Advice required re Nikon 500mm f4

Hi All
Hoping a few of you can give me advice on a tricky issue for me, I would love a 500mm f4 vr but cannot afford one, but I could do with being able to extend my reach with a slightly longer combination than I have at the moment -currently using Nikon f4 with 1.7tc -fine in good light but f6.7 and no VR - low light to much shake - I find the D300 crap above iso 800.

Looking at getting an either old Nikon 500f4 manual focus P-ED but concerned on how useful it will prove to be - still no VR - but 1.5 stop faster. Alternative is Sigma 500mm zoom, no faster but has VR or Sigma 500mm f4,5 autofocus but still no VR.


Or should I stay with current combination and invest in a Gimball head would that improve number of keepers?

Genuinely am confused by what to do next so any advice is more than welcome.

Many, many thanks in advance

Shaun

I know nothing about the nikon lenses (I'm a canon user), but I do use a sig 500/4.5. Like you I struggled really hard to get the cash together for a big prime and I settled for having to work a bit harder with no VR in order to get the reach. I have been very happy with the route that I took and it has enabled me to do a lot that I couldn't before. Quality is very good on its own, however it is not great with a tc (also it might well be manual focus with the tc as well - it is on the canon);although it is very acceptable when the subject is fairly close. I would also say that I never realised just how useful my 300 and 100-400 lenses really were until I had the 500. Sigma's quality control leaves something to be desired so try before you buy; not every copy is as good as it can be. Their after sales service I found to be pretty good.
Is the 200-400 not an option? It would be twice as useful imo. Just my thoughts for what they are worth.

I too once had a Sigma 500 f4.5 on my canon 1DsII and or 5D but hated the IQ beyond 10m or so and hated the incompatibility with TCs and I hated the AF. The older canon 4.5 is far better. Shame Nikon did not do one. If you can get a tried and tested copy you might be alright. As for the zooms, I would stay clear. I far prefer my 100-400 to the Sigmas I have used. The only decent Sigma I wold put forward is the 120-300, but not yet with VR. A good lens also with a 1.4 TC, less good with a 2x.

You haven't said what f4 you have at present .
The Vr on my 500mm is permanantly off. Its slows the AF down . A 500 on D300 gives you 750mm of glass ( equivalent ) that doesn't mean to say you get more magnification its just means in effect your images are 'pre-cropped.'
The 500mm Vr will work in AF with both the 1.4 and 1.7 tc but again the AF speed suffers .
Eric makes a good point . The Sigma 500mm prime is a great alternative , not too hot in the contrast stakes but perfectly fast enough and sharp. It will not take TC's for AF unless you are prepared to pin it.
A gimbal or ball plus a good tripod is a must at these reaches . No point spending a shed load only to sit it on 3 bamboo canes and and egg cup .
The older Nikon 500mm non AF will be far cheaper , but I feel it wouldn't be long before you missed far to many shots because of it and ended up cursing .
Vr is no panacea .

I too once had a Sigma 500 f4.5 on my canon 1DsII and or 5D but hated the IQ beyond 10m or so and hated the incompatibility with TCs and I hated the AF. The older canon 4.5 is far better. Shame Nikon did not do one. If you can get a tried and tested copy you might be alright. As for the zooms, I would stay clear. I far prefer my 100-400 to the Sigmas I have used. The only decent Sigma I wold put forward is the 120-300, but not yet with VR. A good lens also with a 1.4 TC, less good with a 2x.

Hi all thanks for comments so far, the 300mm I have at present is Nikon 300mm f4 and it is very very shrp on its own and with 1.4tc loses a bit with 1.7tc

Spend more money on glass than you can afford Shaun - always the best practice.

The 200-400 f4 is a much better proposition all round if you want to get maximum bang for your buck + a 1.4x tc.

I agree. The Canon lenses I have had, used, all sold without loss. The cheaper options will lose money quicker.

As you are referring to a 500 mm i am assuming you are more into bird photography? I would suggest a second hand Nikon 500 AFS or the Sigma 500/4.5, although the latter doesnt work very well with a 1.4 converter. The manual Nikon 500 is too old now and if you have issues with it it might be difficult to get spare parts.

The 200-400 is a nice lens if you are more a general nature photographer. In many ways it is a very versatile lens but for bird photography too short...you will always attach a converter to that lens as you want to have more reach.

Check out the weekly AP, i saw several secondhand 500mm lenses in it the last few weeks.
Rene de Heer

Please check my redesigned website.

I used the Sigma 500mm before I got the Nikon. If you want to buy once (and have the money to do so), get the Nikon. It focuses and locks better in my opinion, and optically slightly better - both in contrast & sharpness. But it costs more than twice in the 2nd hand market. Having said this the Sigma is still a very nice prime. Perhaps try renting/borrowing before investing in one to help make up your mind.

Many thanks for all who ahve replied, yes in general it is for bird photography, interested to see that you always ahve your VR off Mark I use a solid Manfrotto tripod but I am now wondering about head etc, also nikon 300mm f4 has a pretty crappy tripod foot, certainly far worse than on my nikon 70-200 2.8 (which ispartofthe reaso why I cant afford 500mm f4!! )

B biggest problem is in number of keepers on tripod, far worse then i expected

Cheers

I faced similar issues when buying Nikon 300mm f2.8 and 600mm f4. Did I buy new lenses with VR or settle for older (but still autofocus) versions so that I could afford both lenses rather than have to make my mind up between the two? In the end I settled for the older versions. VR is of limited/no benefit on a tripod, and secondhand non VR lenses are half the cost or less of the current versions.

Good advice from Mike, below about tripods as well.

David

If you are getting a poor set of keepers off your tripod at present going longer in focal length and a big increase in weight that goes with "big glass" is not going to help matters. You are already at 750mm+ equivelent angle of view with a 300mm, Nikon crop sensor camera and 1.7 tc - that is 15x magnification and small telescope territory. Mirror slap induced vibration is the bane of the wildlife photographers life at these sorts of magnifications.

As Mark indicted above, before investing in bigger glass you may need to review your tripod system and budget somewhere around £500 for a tried and tested system that will work - If you go the full gimbal, dovetail plates and carbon tripod route route preparing for "big glass" you are probably closer to £750 all in.

Hi Shaun,

I use the Nikon 500mm 'P' type - manual focus lens. I bought it when I released my 300mm was far too short for birds, but couldn't afford AF. I love this lens to bits, BUT there is many a frustrating time when I wish for autofocus. It is a good lens, sharp and clear, but you'd have to find one in decent condition. Mine had a few clarity issues (poss sticky aperture blades), but these were resolved with a service from my local Nikon centre, the guy was really pleased to see one of these lenses and even knocked a bit off the bill for me! Before I had it serviced I didn't really trust it to produce sharp shots below F8, which can be a bit limiting! Now it's much better though. MF can be pretty limiting for in flight shots, but it can be done, it just takes a little time to get used to it. On the other hand, the MF is great for quietness!

My advice would be - if you can afford an autofocus lens - get it! If you can't, then the p type is an option, as long as you're prepared to be patient!

Virtually all the shots on my website (bar the macro stuff) are taken with the 500mm p type.

Tripod wise I use a manfrotto 190 PRO B with a manfrotto 488RC4 this is the sturdiest that I could afford. It works well for me, but I mainly shoot with the tripod flat to the ground, it probably isn't sturdy enough at full height - though I have done it!

Hope this helps!

Cheers guys thanks for all the advice, still not sure where I am going to go with it re:lenses, tripods etc, I think in the short term I am going to try and improve stability on the tripod and just practise and practise, once again many thanks