NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: chambeshi on February 02, 2018, 13:45:46
-
Well these will be great if Nikon follow through! Especially a 400 f4 PF that delivers top IQ with TCs
https://nikonrumors.com/2018/02/01/the-latest-nikon-patents-400mm-500mm-and-600mm-f-5-6-phase-fresnel-pf-lenses.aspx/#comment-3738624401
-
Never tested a Fresnel based lens. I don’t understand how a smooth transition is achieved while the Fresnel lenshas discrete transitions embedded in the design. Moreover, a Fresnel design is about 150 years old. And it is only now (or about) they implement it into photography lenses.
-
Never tested a Fresnel based lens. I don’t understand how a smooth transition is achieved while the Fresnel, part of the lens, has discrete transitions embedded in the design. Moreover, a Fresnel design is more than a century old. And it only now (or about) they implement it into photography lenses.
Canon introduced fresnel at least a decade ago. The 300 PF is a resounding success. This is beyond glitches with its VR on certain DSLRs with lenses of SN pre 205101.
Here is an interview from 2015 with the Nikon designers [google translate works]
https://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/news/interview/688994.html (https://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/news/interview/688994.html)
-
It looks good, but I'm afraid they will be sold at top prices.
The Canon 400/4.0 DO II sells in Holland at €6799,00 and I bet a Nikon one won't be any cheaper. :(
From what I've read they're F5.6 lenses, not F4.0, so that could save a few bucks
-
if they even make them.They have tons of patents but they don't make everything.
That said some telephoto primes that aren't an arm and a leg would be nice. I don;t much like zooms due to image quality but a 500mm prime that isn't huge would be pretty nice.
-
Apparently this is the source of the info: a blog by a Japanese engineer:
http://hi-lows-note.blog.so-net.ne.jp/
See the entry on the Feb. 1st.
I wonder what "Y=21.6mm" means? If it indicates the flange back, these lenses should be for the upcoming Z-mount mirrorless Nikon.
-
I wonder what "Y=21.6mm" means? If it indicates the flange back, these lenses should be for the upcoming Z-mount mirrorless Nikon.
image height. one half of the sensor diagonal.
-
image height. one half of the sensor diagonal.
Ah, I see! Thank you!
-
About time !!! Mongo has been screaming for these lenses for years even if it did not involve the Fresnel type tenses. Now that it does .... Even better but this will make them more expensive. Let's see what the final price/package is.
-
About time !!! Mongo has been screaming for these lenses for years even if it did not involve the Fresnel type tenses. Now that it does .... Even better but this will make them more expensive. Let's see what the final price/package is.
Be interesting to see how Nikon follows up on these patents. The market monopoly in Nikon-fit teles enjoyed by Nikon since the 1970s changed with release of the 150-600 Sigma Sport, even though it is still too slow with not good enough IQ for many of us. Then the 500 f4 Sport from Sigma appeared in 2016. It is being taken very seriously. Brad Hill's exhaustive testing against the 500 f4E VR Nikkor makes an interesting read. He finally sent back the Nikkor. Their IQs are very very close. Sigma's 500 Sport is a bit heavier but benefits from focusing-tuning software. Not least, the Sigma is 58-65% the price of the Nikon.
http://www.naturalart.ca/voice/blog.html#sigma500withTC
http://www.naturalart.ca/artist/fieldtests/500mmwars_sigma_nikon.html
Canon's 400 f4 DO at 6500 quid ? Dream on, I say, even if you are in Canon.
The market in wildlife aficionados for more affordable teles is large, and it is growing. Sigma will continue to reap due dividends if Nikon are tardy in releasing any of these models, and do not keep the price(s) in tune with the 300 f4E PF - a bargain IMO for what one gets :-)
-
For those of us who enjoyed the 400 f5.6AI / AIS EDIF, these tantalizing telephotos are indeed long overdue.
