by 2/3 or one anyway for slightly better dof when shooting birds ...</p>

 

[bob_flood1]

<p>Shun, I'd like to change the subject a bit in the hopes of better understand the idea of a camera out-resolving a lens.</p>

<p>When you say the D7000 out-resolves the 500, what does that mean in a large image? If you shoot an image with the D300 + 500 and then re-shoot under identical circumstances using the D7000 + 500, will the image quality of a 16X20 D7000 image be poorer than a 16X20 of the D300 image?</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Assuming other factors are the same, a 16x20 image from a 16MP camera is not going to be worse than one from a 12MP camera, but you may see no or little improvement with more pixels. The new D7100 is the most extreme example. You end up with a lot of pixels and all the drawbacks with having so many pixels, such as huge image files, a shallow RAW buffer, etc. but is only a limited amount of quality gain from a 16MP camera.</p>

<p>If you shoot sports or animal action, I would rather have a 16MP camera than a 24 or 36MP one. I may print large landscape images, but almost never bird images. For birds, 8x10 is pretty large.</p>

[bob_flood1]

<p>Thank you, Shun. I always appreciate the education (and pretty much always need it, too).</p>