NIKKOR 600mm f/5.6E PF ED (Coming this Year?)

[Pistnbroke]

Considering I just paid £802  about $1100 for a 200-500 at F5.6  I don't think I will bother !!!

[Frank Fremerey]

1.5 Kilo? If that holds true I will be very interested. But because the price will quite possibly be very high in the beginning, I will wait till availability gets better, so a year or more after the release will be a good time. I got the D500 and the D850 on release date and did not have any issues with them: I knew what I was buying and I was not disappointed, very happy. 600mm is not of high priority for my photography. It is more nice to have. I am not interested in cars or motorcycles. I like cameras and lenses and houses.

[Roland Vink]

SIZE
Any 600/5.6 lens will have an front element (entrance pupil) of 107mm, the same size as a 300/2.8 lens, so the overall diameter will be about the same. The length of the 600PF is given as 330mm, compared to 268mm for the AF-S 300/2.8 models. So while the lens will be substantially smaller and lighter than the 600/4, it will still be larger (longer) than the 300/2.8, not an insubstantial lens.

WEIGHT
Telephoto lenses with similar size diameter include:
AF-S 200/2 VR   -  2930g
AF-S 300/2.8 VR - 2900g
AI-S 400/3.5      - 2800g
AI-S 600/5.6 N   - 2800g
Most other similar size AI, AF and AF-I telephotos have similar weights, at slightly less than 3kg (see http://photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/specs.html#300). The shorter teles have thick/heavy elements in a shorter barrel, the longer lenses have thinner/lighter elements in a longer barrel, so the weight is pretty even across this group in spite of the difference in focal length.

Fresnel lenses are much thinner than regular lenses which could permit some weight reduction. The Fresnel lens plays a similar role as Fluorite lenses in controlling CA and reducing weight, so I don't think this lens will also have Fluorite lenses which could reduce weight further. Using lighter materials in its construction could also help. Overall I would expect a weight somewhere between 2-2.5kg - due to the size of the lens I don't expect such a dramatic reduction in weight as we saw with the 300/4PF.

Probably the best comparison is the Canon 400/4 DO lens, a similarly sized lens also with a Fresnel element. It is 233mm long (100mm shorter), weighs 2.1kg, and cost is 6900 USD. I wouldn't be surprised if the Nikon is similar is weight and cost

[Ilkka Nissilä]

Any 600/5.6 lens will have an front element (entrance pupil) of 107mm, the same size as a 300/2.8 lens, so the overall diameter will be about the same. The length of the 600PF is given as 330mm, compared to 268mm for the AF-S 300/2.8 models.

I believe the length in the 600/5.6 patent is from the sensor so it includes the flange distance but the 300/2.8 length quoted does not.

For example for the 300 PF the length mentioned in the patent is 190.20mm

https://nikonrumors.com/2013/09/12/another-nikon-patent-for-a-300mm-f4-lens-with-diffractive-optical-element-doe.aspx/

whereas the actual product has a length of 147.5mm.

[Frank Fremerey]

thank you Roland and Ilkka for qualifying the guesswork. There is a lot to learn from Your inputs

[Frank Fremerey]

if one compares the 4/300 old to the 4/300pf we should think how much a 4/600 old could be reduced by pf tech.

from the hypothetical 4/600pf we can then think what happens if we take away one stop to build a 5.6/600pf.

[JKoerner007]

thank you Roland and Ilkka for qualifying the guesswork. There is a lot to learn from Your inputs

+1

There's guesswork and then there's educated guesswork

[Roland Vink]

I believe the length in the 600/5.6 patent is from the sensor so it includes the flange distance but the 300/2.8 length quoted does not.

For example for the 300 PF the length mentioned in the patent is 190.20mm

https://nikonrumors.com/2013/09/12/another-nikon-patent-for-a-300mm-f4-lens-with-diffractive-optical-element-doe.aspx/

whereas the actual product has a length of 147.5mm.

You may be right, that is an unusual way of measuring the length of a lens. The length of the 300/4PF lens (from lens mount) is 147.5, add 46.5mm to the sensor giving 194mm, which is close to the 190.20mm mentioned at Nikonrumors. It's possible this distance is actually measured from the the imaging plane to the front element, not the filter ring, which could account for the discrepancy. Either way, the nikonrumors comparison with the older AFS 300/4 is invalid since it is measuring a different thing.

It would be interesting to know what the 33cm length of the 600PF lens is actually measuring. For example if it is measuring the distance from the front element to the image plane, the lens barrel will be about 29cm long from the mounting flange, only slightly longer than a 300/2.8 lens.

[Mongo]

Another possible comparison of this lens to try to accurately estimate its likely weight might be to start with its predecessor  - 600mm f5.6 AI and AI-s.

The old lens was approx 2.700 - 2.800 kgs, had only 7 elements, approx 38cm long. It had no AF or VR and was made of heavier metal body.

The new lens will have approx 20 elements, 33 cm long, have both AF and VR but be made of much lighter material.

All things in the mix, Mongo’s best guess is that it will weight approx 1.85kgs. They should be able to shave enough off 20 year old plus technology to get at least this much weight saving.

We should have a little competition to see who guestimates the closest