But today’s DSLR landscape has changed the markets for telephotos of slower speeds. Not only do the exotic Nikkors perform very well with TCs but so does the 300 f4 PF, and the 70-200 zooms (but a bit of a stretch). I often use my 200 f2G VRII as a hefty but well balanced 400 f4 with TC2 III. I find this combo that much easier to handhold than the equally excellent 300 f2.8G with TCs. And the 200+TC2 gives the better IQ and AF performance on the D500 and D850... but I do so wish for a lighter prime of 2 kg and even lighter. The 400 f5.6AIS is a nifty 1.2kg :-)
Together, the TC factor and high-res sensors on top DSLRs focus the choices open to us, as to where one invests one’s money. The high prices, and gear weight, especially those jobs-worth terrorizing airline checkins constrain us to seek the Singular Telephoto. But it must hold the capacity for top IQ with TCs for still longer focal lengths – when needed to 700mm and 800mm. And I readily confess this need for a lighter tele prime in the guise of the 300 f4 PF has become an enduring quest. Such that I have been in email communication with Sigma, motivating for what I see as obvious gaps in inventories.... I'm reliably informed that these requests reach the Optical Design Division across the desk of their affable CEO - most pleasant feedback :-)
The time for lighter AF tele primes delivering topnotch IQ has never been better, given how a swelling market for affordable telephotos interfaces with the modern state of optical technology and the remarkably superb digital cameras. I see the Teleconverter Factor sitting in the core of this triangle....Especially, how a telephoto ranks in its TC Factor.
Here's my summary of options with these potential PF telephotos for FL extension-potential with Teleconverters:
-----------------OL (mm) ------------- TC14 ------------- TC17 ------------------- TC20
300 f4 PF --------148 ------------ 420 f5.6 ------------ 510 f6.7 -------------- 600 f8
400 f3.3 PF ------220----------- 560 f4.8 ------------ 680 f5.6 ------------- 800 f6.7
400 f4 PF ---------220----------- 560 f5.6 ----------- 680 f6.7 -------------- 800 f8
500 f4 PF ----------280---------- 700 f5.6 ------------ 850 f6.7 ------------- 1000 f8
500 f5.6 PF -------280---------- 700 f6.7 ------------- 850 f8 ---------------- N/O
600 f5.6 PF --------320-------- 840 f8 ---------------- N/O -------------------- N/O
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The “DX Performance Envelope” with tighter FoV is another big factor at play, and so too is the “croppability” of images we enjoy out of a D8*0 and especially the D850. IMO the credible IQ with TC14 and DX Performance Envelope underwrite the success of the 300 f4 PF – again especially with wildlife.
Where TC capacity is a key factor for wildlife / action, the sad fact is – really guts me to say this – but the 400 f5.6 is dead-on-arrival. A 400 f5.6 PF is the Perfect Compact tele prime for landscapes etc - but too restricted in its modes of use as the Singular Telephoto for BIF and similar subjects. IMHO, this factor also weakens the potential of the excellent 200-500 f5.6 (primarily Nikon’s response to Sigma zooms, so strategically priced in response to this competition). So here I have no option but put my hard earned lucre in a 500 f4 - the Sigma f4 Sport to be precise, saving 3500 quid for other glass.
The only one of these f5.6 telephotos that qualifies as the Singular investment for wildlife is a 600mm – especially if its PF design keeps it light in weight, and wow!! what a prime in one's hands with a length of ~320mm ;D ;D
-
In summary, the manufacturers who ignore this reality of the TC factor constraining the market for Telephoto primes do so at their peril. Certain telephotos fall too short in their TC Factor. The writing on the proverbial wall is bright and undeniable. A 400 or 500 at 5.6 is too restricting in its max aperture. But demands are for a lens to weigh even less, and competition will tighten the pricing window…
- Today's extra-low dispersion, Phase-Fresnel and fluorite elements with lightweight alloys and composite polymers make it feasible to design and manufacture not only a lighter 400mm f4 PF FL – but a 400 f3.3 PF. By reliable accounts, the OPTIA simulation equipment that empowered Nikon to optimize their 58 f1.4G, 85 f1.4G and 105 f105E primes hugely cuts costs and time in R&D. The other top optical designers are likely to have similar digital support to advance a new lens a long way, before they commit to prototypes, testing and troubleshooting production etc.
