I sold my Nikon PF 500 f/5.6 because the RF 100-500mm is frankly indistinguishably sharp at 500mm, has all the advantages of a zoom, can focus much closer up, all for the cost of 2/3rds of a stop at the same weight and cheaper. A 500 f/5 is a stop faster than a 500 f/7.1, and would that be enough to make it worthwhile?
The 100-500 is a wonderful lens that I use daily, as well. Love the versatility. But I’m often wanting more light when shooting moving critters at dusk. f/7.1 —> f/5 would be a very nice addition to the lineup if it has 500PF image quality.
Oh, this FD400 4.5 made me become a bird photographer, an exceptional nice lens. There was never a more mobile long lens in my life to carry around for accidental shooting. The Nikon 500 PF is in the same league with close to half a century enhanced technology built in, but nothing from Canon.
The very best lens in this league was the FD 400mm 4.5, light, durable, clicking all boxes in this pre AF times.
You edited out the final sentence of my post:
I did no such thing. It looks like you edited your post to add that final sentence after the fact. Perhaps I responded before the edit.
My post was edited at 8.11, your reply posted at 8.13 after the edit. OK, I realise you missed it because your page was not refreshed and it wasn't deliberate on your part. I shoot similarly to you, but if I wanted low light shooting I'd want more than a stop advantage. That was my deciding factor for why I also sold my 400mm f/4 DO II, which has the same light gathering ability as a 500/5 (both have 100mm diameter front elements). Also, a 500/4 would give a slightly better image because of of less diffraction blurring.
I’m with you on getting as much light as possible. A lot of people pay a lot of money for one additional stop of light, so it’s not that insignificant at this range. It sounds like you are comfortable with your 500 f/4 and using a tripod more often, and that makes sense—a lot of wildlife folks share your sentiment. I’m running and gunning in the backcountry more than roadside, so those handheld mid-tiers are perfect for me. To each their own; options are great!
In the Nikon Forums, there are reports from several selling their 500/5.6 and buying the new Nikon 100-400. So, it's horses for courses and we all have our individual preferences.
I never use a tripod, the 500/4 would have to be under 2kg to make it acceptable to me, that's why I say ultralight 500/4. If you go to Nikon and you are worried about weight, then the Z9 might not be for you since it's over 1.3kg (weighs about the same as an R5 +RF100-400mm attached), the Z7 II doesn't have very good AF with tracking, so you would probably be best with a D500 DSLR for wildlife - it does make an excellent combination with the 500PF. I had thought of keeping the 500PF, in case Nikon came out with a suitable mirrorless, but the weight of Z9 put me off. Fully agree with you on to each their own.
Honestly the weight is not so much my issue, personally, it’s the size of the larger telephotos. They’re awkward to carry around when you’re doing much other than roadside or front country. I’d much prefer giving up a little light (but not too much) for a smaller prime package that I can lug around on a hike or overnighter.
Typo, I meant 500/5. I'll go back and correct it . Thanks.
