NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: Bjørn Rørslett on July 02, 2015, 08:37:00
-
Just was told by my Nikon spokesperson there are new Nikkors released: 500/4 and 600/4 E VR lenses with the fluorite technology, significantly lighter than their predecessors. Plus a 16-80/2.8-4 ED E DX.
As I have predicted, all new lenses are 'E'. This is the direction Nikon wants, perhaps they feel the constraints of backwards compatibility are weaking?.
These lenses were not available as review samples to me now, and that's OK because I leave soon for Ireland. But will try to get samples of these later when I return.
-
Oh yes, the product shots almost forgot.
-
And we shouldn't forget the new 'kit' zoom lens.
-
The weight reduction of these long lenses is actually pretty remarkable. Thus, the new 500/4 FL E, at 3.01 kg, has returned to be within 0.15 kg of the old 500/4 Ai-P from the '90s, despite its VR technology and a much more sophisticated optical design. This newcomer must be the ideal wildlife, or sports, lens for general use.
I probably order a review sample of the 500 (and the 16-80).
-
The MTF chart of the new 500/4 is pretty remarkable. Lens testing should be quite simple !
-
I too wonder if we over the next couple of years will see Nikon realising all new lenses with e-apertures.
As for the 16-80, is this an indication that a pro DX camera is "imminent"?
-
It's no big secret Nikon would want an 'E' future. However, being Nikon, a very conservative company, they have tread lightly, and introduce the 'E' technology step by step. This in order not to break too much of the backwards compatibility I'd guess. When they are convinced (by sales figures?) that nobody uses any pre-E camera, they go the entire way and everything will be 'E'. The upper-end cameras are likely to provide support for all kinds of Nikkor interfaces as it's easily implemented in new models.
Not sure about their 'DX' perspective, but pushing the 16-80 E onto the market could be a guinea pig for a new product line.
-
My Nikon contact came back to me and informed me I'll get the new lenses for testing first week of August - if samples arrive in the August shipment.
Now, that'll be fun.
-
Nikon has changed the coatings of the already released lenses with NIC. So, I would hope that all the outer elements of currently available lenses would be fluorine-coated.
-
i liked the position of the tripod collar on the old 600VR better, it balanced on the Wimberley WH-200 head quite nicely.. this arrangement won't be as good.. i have seen the problem it with the 800FL.
i primarily use a 5-series Gitzo and Wimberley head to do wildlife photography.
-
The change in positioning of the L-shaped foot probably relates to a different weight distribution within the lens itself. Thus it probably balances equally well on a gimbal head.
When I get the review sample, I'll run the lens with support from a fluid head. That'll suit my work style better than any gimbal. Each user has a different requirement.
-
The little 16-80 looks impressive by the numbers, let's about distortion etc... :)
The 500 f/4 is sweet indeed! Wow and similar size to the old 500 is indeed most welcome.
-
I do wonder if Nikon will reduce the price of the 400 MM, the 500 mm is very impressive on paper
-
As I have predicted, all new lenses are 'E'. This is the direction Nikon wants, perhaps they feel the constraints of backwards compatibility are weaking?.
With digital SLRs all the recent cameras support E lenses and the old ones (i.e. D2 generation, D70) are losing their interestingness due to the rapid improvement in image quality that has occurred.
However, to my knowledge no 35mm film Nikon SLR supports E lens aperture control from the camera (apart from PC-E which can be controlled using a button on the lens if power is supplied which should be case with cameras that support VR). This may be a slight problem for some users who want to shoot film for one reason or another. I think what Nikon should consider investigating if the firmware of the latest film cameras such as the F6 could be made to support E aperture control. Not that there are all that many such users but then again Nikon does make many curious products for small markets so some show of support might be a good thing.
I haven't shot film since ca. 2010 (and that was 6x7cm) and my digital SLRs do support E lenses. But I do know people who still like to shoot some film.