- To conclude, with the optimal capacity for extension with TCs, I see a 400 f3.3 PF (max dia = 122mm) as a most versatile prime [see Table of its TC-Factor above]. Even without Fresnel technology - but using FL elements - a 400 f3.3 should weigh not much over 2 kg. So it is interesting to consider the mass of a 400 f3.3 PF ? A 500 f4 PF (max dia = 125mm) is the other option but Nikon probably will not go here to try and keep high prices on their exotic teles. The trend could see more wildlife and sport photographers heading into the arms of Sigma, who are more than likely to get out a 400 f4 Sport – even better a 400 f3.3 Sport !
Fyi with respect to OPTIA, interviews with Nikon’s designers – notably Haruo Sato wrt the 105 f1.4E [google translate works]
http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/news/interview/1017554.html (http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/news/interview/1017554.html)
http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/news/interview/1018916.html
(http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/news/interview/1018916.html)
EDIT - see translation of key points kindly posted by Akira in October 2016
http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,4593.msg72196.html#msg72196
This earlier interview on the 58 f1.4G also gives interesting insights into the D versus G models of the 85 f1.4 primes
https://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/news/interview/621449.html (https://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/news/interview/621449.html)
-
Fyi with respect to OPTIA, interviews with Nikon’s designers – notably Haruo Sato wrt the 105 f1.4E [google translate works]
http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/news/interview/1017554.html (http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/news/interview/1017554.html)
http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/news/interview/1018916.html
(http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/news/interview/1018916.html)
FWIW, I posted a summary of the very interviews shortly after they were posted.
http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,4593.msg72196.html#msg72196
-
FWIW, I posted a summary of the very interviews shortly after they were posted.
http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,4593.msg72196.html#msg72196
Thank you for the reminder, in Edit i added to the post above :-) That is how I found that site months back, and also the 2015 interview about the 300 f4E PF (link also in earlier post in this thread)
-
Well these will be great if Nikon follow through! Especially a 400 f4 PF that delivers top IQ with TCs
https://nikonrumors.com/2018/02/01/the-latest-nikon-patents-400mm-500mm-and-600mm-f-5-6-phase-fresnel-pf-lenses.aspx/#comment-3738624401
The 600PF is interesting for me to supplement the 300PF which is phantastic!
-
OPTIA is a measurement device, not a simulator.
It is good to remember none of these f/5.6 PF lenses are products and if Nikon do make such products, they may or may not be like what is described in the patents.
Personally I don’t like to use TCs; although sometimes I get excited after testing them, over time I’ve never really liked images shot with TCs. The crispness of detail is lost, AF performance becomes more erratic, there is like a slight veil over the image. I am much happier not using them. For a while I shot deer with the D5, 300 PF and TC-14E III, and felt that sharpness was almost but not quite there, and in waning light the AF focused a bit here and there. Then I started to shoot more without TC and it was quite a ”Wow! Where did all this crisp fur detail come from?” experience. And I was using a D5 not even a high resolution body. With the 2X the 300 PF couldn’t focus at all in typical light I would have for these subjects (deer, moose), unless put on tripod and LV focused.
So I feel definitely there is value in a 400/5.6 for someone who doesn’t like the results from TCs. Someone who has a 300/4 might not buy a 400/5,6 but a 500/5,6, and another person might prefer the 70-200 & 400/5,6 for a more clear difference between lenses. Using a modern digital camera one can easily crop those in-between distances/framings and spacing lenses with some gap in between means one can get a variety of shot types without too much overall bag weight and easy hiking. I sometimes pair the 105 and 300 for similar reasons.
