Nikon 500mm/f5.6 PF Super Tele Formally Announced

[Mary Doo]

I've always been a bit confused about what a "fake" camera actually is. I understand something from the wrong region and therefore being blocked from service in the US (I still believe I've been given training that suggests you're not allowed to do this in the EU, but I may have misunderstood), but the concept of something that looks like (say) a D7200 that's not actually a D7200 seems like it would be vastly more effort for the seller than actually getting a real one. No accounting for folks.

Some people in the US refuse to buy "gray" market - is that what you mean by crying "fake"? To me that is quite silly because the product is exactly the same. The only difference is that Nikon USA would not service it, and that have stopped to be an issue as there are places that would service it, such as the one in Chicago and, of course, one can send the item to Canada, for example. Years ago when we shot film, one of my camera's club's die-hard film shooter (he still does - hard to believe) refused to buy gray market film even after Henry of B&H time and again vouched that there's no evidence of any difference except for the price. There must be something beyond actual functionality that some people are fascinated with.

 

As for "harder" for the seller to make a fake camera equipment looking real, I have to say that quite a few times I was fooled by a fake Nikon 24-70mm and 70-200mm - they were coffee mugs (link). Good thing I didn't take them out on a shoot and left the real ones home. :confused:

Edited November 22, 2018 by Mary Doo

[Andrew Garrard]

My understanding is that there has, in the past, actually been such a thing as a "fake" D7x00 series camera - e.g. a D7200 that was not, in any way, a D7200. I suppose in this specific case it might be in the interests of a scammer to rebadge a D7100, because the differences are sufficiently subtle that it might take a while to notice (if you're not looking for them). A guess also a D7000 rebadged to a D7100, although that ought to be more obvious. Actually making something the shape of a camera from scratch seems like much more work, at least if it's going to pass a trivial test.

 

Though I say that - phone stores have been known to have special fake versions of phones on show (although I guess less so now everything's touch screen, so you can't really try something out without it being real). I don't know whether camera stores have ever done the same, and had a passable "for feel" camera frame without the electronics; if they do, I guess someone might sell one on.

 

My understanding was that grey market is something different - and yes, whether you care does depend on your expected relationship with Nikon USA. It's on my mind should I ever take a job in the US - having a load of "legitimately" (by Nikon's rules) bought camera gear that I couldn't service would be annoying.

 

But I could completely misunderstand the "fake" thing - fortunately I've not been bitten in person.

[Mike Dale]

Mary asked for a review of the 500PF.

 

It’s awesome.

It’s tiny.

It’s sharper than a sharp thing that’s eaten razor blades for breakfast.

It’s light.

It’s very fast locking focus.

I like it.

I’ll give it 5 stars.

 

I tried it on my Z7 with a Lens Align and it’s perfect.

Using the same set up I attached my D850 and that too is perfect needing nothing in the way of micro adjust offset, one of the few lenses that don’t.

[Mary Doo]

Mary asked for a review of the 500PF.

 

It’s awesome.

It’s tiny.

It’s sharper than a sharp thing that’s eaten razor blades for breakfast.

It’s light.

It’s very fast locking focus.

I like it.

I’ll give it 5 stars.

 

I tried it on my Z7 with a Lens Align and it’s perfect.

Using the same set up I attached my D850 and that too is perfect needing nothing in the way of micro adjust offset, one of the few lenses that don’t.

Thanks Mike. I am so looking forward to it!

[Mike Dale]

My trip on Sunday to Conowingo Dam to photograph the eagles was a big failure due to extremely high water levels and very fast flowing water so I never got the chance to try out the 500PF. Yesterday was bucketing down with rain so again no chance. Today I gave it a go. Heres a first bird picture with it. I'm pleased.

 

 

D850 ISO640 1/250's f/5.6

[mike_halliwell]

Oh Mike, you had to do it didn't you?.....:)

 

I can see your reflection in it's eye.....:cool:

[Mary Doo]

Heres a first bird picture with it. I'm pleased.