I do believe that Nikon hasn't yet made an FX E lens that breaks compatibility in such a serious way that it would become unusable on a modern film camera. E.g. the new long lenses such as 300/4E are happy to be shot wide open so E aperture control isn't necessary unless you specifically need to stop down. The PC-E lenses can be stopped down and opened up from a button. The 16-80mm is a DX lens so it would not be sensible to use it on a 35mm film camera. The 20/1.8 is a G lens, even though it is a very recent lens, probably because they didn't want to break compatibility. I imagine the 20/1.8 is a lens that a film camera user might want to use.
Just for correctness state, I will test if the F100 will fire frames with the 300/4E wide open. Now, where are those batteries ;)
-
Sooner or later the backwards compatibility of the "F" mount has to yield. However, it is pretty surprising, and dare I add, heartening as well, that you can mount lenses from the late '50s on a modern camera like the Df and the combination just works.
Many users frown upon putting old lenses onto a new camera, as they focus on the features that are missing and believing such are critically important to get a picture at all. Each to their own and many Df users know better by now. If you can make it sing for your own photography, go ahead and that is where Nikon stands out by allowing for so long time. Of course issues begin to develop in the compatibility matrix over time, anything else would have been a sensation. But again, that is not the point.
Seen in the above context, 'E' lenses break compatibility in one direction: few if any old cameras can use them. However, most of the new cameras can, and it is pretty certain all new Nikons to come will support 'E'. Thus the traditional ever-lasting Nikkors just potter on, as long as their support is provided by the camera. Nikon Df shows this all-encompassing support is possible even in the most modern of cameras. Let us hope that tradition continues into the future.
-
I agree that it's more important for new cameras to support old lenses than for (very) old cameras to support new lenses, but I would still like to see at least one 35mm film camera support all the new lenses fully. I would not buy it for my use (my archive of film based images that are still not digitized is already too great to consider shooting more film) but I think there is something to the magic of working in the film darkroom that I would like to be preserved for future generations. Probably the traditional darkroom is better employed in medium format though. Anyway this is not a big issue.
I love the Df concept and would like to see this product line continued. There are some minor issues that I have with the first model which put me off purchasing it for now. I don't know if I'm sending the right signal to Nikon "I want it but with these changes ..." ;-) 1. Battery type should be the same as in the D750, D8x0 family and D7x00 family. 2. Optional user-installable and officially supported focusing screens with calibration service at Nikon authorized service centers. 3. If possible Advanced Multi-CAM 3500FX II. With at least two out of these three improvements, I would buy the camera and probably feel deep satisfaction inside when using it. :)
I generally think the E aperture control is nice and the way to go but with careful consideration of if some additional camera bodies could be made to support these lenses. I am not entirely convinced that the E aperture works better though. I have had one lens problem with the original VR 70-200/2.8G where the aperture mechanism got stuck in the cold and would stay wide open during exposures. This was solved by service, I think some dirt inside the mechanism must have been the cause. However, now that I'm using my 300/4E I have run into a problem with the TC-14E III of individual exposures overexposed by several stops, this I have never seen before in the Nikon system (apart from that one case with the stuck aperture in the 70-200 I just mentioned). I don't know what is going on with it I should probably send my files to Nikon for investigation. It was a situation where I had just installed the TC and decided to stop down the aperture a bit and the first exposure was greatly overexposed. After that the frames seemed normally exposed. Perhaps there was a contact problem, or firmware glitch. I will do more shooting and investigation if I can repeat the problem and find the cause of the problem. When using the lens without TC I haven't seen any exposure issues with the 300/4E.
-
...and they are already on Nikon's official website!
http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/index.htm
-
All new lenses are due on July 16th in Japan.
The 16-80 "kit" zoom is also fluorine coated.
-
I will do more shooting and investigation if I can repeat the problem and find the cause of the problem.
It seems to be possibly related to some kind of malfunction of the camera's Auto ISO function. The shutter speed in the overexposed shot is slower than the allowed range (1/320s instead of 1/500s as specified in the auto ISO settings) yet the ISO selected by the camera is 1-2 stops higher than in the other images of the set. It is peculiar. The large ISO setting and long exposure time recorded in the EXIF explain the overexposure, so I have no need to blame it on the E diaphragm control system. But still I have no explanation as to why the camera didn't obey the instructions given by the user and why the realized exposure fluctuated by such a degree.