It is nice to see Nikon finally consider offering a range of apertures also for prime lenses with AF-S like they did in the manual focus era. Perhaps they have reduced spending on more 18-xxx DX lenses and are able to use more of their resources on specialized high end products.
I think of these, the 500/5,6 would be of the most interest to me. This is because it would have a nice gap from my existing lenses and sufficiently different. A second hand 500/4 is also a competing option.
-
Personally I don’t like to use TCs; although sometimes I get excited after testing them, over time I’ve never really liked images shot with TCs. The crispness of detail is lost, AF performance becomes more erratic, there is like a slight veil over the image. I am much happier not using them. For a while I shot deer with the D5, 300 PF and TC-14E III, and felt that sharpness was almost but not quite there, and in waning light the AF focused a bit here and there. Then I started to shoot more without TC and it was quite a ”Wow! Where did all this crisp fur detail come from?” experience. And I was using a D5 not even a high resolution body. With the 2X the 300 PF couldn’t focus at all in typical light I would have for these subjects (deer, moose), unless put on tripod and LV focused.
The 2x TC III came out right when the 300 f/2.8 VR II came out; it was designed for f/2.8 lenses or wider (200mm f/2 VR II, 300 f/2.8 VR II, and 400 f/2.8 FL ED), not for other lenses.
Therefore, using the 2x extender on the 300 f/4 PF is misuse of the 2x TC III. (Sure, you can try, but the lesser 300mm is not the lens the 2x TC III was designed to complement.)
- "While this teleconverter works with any professional Nikon lens that can take teleconverters, it is specifically designed to work with fast prime lenses with an aperture of f/2.8 and larger."
~ Taken from Photography Life (https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-tc-20e-iii)
That said, I have seen many, many people post superb images with the 300 f/4 PF + 1.4 TC III
(With the proper 1.4x TC III, the 300 f/4 PF becomes a ~420mm f/5.6 equivalent on FF ... or ~630mm f/5.6 equivalent on DX).
On the other hand, the 2x TC III turns my D500 + 300 f/2.8 VR II into an equivalent 900mm f/5.6 ... that is easily as sharp or sharper @ 900mm with the 2x TC III as the 300 f/4 is @ 630mm with the 1.4 TC III 8)
Regarding the subject of image quality, it is pretty much common knowledge that TCs produce some image degradation.
However, the key thing to realize is you're hoping for "acceptable" sharpness, in exchange for the added reach, rather than "absolute" sharpness.
So, yes, if you want "absolute" sharpness, then don't use TCs.
However, if you want to dramatically-increase your lens reach, then 1) follow the instructions and use the right TC for the right lens, and 2) don't expect "absolute" sharpness.
Instead, be grateful you are able to get "acceptable" sharpness + far better reach that you could not have gotten otherwise with your bare lens.
Here are some bird images I obtained with the 300mm f/2.8 VR II + 2x TC III at an equivalent 900mm on the D500.
They may not be the sharpest images in the world, but they are definitely "acceptably" sharp:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4254/35418585760_911f8e4415_h.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/VXPvzJ)
Black-Headed Grosbeak ♂ (https://flic.kr/p/VXPvzJ) by John A. Koerner II (https://www.flickr.com/photos/naturescapes007/), on Flickr
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4702/24986759397_b2dd957812_h.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/E4ZF3v)
Red-Whiskered Bulbul (https://flic.kr/p/E4ZF3v) by John A. Koerner II (https://www.flickr.com/photos/naturescapes007/), on Flickr
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4758/39968501531_6948d73674_h.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/23TT22n)
Northern Mockingbird (https://flic.kr/p/23TT22n) by John A. Koerner II (https://www.flickr.com/photos/naturescapes007/), on Flickr
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4459/36725441114_cec826d3c2_h.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/XXiu9A)
Mourning Doves (https://flic.kr/p/XXiu9A) by John A. Koerner II (https://www.flickr.com/photos/naturescapes007/), on Flickr
Had I not had the 2x TC III, and tried to crop-in to the same compositions, they would not have turned out as well.
