NIKON 500MM F/5.6 PF REVIEW - Tiny but Mighty Wildlife Photography Lens

[@shekatagani]

I agree with everything you said,,, I use a AFI 600 f4 with tc1.4 for birds. A few years ago I purchased the AFS VR 200-500 F5.6E, When I started using that lens I was so happy I could use it without a Tripod. It really changes your shooting style! You are able to go further and get on your subject faster with this kind of lens. It was all a plus, only thing I didn't like was the AF was not as fast, having a smaller af motor. The new VR 500 F5.6 E has a faster AF, So I will be purchasing one and I like you, will not give up on my other lenses , but I am sure I will be using the new lens a lot. The new technology is just too good to pass up!

[@pianoman6639]

Just taken delivery and so pleased with it . A big spend but so worth it . Like your style of presenting

[@getoutsidewithmiguel]

Great video, Michael. Looking forward to you sharing a video of you using this lens in the field. I ordered a copy of this lens and looking forward to pairing it with my D500, D5 and (Z9 whenever that day comes.)

[@henkreinicke9998]

very well structured and compact video! This is how a review is supposed to be! great job!

[@michaelaagaardphoto]

Thank you very much Henk that really means a lot!

[@Filinozavr]

How does it compare to nikon 200-500 5.6 at 500?

[@markusbolliger1527]

Thank's a lot Michael for this very instructive field report! Because I have the chance to purchase by auction an AF-S 300mm F4 PF this weekend, I will start with this one. With the converter it gives me a 420mm F5.6 lens - what in most cases is long enough for my type of photography. But the 500/5.6 PF remains on my wish list! Usability is a very important criterion for me, therefore it never will be the 500mm 4.0. Best regards from Switzerland.

[@michaelaagaardphoto]

Thanks a lot Markus! Yeah the big primes do feel insanely huge and bulky compared to the PF that's for sure!

[@FouzulKareem]

Nice and clean review Michael. Appreciate that ❤️

[@aaaaanton1]

Excellent review!

[@TheBorderlandbeat]

Other than just saying the 500 f4 is superior in all aspects to the 500 PF, it would have been nice to see some picture comparisons.

[@michaelaagaardphoto]

Thanks for the input! That's a great point I will keep that in mind for future videos.

[@KobusGevelspar]

It is not true btw. Only the newer FL version is a little better IQ wise than the 5.6, but hardly noticable. I own the F4 vrii and the 5.6 and the newer and little better AF on the 5.6 gives me a higher keeper rate. The bokeh is fantastic, however the 5.6 bokeh is a little different from F4, only because of the aperture difference. IQ wise the pf glass is just top notch. The 500 pf is an amazing lens and my best buy in the last 10 years. That lens is so great, it will put a smile on your face guaranteed.

[@Filinozavr]

​@@KobusGevelsparthank you for ur experience

[@CrispImage5]

Great little review, Michael! I definitely agree with all the points you brought up concerning this lens. It is most definitely a supplement and not a replacement for the big glass found in the F4 version.

[@michaelaagaardphoto]

Thanks Kevin! As much as I wish it could replace the F/4 I don't see it happening. It'll be interesting to see where they can take the PF technology though. How does the 500 PF compare to the Nikon 200-500?

[@lennonwe]

very helpful info, thank you. if you only had to buy one, which one would you choose??

[@joeyalbergo]

Thank you sir.

[@davidguedj4489]

Excellent video and thanks to share. Which camera did you use with the 500MM PF ? I have the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary and want to have a better image quality, I'm using a D850.

[@imoldgreggboosh3467]

You're gonna have to change the lens to get better image quality. The D850 is superb but the sigma is not.

[@davidguedj4489]

This is what I did and the D850 with the Nikon 500MM is amazing...

[@sctm81]

The perfect hiking lens in my opinion. Obviously it makes compromises, but I'd say it makes them in all the right areas and gives a great all round winner in size, weight, focal length and image quality.

[@gregorychernalis1958]

How do feel this lense will perform on a D700 with its 12mp...

[@michaelaagaardphoto]

Hi Gregory and thanks for you comment. I don't have any personal experience with the D700, but I imagine it would perform well. If you bring the D700 to a camera store I'm sure they let you mount it and give it a try. That of course won't be extensive, but at least you can check gif AF and so on works well.