-
Hm. Bracketing unintentionally engaged? Has happened to all of us, yours truly inclusive.
-
Since I now, at last, got my own 300 PF, I went outside and shot sequences with the TC nearest at hand which happened to be TC 1.7E.Mk2. Exposure spot on, VR worked, AF a little slower but acceptable if not pushed into action or sports photography (done on a Df).
-
With digital SLRs all the recent cameras support E lenses and the old ones (i.e. D2 generation, D70) are losing their interestingness due to the rapid improvement in image quality that has occurred.
I have a D200, and the image quality of that one is good enough for me. When looking around on my walls, I see most picture made by even older cameras. D200 is not my primary camera, it has never been, but it is in unregular usage. The 16-80mm could be of interest for me if I could use it on D200. Because of the 'E', and no other reason, it is not. The lens with this size and f/2.8-4 is what I have missed in the DX-linup. 300mm/4 is as made for usage on my D200, but the newest 300mm/4, the one with 'E' in the letters soup is not because the 'E'.
But this has happened before. The first G-lenses actually came before the last camera (FM3A) that do not support G-lenses was introduced. But then it was the cheapest lenses that was meant to be sold with new cameras that got the 'G' first.
When the 'E' is here, I want to see a lens made for usage on bellows and/or reversed, and an adapter like the one Novoflex has made for use with Canon EOS http://www.novoflex.com/en/products/macro-accessories/reverse-adapter-eos-retro/
-
That kind of adapter surely is possible to produce, but likely going to be neither small nor cheap. It has to provide power to the lens, plus act as an intermediary in the communication link camera <> lens.
It is worth keeping in mind that digital photography, despite the enormous advances of the last decade, still is in its infancy. So it follows that obsolence occurs quite rapidly. Sometimes the old cameras can be funny to use, and I still on occasion shoot with my Fuji S3 Pro (UV/IR Limited Edition) that by now is approx. 10 years old.
-
Apart from the possible implications of the "E" design, good news that
- Early adopters will have some new (and hopefully improved) toys to play with
- The supply of used lenses in this specialised end of the focal length range will increase as older models then become available
Ahhhh, something for everyone :)
-
I added the three new lenses to my database and refreshed my website just now so you can make simple comparisons with the new and old lenses. Please let me know if you find any errors, or have access to better pictures (600 x 800 or 750 x 1000 size is good)
One thing which struck me while entering the specifications, the new telephotos focus closer than previous VR models, but the magnification at close range is the same or only barely improved. That means they have more focal length shortening at close range (focus breathing). Also, previous models allowed manual focus to nearer distance than with AF. That distinction is not mentioned with the new models which implies they AF all the way to the close limit. For birders who want to photograph small birds at close range, that is mixed news - you have to get even closer to your subject to gain the same magnification, but AF is available at the near limit.
-
You can upload the product images I provided, Roland. They should be big enough for your purpose.
I did notice the change in near limit too, but it remains to be seen how important those changes are in field use. I'll get at least the 500 FL E in about 4 weeks' time so will try this in depth.
-
The pictures you uploaded are about twice as big as those I usually use. I guess there is no harm in that but I try to maintain some consistency with the product shots.
A question: When specifying maximum magnification, Nikon used to express it as a ratio "1:6.6", now they use a number like "0.15x". Which do you prefer? I like the older style as it's easier for me to understand.
-
The pictures you uploaded are about twice as big as those I usually use. I guess there is no harm in that but I try to maintain some consistency with the product shots.
A question: When specifying maximum magnification, Nikon used to express it as a ratio "1:6.6", now they use a number like "0.15x". Which do you prefer? I like the older style as it's easier for me to understand.
Thank you for keeping the pages updated Roland!
I agree with keeping constancy also in image size for the product images!
If you have room maybe add an extra column for maximum magnification so we have both "1:6.6" and "0.15x".