As a nature hiker, I would much rather have 300 VR II + 2x TC III, where I can keep the lens mounted on my gimbal head (and switch between TC, or no TC, to halve or double my reach) than I would to carry a bare 300mm lens, and a bare 600 mm lens, respectively, and try to alternate between these to halve or double my reach :o
The only better option for maximal range/minimal gear would be the recently-introduced 180-400mm f/4 FL ED + 1.4x TC (equivalent 270-840 on DX).
Jack
-
But today’s DSLR landscape has changed the markets for telephotos of slower speeds. Not only do the exotic Nikkors perform very well with TCs but so does the 300 f4 PF, and the 70-200 zooms (but a bit of a stretch). I often use my 200 f2G VRII as a hefty but well balanced 400 f4 with TC2 III. I find this combo that much easier to handhold than the equally excellent 300 f2.8G with TCs. And the 200+TC2 gives the better IQ and AF performance on the D500 and D850... but I do so wish for a lighter prime of 2 kg and even lighter. The 400 f5.6AIS is a nifty 1.2kg :-)
I agree with this. Compatibility with a TC should not be overlooked in the construction of a super-tele lens.
I would love to see a 400mm f/4E PF, which would be an equivalent 840mm lens with a 1.4x TC + D500, but weigh about half what my 300mm f/2.8 weighs.
A 600 f/5.6E PF would translate to a 1260mm f/8 with the same TC + DX combo.
Really heavy, fast super-telephotos are for shooting from blinds, boats, or vehicles ... they're not much fun to hike with.
I think the 300 f/4E PF is a great little lens, and I am continually-tempted to trade my 300mm f/2.8 II for it, just to enjoy the weight loss. With the 1.4 TC III the image quality is equivalent to the 300mm VR II with the 2x TC III. What I don't want to do, however, is give up the 270mm reach advantage my combo has. With the TCs off, the 300mm VR II is a hands-down better lens than the 300 f/4 PF, but again the weight is a hassle on very long hikes.
I could certainly live with the image quality of the PF lens ...
Especially while enjoying every hiking moment a lot better with a 1.7 lb (.755 kg) lens in the 300 f/4 PF ... as opposed to trudging through each hike with the 6.39 lb (2.90 kg) lens in the 300mm f/2.8 VR II :o
-
I agree with this. Compatibility with a TC should not be overlooked in the construction of a super-tele lens.
I would love to see a 400mm f/4E PF, which would be an equivalent 840mm lens with a 1.4x TC + D500, but weigh about half what my 300mm f/2.8 weighs.
A 600 f/5.6E PF would translate to a 1260mm f/8 with the same TC + DX combo.
Really heavy, fast super-telephotos are for shooting from blinds, boats, or vehicles ... they're not much fun to hike with.
I think the 300 f/4E PF is a great little lens, and I am continually-tempted to trade my 300mm f/2.8 II for it, just to enjoy the weight loss. With the 1.4 TC III the image quality is equivalent to the 300mm VR II with the 2x TC III. What I don't want to do, however, is give up the 270mm reach advantage my combo has. With the TCs off, the 300mm VR II is a hands-down better lens than the 300 f/4 PF, but again the weight is a hassle on very long hikes.
I could certainly live with the image quality of the PF lens ...
Especially while enjoying every hiking moment a lot better with a 1.7 lb (.755 kg) lens in the 300 f/4 PF ... as opposed to trudging through each hike with the 6.39 lb (2.90 kg) lens in the 300mm f/2.8 VR II :o
I am skeptical that a 400/4 PF lens would be that light. The current Canon 400/4 DO (i.e. PF) and 300/2.8 lenses are respectively, 2.1 and 2.35 kg. Maybe you have a custom made steel-shelled 4+ kg 300/2.8 II? The 300/2.8 VRII is <3kg. Keep in mind that the patent is for a 400/5.6 lens. That would indeed be much lighter than a 300/2.8. Since the current 300 PF lens plus 1.4 TC is a 420/5.6 lens that would be a better guesstimate for size. The other two are 5.6 lenses as well so the lens elements will have to be larger, especially the 600. The 600/5.6 will be more like a 300/2.8 in diameter.
