Nikon or Canon - which 500 mm?

Canon or Nikon? Which is the best? Thats long been a question that has caused a lot of emotion. One area that is particulary important to wildlife photographers is the 500 mm prime lens selection. Its a massive investment of around 10,000 USD in Thailand.

Well DxO have just done a comparison, and the winner in both the 500 and 600 mm prime categories was....

DxO compare 500 mm primes

....Canon..... Indeed the difference between the lens is more that the test states because the Nikon is tested with a superior body, the D800.

Although they did not include the Sigma ;+)

But how do we know if we can "see" the difference with our eyes between the two?? Anyone seen any links that show a comparison of images for the eyes POV in field conditions?
From my reading, the issues seem to be:

a) working with Tele-convertors (for increased reach) but I dont do small "subjects" so 500 x 1.4 is all I have needed so far
b) sharpness. but you only need eye popping sharpness for small and cropped subjects (i.e birds) which I don't do
c) Image stabilisation, I don't hand hold so am not sure what would be "big" advantage

I still have not found a review that clearly reviews anyone of the 4 major offerings Sigma, Sony, Canon, Nikon as being markedly better than any other. Many reviews say that a) and c) increase their keeper rate, but those reviews are by birders who operate at extremes that I do not.

I own the Sigma, the Sony is mad expensive (but small and light!) and was thinking about upgrading to a Nikon (a pre-retirement gift to myself), but Canon have me intrigued.

I have zero experience with long lenses. My longest lens is a fixed Nikon 300mm f/4. I do dream a bit about 300mm f2.8 with VR, because I'm not the best at hand-held shooting, and I guess even those who are good at it, it will be very challenging in the dark jungles over here. But it's so rediculously expensive. I don't even think about a 500 or 600 mm. Having one of those means you need to spend a lot of money on a good tripod and maybe even more important one of those tripod heads (not sure how to call them) for optimal use with long lenses.

Honestly, I don't believe that anyone can see the difference between a Canon or Nikon lens in real-life pictures; especially not in nature photography.

Even though it seems great to have access to many lenses, it will only cause more frustration because you always have the wrong lens mounted on the camera when something unusual appears.
Having only one lens with you, means you don't loose time switching lenses and it forces you to be creative with what you have, instead of doing what everybody does.
That's what I keep telling myself, ;)... as long as I can't afford a long telephoto lens, haha.

onflipflops wrote:

......

Honestly, I don't believe that anyone can see the difference between a Canon or Nikon lens in real-life pictures; especially not in nature photography. ........

A very good and valid point.

Great advice as always Bruce!

From Canonrumors ........


"We’re told Sigma is working on new 300 & 400 f/2.8 OS lenses as well as new 500 & 600 f/4 OS lenses. The lenses would incorporate Sigma’s new philosophy on quality, but at a much lesser price than the Canon or Nikon counterpart."