-
Thanks. No problem to add the new lenses, but it is hard to keep up with the serial numbers (especially kit zooms which are churned out so quickly)
I prefer not to display both ways of measuring magnification, don't like to have redundant information unless there is a very good reason. I'll stick with "1:6.6" format since that was used for all lenses until a few years ago. It's easier for me to understand too: image is about 1/6th life size. I can convert the current measure easily enough :)
-
OK decision made... 8)
Selling my 600VR, in perfect condition
By the way, where can we put our sales? ;)
-
Cool, please let us know how you like the new lens once you get it.
-
Selling my 600VR, in perfect condition
By the way, where can we put our sales? ;)
Not here, see: http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php?topic=674.msg5552
-
All right sir :)
-
I AM Nikon Europe Photostream on Flickr posted some images shot with the new 500/4.0 and 16-80/2.8-4.0 lenses:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/nikonphotostream
-
I AM Nikon Europe Photostream on Flickr posted some images shot with the new 500/4.0 and 16-80/2.8-4.0 lenses:
The 16-80mm DX seems quite good! I like the 16mm Santorini shot in particular.
-
The 16-80mm DX seems quite good! I like the 16mm Santorini shot in particular.
I agree. And D7200 seems to be a good camera, too.
-
Meanwhile Canon appears to be working on a 600/4 DO (PF in Nikon terms):
http://www.cameraegg.org/canon-new-patent-ef-600mm-f4-do-is-usm/ (http://www.cameraegg.org/canon-new-patent-ef-600mm-f4-do-is-usm/)
Their 400/4 DO II and the Nikon 300/4 PF show that these designs are now as good as regular lenses performance wise where the original 400/4 DO wasn't (less sharp and less contrast), so the FL designs makes the exotics roughly a kilogram lighter but a DO/PF design would reduce even more weight.
-
The PF solution is surprisingly good and most teething problems appear to have been flat-ironed out. Only the slight light spill and the lack of "star spikes" from strong point lights disclose the optics use a complete different design principle.
Fluorite elements - well, we'll see over time how they fare. Obviously they need to be protected inside the optical system. However, if Canon managed to equip their long lenses with FL components for years so should Nikon. Is there a patent that has elapsed to allow Nikon now to use the FL approach?
-
According to Nikon, they started to produce fluoride glasses in 2001, wheras Canon started to produce fluoride elements in 1969. I'm not sure if the patent had been kept that long.
-
You're probably right, Akira. but something must have kept Nikon back from using FL elements in their lenses.
-
My wild guess is that it took long to deal with the expansion/contraction problem of the FL element which might have been more significant than that of ED glasses.
-
Doesn't the 105/4.5 UV-Nikkor include Fluorite elements? If so, Nikon has been using them since the 1980s.
My guess on why Nikon hasn't used them more often ... they investigated their properties in the early 1970s but concluded they were not robust enough for "professional" use - too fragile, too much affected by heat and moisture. So they too a different track and used glasses with near-Fluorite properties. They trialled ED glass from Schott in the Nikkor-H 300/2.8 preset, and later used their own ED glass with the Nikkor-P.C 400/5.6 (same optics as AI 400/5.6 ED). Perhaps ED glass is not optically quite as good as Fluorite, but it was good enough for films of the time, and better able to withstand professional use (and abuse). ED glass is strong enough to be used on the front element, although most lenses later has a front plate to protect the front lens. The fact that many Nikon ED telephotos from the 1970s and 80s are still in regular today is a testament to that decision.
Canon took a different approach, looking for an edge in optics so they could make inroads into Nikon's lead in the professional market. They took the risk and decided to use fluorite much earlier and built up experience in using this medium. I'm not sure how well the early examples have lasted the distance?
-
Some astronomical photographers have had Canon's old FD super-tele lenses with fluoride elements modified to use for their special purposes. So, they should last long enugh.
If some straying would be allowed: I noticed that many current Zeiss photographic lenses use abnormal dispersion lenses as the external front or rear elements. There seems to be some technical break-through (the physical strength of the glass or the protection with the coating).