PS. Very nice bird shots esp the one with the two doves!!
-
From the users perspective, there can't be enough options. But Nikons production capacities are limited. Will there be enough revenue for Nikon in a difficult economic situation and increasing pressure by competitors. There are good and rather compact and lightweight Zoom lenses 80-400 and 200-500 out there. So will there be enough space between those and the FL series lenses for a successful product placement? I don't know.
The PF primes may have more TC-usability but Personally I am findng myself with decreasing use of TCs although I still carry them around.
BTW.: I'd like to have a 400/3,5 successor with AF that is as compact and lightweight as the old AI-S lens
-
Maybe you have a custom made steel-shelled 4+ kg 300/2.8 II? The 300/2.8 VRII is <3kg. Keep in mind that the patent is for a 400/5.6 lens. That would indeed be much lighter than a 300/2.8. Since the current 300 PF lens plus 1.4 TC is a 420/5.6 lens that would be a better guesstimate for size. The other two are 5.6 lenses as well so the lens elements will have to be larger, especially the 600. The 600/5.6 will be more like a 300/2.8 in diameter.
The 300 f/2.8 VR II is 6.39 lb (2.9 kg).
The 300 f/4 is 1.7 lb (.755 kg), or less than 25% of the weight.
However, with the 2x TC III, the 300 f/2.8 VR II is able to deliver equal or better quality @ ~ 900mm to what the 300 f/4 can deliver with the 1.4 TC III @ 630mm.
The question thus becomes, "What is more important? A 4.7 lb (2.15 kg) weight reduction? Or a 270mm reach advantage?"
There is no right answer; each has powerful pros/cons.
PS. Very nice bird shots esp the one with the two doves!!
Thanks :)
-
The 300 f/2.8 VR II is 6.39 lb (2.9 kg).
The 300 f/4 is 1.7 lb (.755 kg), or less than 25% of the weight.
However, with the 2x TC III, the 300 f/2.8 VR II is able to deliver equal or better quality @ ~ 900mm to what the 300 f/4 can deliver with the 1.4 TC III @ 630mm.
The question thus becomes, "What is more important? A 4.7 lb (2.15 kg) weight reduction? Or a 270mm reach advantage?"
Thanks :)
Last I checked:
300 x 2 = 600
300 x 1.4 = 420
600 - 420 = 180
Looks like the 600mm PF has already colonized your imagination.
-
Last I checked:
300 x 2 = 600
300 x 1.4 = 420
600 - 420 = 180
Looks like the 600mm PF has already colonized your imagination.
Reading thoroughly is so important ...
600 x 1.5 (DX) = 900
420 x 1.5 (DX) = 630
900 - 630 = 270
I was calculating the 1.5 crop factor of the D500.
-
Reading thoroughly is so important ...
600 x 1.5 (DX) = 900
420 x 1.5 (DX) = 630
900 - 630 = 270
I was calculating the 1.5 crop factor of the D500.
Sorry, I didn’t see anything in the post mentioning d500 crop factors.
Also, I don’t believe in crop factors. Focal length is focal length. I started out with medium format, then played with 4x5, so 1.5 crop factor has little meaning.
-
From the users perspective, there can't be enough options. But Nikons production capacities are limited.
I don't know what the correct figures are but if Nikon's sales has been reduced by 1/2 of what they were in the peak years, they should a lot of presently unused production capability available if there are interested buyers for the products that they can make. Since Nikon is not making as many consumer products now they can perhaps offer a greater range of high end offerings. I recall in 2005 (?) they stopped the manufacture of many lower volume lenses and my reading of the explanation for doing so was to make production capacity available for the great number of 18-200mm lenses that customers wanted to buy. That situation seems to have passed.