Awesome. Thanks! :)

[Mike Dale]

Oh Mike, you had to do it didn't you?.....:)

 

I can see your reflection in it's eye.....:cool:

 

Sorry did I put a strain on your wallet ;)

[ilkka_nissila]

The 500 PF seems to be becoming widely available as I've read many people of getting a copy. I got one on Friday, and managed to do a bit of testing on Saturday to get a feel for what the lens can do. It was a sunny day but at my latitude this means a few stops of less light than I see others use in more Southern locations. :) On Sunday it was cloudy and things looked miserable. Fortunately there appears to be another chance to use the lens on Thursday as we have a day off due to independence day, and forecasts show some sun.

 

This blackbird was in the Villa Elfvik area which is a nature house with some trails into the Laajalahti area. D5, 500/5.6 PF, f/5.6, 1/400s, ISO 5000; VR SPORT, monopod. I cropped the image from landscape to square to avoid some of the foreground clutter I was shooting through.

 

 

Not all the shots of the sequence were in focus, as the bird's eye was not always visible towards me and without the eye, there wasn't much to focus on. I noticed that the foreground out of focus areas are not rendered in the most pleasing way, compared to some refractive optics telephoto lenses that I use, but usually the background out of focus rendering is acceptable. I will have to study how to best make use of the lens's characteristics. Sharp, it definitely is, and the autofocus works quite well. Fine tune setting on my D5 after repeated auto fine operations with a target at 12m distance ended up averaging to zero, which is nice. :) With my D850, the auto fine tune average result was +3. Because of the lighting conditions I am not likely to use the D850 with this lens for a while, so I won't really know how sharp it is but what I am seeing so far looks promising.

 

Notice the inquisitive tilt on the bird's head - "is it Ilkka, shooting birds? With a new lens, I see. Let's not make it too easy for him, so every time he takes a shot I will turn my head quickly."

 

I am pleased with the controls on the lens, though the front has such a large diameter that pressing the lens buttons to activate focus in group mode (that's how I usually have the lens buttons operate) with gloves on takes some practice. The presence of lens buttons makes me very happy though. I find the build quality very nice, and even the tripod foot is sufficiently sturdy that when doing a tap test with the lens on tripod and camera in live view mode, fully zoomed in, the lens is deflected slightly and then returns to baseline position without ringing, so there is no residual vibration that I can see. This is excellent! I am currently mostly using the lens on a monopod with Kirk head and the Kirk lens plate from my 70-200 FL on the original Nikon foot. I am considering getting a Hejnar foot for the lens as this would take less space in the bag and it's fastened to the lens barrel using screws rather than the dovetail, if I have understood the product correctly. However, I don't feel a pressing need to get that foot, as the Nikon original is very good and can be removed if I want to hand hold the lens without the foot. Initial attempts at hand-holding suggest that I will continue to use the monopod, or a tripod, as I'm not that skilled at hand-holding long lenses.

 

Hmm. What else might I say? I knew that the lens would not be easy to use within the darkest part of the year in my country, but on sunny days even in the forest undergrowth it seems to be possible to get quite decent results with it, although without doubt the use of high ISO degrades the image quality somewhat. However, these are the shooting conditions in my country and I have to live with them. The lens takes quite a bit of space in the backpack due to the large front diameter and hood reverse mounted on the lens being quite thick, even though the rear of the lens is narrow. I am very pleased with the weight, tripod foot, and autofocus, and the sharpness of the lens is as good as expected, and the only complaint I have so far is with the out of focus rendering of clutter in front of the subject, so I have to take care to ensure clean line of sight with this lens.

 

I would like to photograph some deer with the 500, however, on my first trip on Saturday I wasn't able to find one that would be in shooting range of the lens. I will post some updates as I get some decent results.

[Mary Doo]

Hmm. What else might I say?

Lucky you!

[ilkka_nissila]

Lucky you!

 

Last year we had 16 hours of sunlight in the entire month of December so I am not really sure if that constitutes as lucky. 5/7 of that I am at work, so that leaves me with 4.5 hours of potential time for natural light photography in the entire month, provided that I have no other commitments. In the summer, there are more opportunities, though.