-
Doesn't the 105/4.5 UV-Nikkor include Fluorite elements? If so, Nikon has been using them since the 1980s.
That's true. But the UV-Nikkor would be used in more controled environments (except for Bjørn's case!). The problem with the super teles is that they are often used under strong sunlight (outdoor sports events) for an extended time. Canon painted the lens barrel in white to avoid excessive heat collected by the barrels painted in black.
-
The UV-Nikkor does not expose fluorite elements front or rear if I recall correctly. My oldest UV-Nikkor has seen much use over 25 years and apart from needing cleaning and relubricating every 15 years or so, still goes strong. The "new" UV-Nikkor is about 15 years old by now and starts to pick up the tell-tale signs of use as well.
-
I think the design priorities have changed due to the availability of high-resolution sensors that allow the utilization of higher frequency detail in the lenses than what was possible to record before. So if in the past some other characteristic was a higher priority whereas today it is light weight, high resolution, and CA correction to a greater precision.
I don't know if I'm just imagining it but to my eye results from ED superteles have this characteristic vibrancy of colour whereas the FL lenses seem to produce more pastel coloured images.
It is of course possible that through improved materials the fragility (perceived or real) of the fluorite elements is no longer a pressing issue. But I think the main thing is that the higher resolution sensors motivate the development of lenses that are corrected to a greater level than was deemed useful in the past. The use of fluorite may have given Canon an edge in the past also in performance with TCs over Nikon ED lenses.
I think PF/DO is not really competing with the best conventional refractive optics but it is quite good and practical for many uses. I am surprised that Canon would entertain the idea of a 600/4 DO. In the CR page on the patent the length of the lens is given as 397.8mm whereas the current version is 447.0mm (specifications on B&H web page) so only a 11% reduction in length. Nikon also mentions that the fast long lenses would benefit less from a PF design than the 300/4 where there was a huge reduction in size and weight, so Canon's plan seems consistent with this finding. The question then is whether a very expensive lens can be sold if it is not quite as good as the best, to gain a slight reduction in size and weight.
I think because the results from very long lenses are often affected by atmospheric degradation, there is good reason to make these lenses as good as possible (since all the image degrading components are cumulative) to at least get a result that is as good as possible under the circumstances at hand. But of course the lenses could potentially be more popular if their handling and transportation is made easier.
-
I am sure the E aperture has advantages that can't be acheived through a mechanical aperture, otherwise they wouldn't be going that route. I can't see that it can be that much cheaper or easier to make, unless they intend removing the mechanism to operate the mechanical aperture from the next ranges of cameras, which I personally hope is still a long way away, although it will surely hapen eventually.
I like the new wider collar for the foot as it will make rotating the lens easier, but I am not sure about the foot itself and think it's a pity they didn't use the opportunity to make the foot's attachment platform to the collar larger. That could have made the mount so much stiffer. But overall I think they will be great lenses, and which I could swop my 500 for this one.
As for the 16-80, this is quite interesting to me. On the one hand, they seem to be trying to force us to go Df, then they do something like this?
-
I do wonder if Nikon will reduce the price of the 400 MM, the 500 mm is very impressive on paper
Grays of Westminster in London(UK), have significantly reduced their price for the new 400 f2.8e fl lens from some £10,000 to a mere £8,295 inc vat!
I spoke with one of their sales people and he confirmed this is their new price and not a one off special!
Great news for potential purchasers, not so good for those of us who bought the lens early on, though obviously the price drop was inevitable personally I think it happened rather soon!
I'm guessing that the 500mm and 600mm will also have a price drop somewhere down the line so folks should bear that in mind!
-
Aaron Baggenstos has made a nice field test of the new 600mm (in Alaska)
http://aaronbaggenstos.smugmug.com/
See also Nikon Rumors
-
Tony, I feel your pain this is the sort of thing that happens to me. :'( :'(
-
Aaron Baggenstos has made a nice field test of the new 600mm (in Alaska)
http://aaronbaggenstos.smugmug.com/
See also Nikon Rumors
I couldn't find anything here but images.
