I really like the 500 F4, but....

Joined
Nov 18, 2005
Messages
1,866
Location
Portugal
...the lust never ends....i'd really like to get a 400 2.8, i've been considering selling the 500 to get one, but most likely i'd regret it...better start saving....

My 3 Nikkors, taken by D200 + 50 1.8 ( 4th Nikkor... :tongue: ) at ISO 800....Jpegs straight out-of-the camera do look nice sometimes...:biggrin:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joined
Nov 11, 2005
Messages
5,148
Location
Houston, TX
Once you get a 400 f2.8 you will kick yourself for not doing it sooner. Just imaging - another $400 will turn it into a spectacular 800mm f5.6 that will focus [almost] instantly in good light!
 
Joined
Mar 12, 2007
Messages
151
Location
Malaysia
...the lust never ends....i'd really like to get a 400 2.8, i've been considering selling the 500 to get one, but most likely i'd regret it...better start saving....
Just asking... I think you're looking more for reach? Why not the Nikkor 600mm f/4 instead of the 400mm f/2.8? About the same size and weight.
 
Joined
Mar 12, 2007
Messages
151
Location
Malaysia
Once you get a 400 f2.8 you will kick yourself for not doing it sooner. Just imaging - another $400 will turn it into a spectacular 800mm f5.6 that will focus [almost] instantly in good light!
If the intention is wanting to reach 800mm f/5.6, why not get the Sigma 300-800mm f/5.6?
 
Joined
Mar 12, 2007
Messages
151
Location
Malaysia
Because you can have a 400mm f/2.8, and an 800mm f/5.6....the 300-800 can only be a 400mm f/5.6.
Agreed. I may be wrong but I've perused some of Sandro's photos and I get the impression that he's always wanting for more reach for what he shoots. But if he does indoor sports shoots, then the f/2.8 is handy for flexibility like you mentioned.
 
Joined
Nov 18, 2005
Messages
1,866
Location
Portugal
Agreed. I may be wrong but I've perused some of Sandro's photos and I get the impression that he's always wanting for more reach for what he shoots. But if he does indoor sports shoots, then the f/2.8 is handy for flexibility like you mentioned.
You're partially right...but 700mm is about all i need and if the 1.7TC can get me there with little loss of quality on a 400 2.8, being able to shoot in low-light would be an added bonus. I never went the the 300-800 way, i could have done so instead of getting the 500, too big to be practical since i move around alot.

Anyway, it's next to impossible to sell a 500 in Portugal and since i really like the lense i'd probably kick myself if i ended up selling it to get a 400, no matter how good it is.

I've never considered the 600 because i've tried one already and it's too big and heavy....if it's hard sometimes to get sharp shots at 500 / 700 with TC, the 600mm is even harder to use.
 
Joined
Nov 11, 2005
Messages
5,148
Location
Houston, TX
400 hand held is good for only a couple of shots( 9.7 pound lens + TC + camera body and you are approaching 13 pounds.... I've never tried it - it is always on a tripod for me. If you are comfortable using a monopod, go for it.

I chose the 400 because of its low-light abilities - most of my shooting is swamp birds at sunrise. Once the sun is up, 800mm f5.6 will focus just as quick as 400 w/o TC, but will be slightly softer. TC14 and TC17 are virtually invisible on the 400
 
Joined
Nov 18, 2005
Messages
1,866
Location
Portugal
I'd settle now for a 300 2.8 and a D2Hs to replace the 500 F4, that would be a good deal....i'm not using it that often now and probably will use even less in the future....

But selling this kind of item in Europe, let along in Portugal is impossible....if i lived in the US i'm pretty sure it would be sitting on someones Wimberley right now...:smile:

Some shots of the lense here : http://www.pbase.com/slbravo/photo_gear
 
Joined
Feb 11, 2007
Messages
2,222
Location
Orlando, Florida
That is what I always think about when thinking of getting a lens like the 500, carrying it around. I have found the 300 2.8 with the TC's is a great kit for me.

All the best
Nancy
 
Joined
Dec 22, 2006
Messages
510
Sandro:
I just started using a 1.7 TCEII with my 400/2.8/af-i (not-afs I or II). Old school lens mounted on D200, Gitzo tripod, wimberly sidekick, markins qball, and in the hands of an amateur resulted in this shot on the 1st full day...

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


<there's a few others on this site that were also taken with this as well as many taken with the 400mm alone, fyi>
I'm still learning how to best use this combo and I've not tried either the 500 or 600, so I can't say they're better/worse. Given that this is all I can afford (equal to the amount my wife will let me spend), I'm happy for now.
Please post shots with whatever lens you decide on and best of luck!
Dave
 
Joined
Jan 26, 2005
Messages
15,253
Location
Marysville, WA
Well, Sandro, as you are a much more "buff" kind of fellow that this Old-Fart is :biggrin:, the 400 f2.8 and TC-17E combo hand-held for you should be a piece of cake. Here is one from this past Sunday, not only hand-held but leaning backward as the Crane was flying overhead:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


This is from this Sandhill Crane thread the other day.

One of the things I really like is:

400mm f2.8
400mm + TC-14 = 560mm f4
400mm + TC-17 = 680mm f4.8
400mm + TC-20 = 800mm f5.6
400mm + TC-14 + TC-20 = 1120mm f8, and yes, it does still AF, just not real fast :biggrin: :biggrin:

My 400 is the "old and moldy" AFS-I version.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom