Moderator: E.J. Peiker

All times are UTC-05:00

  
« Previous topic | Next topic »  
Reply to topic  
 First unread post  | 121 posts | 
by ricardo00 on Fri Sep 21, 2018 5:45 pm
ricardo00
Forum Contributor
Posts: 264
Joined: 6 Apr 2014
George DeCamp wrote:
Again RRS 70-200 foot is solid. They may be making a new one though so just a FYI. All hand held.
   The person I talked to at RRS said they are making a new one specifically for this lens.  So assuming she is right, might wait for that.
Meanwhile put an Arca Swiss plate on the bottom though it is so light, have only shot handheld so far.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/60519499@ ... 1309583895
 

by George DeCamp on Fri Sep 21, 2018 7:01 pm
User avatar
George DeCamp
Lifetime Member
Posts: 3812
Joined: 20 Aug 2003
Location: Myrtle Beach, SC
Member #:00147
Ive heard that too!
 

by Anthony Medici on Fri Sep 21, 2018 9:22 pm
User avatar
Anthony Medici
Lifetime Member
Posts: 6879
Joined: 17 Aug 2003
Location: Champions Gate, FL
Member #:00012
Which foot are you using? They have one for the E and one for the G.
Tony
 

by George DeCamp on Sat Sep 22, 2018 10:26 am
User avatar
George DeCamp
Lifetime Member
Posts: 3812
Joined: 20 Aug 2003
Location: Myrtle Beach, SC
Member #:00147
I got this one Anthony!

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/contro ... 522&is=REG
 

by Tim Zurowski on Sat Sep 22, 2018 11:35 am
User avatar
Tim Zurowski
Forum Contributor
Posts: 18881
Joined: 4 Apr 2006
Location: Victoria BC, Canada
I was wondering the same thing as Tony. RRS lists three feet that would appear to work. Is there any reason why this one would not work well with the 500 f5.6?

http://www.reallyrightstuff.com/LCF-10-No-QD
 

by Anthony Medici on Sat Sep 22, 2018 12:44 pm
User avatar
Anthony Medici
Lifetime Member
Posts: 6879
Joined: 17 Aug 2003
Location: Champions Gate, FL
Member #:00012
Tim the one you list is what I have. The question is the length and the balance. The lighter the body you are using, the longer the foot might need to be to get it to balance on a gimbal. Since I don't have the 500 PF yet, I can't judge how heavy it is and how heavy and light cameras balance with the lens. (Of course, I don't actually use light bodies so I kinda think I won't have a problem even with the shortest foot.)
Tony
 

by Tim Zurowski on Sat Sep 22, 2018 1:15 pm
User avatar
Tim Zurowski
Forum Contributor
Posts: 18881
Joined: 4 Apr 2006
Location: Victoria BC, Canada
Thanks Tony. Not sure if my bodies are considered "light" I use a D500 with grip and a D810, but this lens would almost be exclusiviely used with the D500 and grip. I can't see it being an issue? The price difference is significant!
 

by Anthony Medici on Sat Sep 22, 2018 2:32 pm
User avatar
Anthony Medici
Lifetime Member
Posts: 6879
Joined: 17 Aug 2003
Location: Champions Gate, FL
Member #:00012
It's a 3" slide versus a 4" slide. And the bigger one is from the latest lens...
Tony
 

by rene on Sun Sep 23, 2018 2:38 am
rene
Forum Contributor
Posts: 355
Joined: 28 Aug 2003
Location: United-Kingdom
Would the Kirk LP-64 Quick Release Lens Plate fit as well? I would assume so.
Rene de Heer
 

by George DeCamp on Mon Sep 24, 2018 9:09 am
User avatar
George DeCamp
Lifetime Member
Posts: 3812
Joined: 20 Aug 2003
Location: Myrtle Beach, SC
Member #:00147
rene wrote:Would the Kirk LP-64 Quick Release Lens Plate fit as well? I would assume so.
Rene de Heer

I am pretty sure someone on Fred Miranda had that and it fit.
 

by photoman4343 on Mon Sep 24, 2018 1:11 pm
photoman4343
Forum Contributor
Posts: 1952
Joined: 1 Feb 2004
Location: Houston, TX
I added a Wimberley P10 lens plate to the foot on my 500mm f5.6. It is about 3.5 inch long. The Nikon foot needs two screws so make sure your plate has two of them. As Tony said the length you need depends on balance issues and that depends on the weight of your camera body and anything added to it like tcs or extension tubes.

https://www.tripodhead.com/products/len ... bility.cfm

Joe
Joe Smith
 

by photoman4343 on Fri Sep 28, 2018 9:30 pm
photoman4343
Forum Contributor
Posts: 1952
Joined: 1 Feb 2004
Location: Houston, TX
I almost had a disaster with my 500mm f5.6. I picked it up by the lens foot and the next thing I knew the lens fell off of it. Fortunately, the lens fell on my bed and not the floor and was not damaged. I must have touched that release button on it. This makes me wonder if this issue goes away if I were to get a replacement foot from RRS or Kirk if and when they come out. For those of you with this lens be careful with that lens foot.
Joe Smith
 