Found this though
http://nikonrumors.com/2015/08/01/nikon-af-s-nikkor-500mm-f4e-fl-ed-vr-lens-field-test.aspx/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NikonRumors+%28NikonRumors.com%29
And
http://nikonrumors.com/2015/09/04/nikon-af-s-nikkor-600mm-f4e-fl-ed-vr-lens-video-review-wildlife-photography-in-alaska.aspx/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NikonRumors+%28NikonRumors.com%29
-
FWIW there's a decent brief review of the 600 FL by Harsha Jayawardena here...https://harshajphotos.wordpress.com/2015/09/10/review-of-nikon-600-f4e-fl-ed-vr-lens/ (https://harshajphotos.wordpress.com/2015/09/10/review-of-nikon-600-f4e-fl-ed-vr-lens/).
I also have a growing number of full-resolution examples on my flickr site (select most recent taken) www.flickr.com/photos/garyirwin (http://www.flickr.com/photos/garyirwin)
The 600 FL is a very sharp lens, though I never owned the 600VR so I can't compare.
Cheers!
Gary
-
I received my new 500 several weeks ago, and it balances just fine on my Wimberley head. These are pictures with and without the TC attached with the D810, no optional grip. I worked with Wimberley about their recommended lens plate for they were recommending their P-50, which ended up to be too long, even taking into account the different weight of camera bodies and such. Wimberley had not been able to get their hands on the actual lens yet, so I sent them pictures of mine with the P-50 explaining the situation. Andrew at Wimberley then loaned me a P-40, which I use now, and works great. First image without TC, second with TC. The third image is a very cropped version of one taken with the TC attached with the D810. These images are with the P-50 plate that I showed to Wimberley.
-
That tripod looks on the smallish size for such a long lens?
-
That tripod looks on the smallish size for such a long lens?
The tripod is one of my older aluminum ones, Manfrotto 3221 Pro, but is a very good one especially when I head for the water. This whole setup, lens and camera, is under 8 lbs. In fact, because of the lower weight I have gone lighter for travel with a Feisol C-3442 carbon fiber one. Works superbly!!!
-
I received my new 500 several weeks ago, and it balances just fine on my Wimberley head.
The third image is a very cropped version of one taken with the TC attached with the D810.
Hi Nancy and welcome to NG.
It's good to start seeing some results from the field with these new lenses. I'm jealous that you have access to these woodpeckers - we have some near us that I can hear, but have only ever got fleeting glimpses of as they flew past.
Can you post some more when you get a chance and let have any other comments on new features, any notable handling & image characteristics that you notice?
-
Hi Nancy and welcome to NG.
It's good to start seeing some results from the field with these new lenses. I'm jealous that you have access to these woodpeckers - we have some near us that I can hear, but have only ever got fleeting glimpses of as they flew past.
Can you post some more when you get a chance and let have any other comments on new features, any notable handling & image characteristics that you notice?
Colin, just thought I would get back with you on the new 500. I am loving it more and more!! Here are a few images. The new "Sport" VR feature has come in handy for the very fast action of birds in flight. Both hand holding and on a tripod the lens is a pleasure and handles the new 1.4E III with ease. Both of these were taken with the TC on my D810.
-
Wow! Impressive bird and impressive shot!
-
nancy - oh my hat these are beautiful images - thanks for sharing.
-
Really nice captures!
-
Love the eagle!
I don't suppose the fish did.
-
Stunning images!
-
Thanks all for the nice comments!!! :) Here is another one from a week ago. Nikon D810 and Nikon 500 f/4E, FL, ED, VR lens, iso 1250, f/8, 1/4000, handheld.
-
Normally not that keen on bird photography, but the last one of the eagle is pretty impressive.
-
Excellent captures! Your blog sight is quite good too. With such impressive birds around I would have bought the new 500 f/4 (or 600/4) at once!
-
Stunning eagle portrait Nancy!
-
Normally not that keen on bird photography, but the last one of the eagle is pretty impressive.
Ditto :D
We don't shoot birds... ;)
-
Yup!
-
Add a new dimension to your photography, start shooting birds :) :)