Edited December 4, 2018 by ilkka_nissila

[Mike Dale]

You could try a bit of Astro if you can get away from the lights.

 

Light Pollution Map - DarkSiteFinder.com

 

Helsinki is not so good:(

 

Not that the 500PF would make a good Astro lens.

[Mary Doo]

I contacted my supplier and said something like "So where is mine? I heard some people have received the lens" (not exactly these words ;)), to which he asked where are these people getting their lenses - he said the waiting list can go to months. Oh boy, Nikon is terrible. :mad:

[ilkka_nissila]

In the Helsinki area, there is light pollution but also prominent cloud coverage, astrophotography is possible if one drives a bit away on the coast to Porkkalanniemi, which is about 1 hour drive away, it is a horn into the Bay of Finland and there are mostly just farms and forests there. In Porkkala, the light pollution from Estonia and Helsinki can be seen in the horizon, but it's just a thin strip. The cloudiness is the main limitation, one has to follow weather forecasts carefully.

 

Mary, I am sure the waiting lists will clear eventually, people have gotten lenses after having been two months on a list. I would imagine smaller stores with good relationship to Nikon can get lenses faster than the large online stores because so many people order from the latter, and Nikon distributes the initial supply more evenly across stores. Once the initial surge of demand is gone, then the large online stores become good places to buy from, because they are large enough to maintain supply of even expensive specialty lenses, whereas the smaller stores cannot afford to have a large inventory of specialist lenses in stock because no one might order it from them. By dividing the initial supply more evenly (i.e. 1 lens per store, instead of in proportion of preorders made) it is possible to help to keep the smaller stores alive. I know this policy is controversial, but I can see why they do it.

Edited December 4, 2018 by ilkka_nissila

[Andrew Garrard]

Not that the 500PF would make a good Astro lens.

 

Why, out of interest? It looks potentially light enough to put on a tracker, and presumably it's sharp at f/5.6. It might be a little slower than ideal for nebulae, but the length (and absolute aperture) should compensate a bit for stars, at least if you either track or take lots of exposures and stack them. It's no telescope, but I've just about distinguished Saturn's rings or Mars's ice caps with my 200-500 with a TC14 on, hand-held (with a bit of superresolution stacking), so I don't see that a 500PF would be any worse.

[ilkka_nissila]

Why, out of interest? It looks potentially light enough to put on a tracker, and presumably it's sharp at f/5.6. It might be a little slower than ideal for nebulae, but the length (and absolute aperture) should compensate a bit for stars, at least if you either track or take lots of exposures and stack them. It's no telescope, but I've just about distinguished Saturn's rings or Mars's ice caps with my 200-500 with a TC14 on, hand-held (with a bit of superresolution stacking), so I don't see that a 500PF would be any worse.

 

I suspect Mike is correcte. For nebulae you want good contrast so as to combat the noise and PF lenses have typically lower contrast than conventional high-end refractive lenses. Furthermore there can be the so-called PF flare effects around point light sources (rings with colour). Finally, the 500 PF isn't optimized for infinity focus and I've seen a comparison between 500/4 FL and 500/5.6 PF show that a distance of approximately 100m (I don't remember exactly), the FL lens is noticeably sharper than the PF. Thus I suspect for astrophotography subjects the PF would not be the best fit. It may still be sharper than the 200-500, though, but with its own curiosities.

[Andrew Garrard]

Thanks, Ilkka. For nebulae you usually need more exposure than length, within limits, and I could believe that the 500mm might not do such a good job as, say, a 300mm f/4 (I'm still yet to attach mine to my star tracker); I can see merits of something that's light enough to fit on a cheap tracking mount (I have a SkyWatcher star adventurer, which ought to hold the 300/4 and probably a 500 f/5.6, but I strongly doubt it would take a 500 f/4). Stars generally just need absolute aperture, so I'd have expected the 500mm PF to be a good choice, but if PF lenses are prone to ring flare then maybe I've done well by sticking to the old AF-S 300mm. The distance thing is news to me, too!