There are good and rather compact and lightweight Zoom lenses 80-400 and 200-500 out there.
What is good and compact is debatable. I sold both zooms quickly; each had some issues. The 300 PF on the other hand I keep and it is among my most used lenses.
I wouldn't have high hopes for TC-ability of f/5.6 teles, PF or not; Nikon AF at f/8 s something that may work in some circumstances, but not all that well in dimmer light or for low contrast subjects. The 300/2.8 is especially good with TCs, but it is a special lens (one which Nikon is aware is often used with TCs so they design both that lens and their TCs accordingly).
I see the value of the f/5.6 PF teles in comfortable hand-holdability without inducing significant fatigue even over longer periods of use, which might be true of the 80-400 but not so much of the 200-500. Of course people have different requirements for hand-holdability, and physical build, but I would set the requirement at comfortable hand-held continuous use for 2-3 hours. If my arms are not shaking after that and if there is no pain anywhere, then I would consider the lens hand-holdable. Of course the 300 PF passes with flying colors.
f/2.8 and f/4 FL teles have 1-2 stops larger aperture than these proposed f/5.6 PFs and as refractive optics they should have better bokeh and likely focus faster than any f/5.6 lens. They however require much greater expenditure and plenty of people can not afford them, and might not even want them because of the size and weight.
Anyway, each of us have our own requirements, it is nice to see a potential broadening of offerings from Nikon.
-
Sorry, I didn’t see anything in the post mentioning d500 crop factors.
It was there. Again, it's not that you didn't see, it's that you didn't read.
Also, I don’t believe in crop factors. Focal length is focal length. I started out with medium format, then played with 4x5, so 1.5 crop factor has little meaning.
Focal length is focal length, but framing is framing.
Choosing only to believe in one side of the equation (focal length) is your prerogative, but choosing not to acknowledge the other side of the equation (the effect of crop factors), is a failure of sorts because this definitely affects the outcome. (I am surprised this doesn't have more meaning to you, with your past experience.)
Similarly, choosing not to read before you comment is your prerogative as well, but it does tend to throw a wrench into things.
Back to the point: a 300mm lens on a D5 might not be quite enough reach ... while the same lens on a D500 might create perfect framing ... and yet a 300mm lens might be overkill on a Micro 4/3rd.
Same focal length, different crop factors, different results.
What is there "not to believe" ?
-
It was there. Again, it's not that you didn't see, it's that you didn't read.
Focal length is focal length, but framing is framing.
Choosing only to believe in one side of the equation (focal length) is your prerogative, but choosing not to acknowledge the other side of the equation (the effect of crop factors), is a failure of sorts because this definitely affects the outcome. (I am surprised this doesn't have more meaning to you, with your past experience.)
Similarly, choosing not to read before you comment is your prerogative as well, but it does tend to throw a wrench into things.
Back to the point: a 300mm lens on a D5 might not be quite enough reach ... while the same lens on a D500 might create perfect framing ... and yet a 300mm lens might be overkill on a Micro 4/3rd.
Same focal length, different crop factors, different results.
What is there "not to believe" ?
Don’t want to argue with you. You have your opinion and I have my facts :-)
I do believe when a number is expressed in a common unit which is intrinsic to the object being described, that it doesn’t get converted. A shoe does not become a larger size just because it is placed on a smaller foot. That is the whole purpose of standard units.
You can choose to use whatever means of communication you like, but it is more likely to be mis-understood than sticking to standards.
Please take my posts - all of them - as friendly. I’m not here to argue. I’m sure we both have better things to do.
-
I don't know what the correct figures are but if Nikon's sales has been reduced by 1/2 of what they were in the peak years, they should a lot of presently unused production capability available if there are interested buyers for the products that they can make. Since Nikon is not making as many consumer products now they can perhaps offer a greater range of high end offerings. I recall in 2005 (?) they stopped the manufacture of many lower volume lenses and my reading of the explanation for doing so was to make production capacity available for the great number of 18-200mm lenses that customers wanted to buy. That situation seems to have passed.
