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 Nikon PF 500mm f5.6 lens is a pretty epic wildlife/bird lens, for anyone that doesn't want one of the big fast telephoto primes, either because of weight or cost. It's basically as sharp as the big lenses, but lighter than a 100-400 zoom. I have absolutely no idea why Canon didn't learn from this and produce an equivalent, but one that they could actually supply to anyone who wanted one. It would be a hugely popular lens with nature photographers. Yes, to some extent the 100-500mm zoom has filled this niche. But it is not a prime, and it is 2/3 stop slower, even if the weight and cost are similar. A 500mm f5 would be nice, but expect it to be bigger, and more expensive.
Last edited:
Upvote
0