[Mike Dale]

You've both answered my doubts about the 500PF as an Astro lens. It might be light enough for a sturdy tracker. With what little Astro I do (light pollution) I normally don't go above a 15 second exposure on my Zeiss 15mm.

 

If I lived in a dark sky area I would have a decent tracker in a heartbeat.

[Andrew Garrard]

Anything vaguely long will give you much brighter stars than a 15mm, Mike (apologies if this is already an area you know) - stars essentially don't get magnified from dots as focal length increases (barring really long focal lengths), so the extra light from a larger physical aperture doesn't get spread out like with larger targets.

 

FWIW, I found a basic light pollution reduction filter in a 77mm size, which fits my 70-200, 50mm Sigma and 300mm f/4 (and the 24-120, though I got rid of mine). I have a stronger filter in 52mm, which happens to fit a 200mm f/4 AI-S (for tracking) and a 200mm f/2 rear drop-in (not so much). Not that I've found time to use them, and then my local council installed LED lights everywhere, so I no longer have high hopes.

 

If it's even available, an LPR filter for a 500mm PF might be a tad expensive. :-)

[ilkka_nissila]

Canon 400mm f/4 examples of astrophotography:

 

The Orion Nebula (M42) and the Running Man

 

Some bright stars have colorful rings around them.

[Mary Doo]

Mary, I am sure the waiting lists will clear eventually, people have gotten lenses after having been two months on a list.

Stay tuned - the weirdest thing happened. I browsed Amazon for this lens - late late late last night - and found it listed for $3,499. It was described as "Like New complete with all accessories in original packaging". So what could I do but to buy it before it disappeared? Then I wrote to ask the seller (CameraMall) why they had this, any issues, whatever... not expecting to receive a response until perhaps the next day. To my pleasant surprise I got a rather long response from "Desmond" very quickly saying there is no problem at all: "... This lens was purchased and returned by a customer. When the customer returned it, they let us know they wanted to try the lens out but had no intention of keeping it. The lens is immaculate and is "like new" complete with all accessories in original packaging... We are an authorized Nikon USA dealer and obtained this lens directly from Nikon USA, so if you ever need to service it in the future, it is eligible for repair in the USA..." Whew! So I should receive it in a few days.

 

Researched CameraMall and it is a reputable company.

[ilkka_nissila]

Congratulations. :)

 

Here is a hand-held shot, f/5.6, 1/60s, ISO 1000, VR NORMAL.

[Mike Dale]

From what I have read (can’t find it now) VR Sport produces sharper results than VR Normal. I haven’t tried this myself but I might if I get time tomorrow.

[mike_halliwell]

and found it listed for $3,499

Result. Nikon warranty included!

 

Expect to see lots of Wednesday Pics with it...;)

[ilkka_nissila]

From what I have read (can’t find it now) VR Sport produces sharper results than VR Normal. I haven’t tried this myself but I might if I get time tomorrow.

 

I haven't used the 500 enough to say but on the other lenses that I have which support VR sport / normal mode, the sport mode is easier to shoot with because it doesn't "resist" sudden movements of the camera (when following a moving subject) and it shows a steady viewfinder also across a series of shots whereas in normal mode in these lenses, the viewfinder jumps after the shot and the subject may need to be composed again. I recall that Brad Hill did systematic testing of VR in some lenses that have normal and sport mode and reported that the normal mode is more effective in stabilizing the image during the exposure, whereas the sport mode makes it easier to track and maintain composition on moving subjects but may not stabilize the image as much as normal mode does.

 

I almost always use sport mode in those lenses that support it, but if I'm in a situation where the shutter speed is low and the subject is not moving quickly, I may try normal mode to get maximum stabilization, but usually I don't do this as then I would need to remember to go back to sport mode for my usual shooting. In lenses that have normal/active VR mode, I use the normal mode. What I like about sport mode is that it makes shooting with a telephoto easier, it doesn't get in the way, and provides just the right amount of help in composition and hand-holding when photographing subjects that may be moving.

Edited December 5, 2018 by ilkka_nissila