by E.J. Peiker on Sat Sep 29, 2018 10:18 am
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 86761
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
photoman4343 wrote:I almost had a disaster with my 500mm f5.6. I picked it up by the lens foot and the next thing I knew the lens fell off of it. Fortunately, the lens fell on my bed and not the floor and was not damaged. I must have touched that release button on it. This makes me wonder if this issue goes away if I were to get a replacement foot from RRS or Kirk if and when they come out. For those of you with this lens be careful with that lens foot.
Yup, that's the weakness of that design.  I did the same with a 70-200E - same mechanism.  I was fortunate that the lens fell onto the lens hood which broke but the lens was untouched.  You absolutely must screw the knob down tight
 

by photoman4343 on Sat Sep 29, 2018 11:18 am
photoman4343
Forum Contributor
Posts: 1952
Joined: 1 Feb 2004
Location: Houston, TX
Thanks EJ for the tip to keep that knob tight
Joe Smith
 

by Cynthia Crawford on Tue Oct 02, 2018 5:57 am
User avatar
Cynthia Crawford
Moderator
Posts: 20371
Joined: 10 Jun 2006
Location: Vermont
Member #:00733
I've been very happy with my 300+1.4 as a very lightweight option. I'd be curious to know what advantage this new 500 might present over that combo. For me, the added weight could be an issue, even though the 500 relatively light. I also have a Tamron 150-600. (i don't carry it around very far or very often). I'm not that thrilled with the Tamron, but it can be OK in good light. Perhaps the 500 would be a good replacement for the Tamron, though it's a fixed lens-I'd lose versatility....and money! I guess I have two questions here. I mostly interested in comparing the 300+1.4 with the new 500. Thanks for your thoughts.
Cynthia (Cindy) Crawford-Moderator, Photo & Digital Art
web site: http://www.creaturekinships.net
"If I Keep a Green Bough in My Heart, the Singing Bird Will Come"  Chinese Proverb
 

by Tim Zurowski on Tue Oct 02, 2018 1:17 pm
User avatar
Tim Zurowski
Forum Contributor
Posts: 18881
Joined: 4 Apr 2006
Location: Victoria BC, Canada
Hi Cynthia

I have no experience with the new 500 f5.6, but I do own the 300 f4 pf and TC-14E III. From all that I have read and heard, I would suspect the new 500 to be sharper with better AF than the 300 with the TC on it. It will definitely be better than the Tamron.
 

by E.J. Peiker on Tue Oct 02, 2018 3:05 pm
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 86761
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
I have the 500PF on order through NPS and will put it through its paces once I get it. No word on when that may be though!
 

by owlseye on Tue Oct 02, 2018 3:55 pm
User avatar
owlseye
Forum Contributor
Posts: 1212
Joined: 4 Jul 2009
Location: Stillwater, MN
Hello,
I have had a 500PF for about two weeks now and have done a fair amount of shooting with it. My other lenses include a 200-500, 200-400VR1, and 300PF. I have been in some fairly tough shooting locations that includes soft and low light, flat gray light, and contrasty forests. The lens is very snappy with autofocus that seems faster and quieter than my other optics. The lens appears to be sharper than the other lenses I own. In fact, I have recently sold my 200-400 and my 300PF and replaced these with the 70-200E and additional body (D500).

I wrote a brief, non scientific blog post comparing the 500PF to the 200-500VR and 200-400VR. In the test, I used a stuffed screech owl from my biology classroom and compared the thee lenses at 20 meters and 40 meters. The post has numerous confounding variables that I hope to eliminate in a follow up comparison... but if you would like to see both field samples and how the lens performed on an ancient screech owl, you can check it out here: http://btleventhal.com/bruceleventhal/2 ... 0-400mm-f4
 

by Cynthia Crawford on Wed Oct 10, 2018 8:27 pm
User avatar
Cynthia Crawford
Moderator
Posts: 20371
Joined: 10 Jun 2006
Location: Vermont
Member #:00733
owlseye wrote:Hello,
I have had a 500PF for about two weeks now and have done a fair amount of shooting with it. My other lenses include a 200-500, 200-400VR1, and 300PF. I have been in some fairly tough shooting locations that includes soft and low light, flat gray light, and contrasty forests. The lens is very snappy with autofocus that seems faster and quieter than my other optics. The lens appears to be sharper than the other lenses I own. In fact, I have recently sold my 200-400 and my 300PF and replaced these with the 70-200E and additional body (D500).

I wrote a brief, non scientific blog post comparing the 500PF to the 200-500VR and 200-400VR. In the test, I used a stuffed screech owl from my biology classroom and compared the thee lenses at 20 meters and 40 meters. The post has numerous confounding variables that I hope to eliminate in a follow up comparison... but if you would like to see both field samples and how the lens performed on an ancient screech owl, you can check it out here: http://btleventhal.com/bruceleventhal/2 ... 0-400mm-f4
Thanks so much for those comparisons. Very helpful.  I wonder how well the 500 5.6  is stabilized for hand holding- I rarely use a tripod.
Cynthia (Cindy) Crawford-Moderator, Photo & Digital Art
web site: http://www.creaturekinships.net
"If I Keep a Green Bough in My Heart, the Singing Bird Will Come"  Chinese Proverb
 

by E.J. Peiker on Thu Oct 11, 2018 7:32 pm
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 86761
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
It uses the 5 stop or so VR unit common to all newer Nikon lenses.
 

Display posts from previous:  Sort by:  
121 posts | 
  

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group