[@thomaseriksson6256]

Can you use 500mmF5.6 with a 1.4*TC? I thnk I will get one to replace a old AF300mm2,8 screw drive

[@michaelaagaardphoto]

Hi Thomas - I use it with the TC1.4-EIII on the Nikon Z6II and it works surprisingly well (f/8 of course)! But it worse worth mentioning that the Z& II generally works better with converters than DSLRs in my experience. So I can't vouch for other cameras.

[@thomaseriksson6256]

@@michaelaagaardphoto Thank you for your answer. I will not upgrade to Z camera because they cannot multi exposure and save the combine result in a RAW file. I have to test the 500mm with a 1.4*TCIII on my camera. The alternative is an old 400mm with a 1.4*TC converter but the cost and weight increases and my main interest is landscape photo and not bird and animal.

[@imoldgreggboosh3467]

@@thomaseriksson6256 I shoot the 500mm PF with a D500 - the 1.4TClll works perfectly for me.

[@thomaseriksson6256]

@@imoldgreggboosh3467 Thank you for the info. I have some ideas to get a 2nd hand AFS 400mm F2.8 G VR for wildlife, but its heavy.

[@SSCheema]

Using it since it first came to India. Great practical points

[@michaelaagaardphoto]

Thanks! Yeah I'm really loving this little lens too!

[@sashachen8274]

Thank you

[@Iobster]

Its been 1 year since you uploaded this, do you still have & use the 500 pf? I dont see it listed on your website so I was wondering if you sold it, what the reasons were.

[@michaelaagaardphoto]

Thanks for your comment! I still have the PF and I love it! I just suck at updating my website :) Really need to do some work on it. I don't think I'll ever sell the PF - unless something even better shows up. Such a great little lens for using on the move and travel. I still think the main problem is the fact that it is an f/5.6 lens.

[@fabiankeppler315]

you need a better microphone :) It would greatly improve the quality. about the sharpness, I still feel the 300mm 2.8vrII performs better

[@michaelaagaardphoto]

Hi Fabian - yes I agree 100%, I need a better microphone! I haven't had the pleasure of owning the 300mm 2.8 VRII, so I can't compare it's performance to the PF. But I don't doubt that you are right :)

[@freddyacosta2358]

I have the 200-500mm but I so have to jump that 500mm f/5.6. It’s between 3500 and 4,000 US Dollars

[@michaelaagaardphoto]

Yeah it definitely is an investment - but a good one in my opinion!

[@LVPAcharn]

Tnx for the review, l just sold my Sigma 150-600 sport and l am sure l will see a significant improvement with my D500 :) It arrives today :)

[@michaelaagaardphoto]

Thanks John! Awesome man - congrats! Yeah I'm pretty sure you're going to love it. And it is way lighter than the 150-600 Sport too!

[@LVPAcharn]

@@michaelaagaardphoto l've noticed that, and I'm more than happy with sharpness too :)

[@uppsalaskyview4320]

I really like my Sigma 150-600mm

[@michaelaagaardphoto]

@@uppsalaskyview4320 Awesome - I'm glad you are happy with your Sigma lens!

[@lcador9]

I also use both lenses. What you presented was excellent but comparative reviews are relatively worthless without visual comparisons of the differences. Just sitting at a desk doesn't cut it. Take both lenses into the field and shoot the same photos and show us the difference in IQ, sharpness, contrast, focus speed, handling and other comparative features. In this way, the viewer can judge for themselves if spending an additional $8000 is worth it for their use case. I use the f/4 rarely and rent such when needed.

[@michaelaagaardphoto]

Hi and thanks a lot for the feedback! I agree 100% that a more in-depth review documenting all the technical aspects you mentioned would be a more helpful video. But as I said the beginning of the video, this was meant to be a quick review based on me having used it for just two weeks. I should probably have made it even more clear that this video would not be an in-depth review with technical analysis. That way I could have better managed expectations and not disappointed people. Thanks again!

[@gregoryrogalsky6937]

There is no free lunch.

[@jimdunn9016]

At no time does he address the price differences in the lenses he discusses. Must be nice to be rich enough that money is never a consideration.

[@michaelaagaardphoto]

Hi Jim, thanks for you flattering comment! Oh man, I wish I were rich and that money never was a consideration. Unfortunately, that’s not the case. The truth is that I worked very hard and saved up money for a long time to buy the camera gear I own. Moreover, I’ve bought my gear used to save money and sold other personal possessions in order to finance it. I could make a separate video about that - would you find that helpful? Thanks again Jim and have a great weekend!