FS7: nikkor 500mm ed 4.0

P

Publimix

Veteran
The struggle is real, I need a good telelens 400-500mm
I had a Tamron 150-600 but didn't like it.
The Canon 100-400 was not as good as I expected (compared to Nikkor 50-300 4.5)

Now the alternative is a manual nikkor 500mm f4.0 P

Anyone who knows this lens? I can buy one for 1.000 euro.

thnx.
 
What's really good is the canon FD 500mm 4.5 L it's one of the best lenses has a superb long focus throw I see them on eBay under 1000
 
Super lens no doubt.. but I guess you need to check it out in person.

I owned/used multiple manual 300 2.8s (same design) and while some focussed like butter the first one I bought aged 20 was so stiff to focus that it almost injure my hand after 90 mins of soccer.

A good copy will be a wonder. Also it is 'managable' the 500/4 was way smaller than the 600/4 beast

Do consider..
it focusses the 'wrong' way .. so you might want that FD or I think canon did a 200-600 or something
'Target aquisition with such glass can be problematic if you are used to acquiring the target and zooming in (you can get very lost filming surfers/boats/planes)
You will need a grown up tripod
 
Thank you gentleman,

Did not expect the Canon option, after a quick search it seems prices on ebay are right but most lenses are sold from Japan or USA so huge import tax.
Canon lens is lighter, 2,5 vs 3.0 kg
I already have a 'wrong focusing' nikkor 50-300, so I am used to that.
I can buy the Nikkor lens including box and 1.6 extender for 950 euro (=835 pound or 1087 dollar.) There was a time the pound sign was on my keyboard (pre-Brexit?)
I think I easy can sell the lens for the same price.
 
Which version of the Canon 100-400 did you try? Yeah, it's a little slow(f/4.5-5.6), but the latest version has pretty much been praised by everyone, at least on the stills side. I have shot with it once or twice on my C300, too, and have no complaints(within the context of it being a stills lens and not a lens designed for motion/video work).
 
At first I wanted to rent the older version, but they gave me the newest one. I wanted to try the 1.4 extender too but it was already rented.
So it was the newest version 100-400 ll. And yes it has been praised, that is why I was a bit disappointed.
The Canon is not a bad lens at all, but it wasn't what I expected, image quality not noticeably better than my 30 year old Nikkor 50-300 zoom. (As seen on a 4K monitor after a quick and dirty test). Or perhaps this 50-300 Nikkor is outstanding.

I think the 100-400 Canon has to be used in combination with a Canon (still) Camera. All the (expensive) electromechanical parts like IS and AF are pretty useless in combination with the FS7.

So it is just that the lens didn't blew me away compared to the older lens I am used to, and that for the extra 100 mm focal length the price is too high. Now I'll try an old Nikkor 500mm 4.0 for half the price.

And no, I am not the kind of guy that tells everyone that "vintage lenses from the 'golden age' of photography are superior to nowadays plastic lenses".

And yes, I would love to try the Canon 200-400 F 4.0 lens. (4,5 times rental price)
 
Speaking of tele lenses - what do you guys think of the Tamron AF 70-200 mm f/2,8 Di LD IF Macro (Canon EF mount)? With its price here below $750 and F2.8 speed-boosted to (what it will be, BTW - 2.0 or 1.4?), it looks quite interesting to me... Anyone tried one?

Piotr
 
Last edited:
moldcad said:
Speaking of tele lenses - what do you guys think of the Tamron AF 70-200 mm f/2,8 Di LD IF Macro (Canon EF mount)?
Click to expand...

I had one years ago. IQ was nice to start with but build quality was not so good. After a year of mild use it seemed as though some of the lens elements had shifted inside and it could never actually achieve sharp focus. It also focuses the Nikon way - the wrong way for cinema lenses or Canon lenses.

Used with a Speedbooster, a 200mm 2.8 behaves like a 135mm f/2.0.

A more natural "extension" of your Canon 24-70 would be one of the Canon 70-200mm versions.
 
I asked about the experience with Tamron because the Canon with the same specs is twice as expensive - thanks for the warning about Tamron's quality! Well - one gets what one pays for, I guess :)

Piotr
 
Sorry to have been slightly off-topic here, but it's also about longer zooms for the FS7; what is your opinion on the Sigma 70-200 mm f/2.8 DG EX APO OS HSM? With Canon mount and on Speed Booster of course - better value than Tamron? Thanks

Piotr
 
The Canon is excellent quality glass and worth the difference IMHO. The only choice I would consider is the old Nikkor 80-200 f2.8 ED
 
Yeah, well - the Canon 70-200mm F4L IS USM's price is not that much lower than that of Sony FE 70-200 mm F4 G OSS, so I'd be tempted to get the latter for my FS7 And A7Rii. Or would you still advise to pick the Canon, given that Speed Booster would let me also use it on my GH5, not to mention the speed, boosted to F2.8? I do have my opinion about this choice, but would love to hear yours :)

Piotr
 
My opinion is that I do jobs and before I do them I go into my lens hut and pull out a lens that will suit the job. Usually this is my 180 2.8 (lowlight stage), 135/2.8 (portable package) or 50-300 (day work iwth an assistant), my plastic zooms are not selected apart from shooting stills.

My nikkor 135/2.8 is small, 100% reliable, fits and talks to any camera about 300eu or less (https://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/135mmnikkor/135mm28.htm)
 
Just realized that if I were to stick with Canon and still get something extra on all my cameras including the GH5, I'd need something longer than 200mm as I do have the native PanaLeica 35-100mm... Any up to 300mm zoom that you would recommend? This Sigma AF 70-300/4-5,6 APO DG Macro is very cheap, so I reckon the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM would be better if only for its IS... The L Canons are much more expensive in this focal range - like the 100-400mm F4.5-5.6L IS II USM - but again, I guess it's worth it? Or did someone actually try the cheaper, non-L, 70-300 and could recommend it for the value?

Piotr
 
I use an older all manual Nikon 80-400 with the FS7 and it is not a bad size and very sharp. Also use a Sigma 150-600 which is a monster but reasonably sharp and the reach is fantastic. A bit off topic, I just picked up a Lumix 100-400 for the GH5 and I think it'll be a keeper.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top