Nikon 500f 5.6

George DeCamp wrote: I am interested in this lens as well. I would prefer the 600f 5.6 but who knows when that will show up. Grrrrr... 

ricardo00 wrote:

George DeCamp wrote: I am interested in this lens as well. I would prefer the 600f 5.6 but who knows when that will show up. Grrrrr... 

  Also for sure would have preferred a 600mm f/5.6 but I am not getting any younger and it might take several more years for Nikon to get around to making that lens, they seem to have quite a bit on their plate at the moment (a whole set of new lenses for their mirror less cameras and even making memory cards!).

DChan wrote:How "small and light" will a 600 f5.6 be?? Anyone?

You're getting older and likely out of shape. How big and heavy a lens can you handle?

DChan wrote:You're getting older and likely out of shape. How big and heavy a lens can you handle?

George DeCamp wrote:

DChan wrote:You're getting older and likely out of shape. How big and heavy a lens can you handle?

Hey who are you calling outta shape...why I oughta..... lol

Speaking for myself I carry around the 600VR about 4 mornings a week, tripod, wimberley head II, leveling head, a converter and a bottle of water!

DChan wrote:How "small and light" will a 600 f5.6 be?? Anyone?

Anthony Medici wrote:

DChan wrote:How "small and light" will a 600 f5.6 be?? Anyone?

If the 600 PF cut the weight of the 600 E as much as the 500 PF cut the weight of the 500 E, it would weigh about 64 oz or 4 lbs. It would also make it only 2/3 lbs heavier than the 500 PF .

Tim Zurowski wrote:Agree BIG TIME on the 600 f5.6! No idea (again) what Nikon was thinking. Everyone has different opinions and needs, but I for one cannot understand why anyone would pay 3x the cost for the new 500 f5.6 over the Nikon 200-500. I doubt the Nikon PF will be any sharper. I have the 300 PF and it is not sharper than my 200-500 and possibly even less sharp. Plus you get the advantage of the usefulness of a zoom. The only reasons I see for getting the 500 PF over the zoom might be weight, size and faster AF. But those features would have to be worth paying 3x the cost for. I can only assume the AF will be snappier with the new 500 over the 200-500. Now if it was a 600 f5.6 I would be all over it in a heartbeat.   I can only hope Nikon reads these threads.

rene wrote:I use Sony A9-A7R3 and Nikon D850. I have a Sony 400F2.8 on pre order but I’m now more tempted in the 500mm as it it lighter , more compact , substantially cheaper and gives me a bit more reach. I wonder how it compares optically versus the 400 Sony.
Rene

Rdavid fletcher wrote:

rene wrote:I use Sony A9-A7R3 and Nikon D850. I have a Sony 400F2.8 on pre order but I’m now more tempted in the 500mm as it it lighter , more compact , substantially cheaper and gives me a bit more reach. I wonder how it compares optically versus the 400 Sony.
Rene

Rene, the MTF graphs are already available for both lenses.  From what I've seen, they just do different jobs and you can only decide on what your priorities are.

Me, it's so such a straightforward option.   400 2.8 at £10,000.  9 times out of 10 I'll want to shoot at F8.   

                                                              500 F5.6 at £3,600.  9 times out of 10 i'll still want to shoot at F8. 

rene wrote:I use Sony A9-A7R3 and Nikon D850. I have a Sony 400F2.8 on pre order but I’m now more tempted in the 500mm as it it lighter , more compact , substantially cheaper and gives me a bit more reach. I wonder how it compares optically versus the 400 Sony.
Rene

Gary Irwin wrote:

I would expect the Sony would beat the Nikon at f2.8 and f4.0    and very likely at f5.6. The one thing we learned from the Lenscore folks -- when they used to test lenses -- is that larger diameter objectives/optical trains tend to yield more resolving power and better overall scores, and I would expect the same thing here.

Scott Fairbairn wrote:I bet this lens will be in short supply for some time.