If Nikon can afford it they can produce it - but its risky as there is high uncertainty whether there will be enough mid to high-end buyers for a complete PF series
-
Don’t want to argue with you. You have your opinion and I have my facts :-)
I do believe when a number is expressed in a common unit which is intrinsic to the object being described, that it doesn’t get converted.
Ahh, so your beliefs are facts, mine "opinion," that's very convenient ;)
A shoe does not become a larger size just because it is placed on a smaller foot. That is the whole purpose of standard units.
That is an invalid comparison.
I understand what you're saying, focal lengths are focal lengths, but the other "fact" is how sensor size will affect the framing of your composition.
This is every bit as inexorable a "fact" as the focal length.
You can choose to use whatever means of communication you like, but it is more likely to be mis-understood than sticking to standards.
Actually, I think the rest of the world understands my meaning just fine ... as do you.
In fact (since you appreciate facts), the DX conversion is directly advertised in the new Nikkor 180-400mm advertising by both BH Photo and by Nikon itself:
- "Built-in 1.4x teleconverter allows you to instantly extend your reach to 252-560mm (or 378-840mm equivalent with DX cameras) simply by flipping the right-hand switch."
~ B&H Photo (https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1383763-REG/nikon_180_400mm_f_4e_tc_1_4.html)
- "Capture sports, events and wildlife in lifelike brilliance from 180-400mm, then, without breaking shooting posture, engage the integrated teleconverter and increase your reach to 560mm f/5.6 (840mm equivalent on a DX body)."
~ Nikon USA (https://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/camera-lenses/af-s-nikkor-180-400mm-f%252f4e-tc1.4-fl-ed-vr.html)
Is there anything left to debate? :)
Please take my posts - all of them - as friendly. I’m not here to argue. I’m sure we both have better things to do.
Sure, let's keep it friendly (we don't have to "argue," we can debate :) )
Let me end our friendly debate by saying, the manufacturer itself acknowledges the changes in "equivalent focal lengths" of its own lenses, based on the FX and DX bodies it too manufactures, so I think my point has been made.
Have a good one,
Jack
-
Ahh, so your beliefs are facts, mine "opinion," that's very convenient ;)
That is an invalid comparison.
I understand what you're saying, focal lengths are focal lengths, but the other "fact" is how sensor size will affect the framing of your composition.
This is every bit as inexorable a "fact" as the focal length.
Actually, I think the rest of the world understands my meaning just fine ... as do you.
In fact (since you appreciate facts), the DX conversion is directly advertised in the new Nikkor 180-400mm advertising by both BH Photo and by Nikon itself:
- "Built-in 1.4x teleconverter allows you to instantly extend your reach to 252-560mm (or 378-840mm equivalent with DX cameras) simply by flipping the right-hand switch."
~ B&H Photo (https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1383763-REG/nikon_180_400mm_f_4e_tc_1_4.html)
- "Capture sports, events and wildlife in lifelike brilliance from 180-400mm, then, without breaking shooting posture, engage the integrated teleconverter and increase your reach to 560mm f/5.6 (840mm equivalent on a DX body)."
~ Nikon USA (https://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/camera-lenses/af-s-nikkor-180-400mm-f%252f4e-tc1.4-fl-ed-vr.html)
Is there anything left to debate? :)
Sure, let's keep it friendly (we don't have to "argue," we can debate :) )
Let me end our friendly debate by saying, the manufacturer itself acknowledges the changes in "equivalent focal lengths" of its own lenses, based on the FX and DX bodies it too manufactures, so I think my point has been made.
Have a good one,
Jack
Wow!
-
What is good and compact is debatable. I sold both zooms quickly; each had some issues. The 300 PF on the other hand I keep and it is among my most used lenses.
I see the value of the f/5.6 PF teles in comfortable hand-holdability without inducing significant fatigue even over longer periods of use, which might be true of the 80-400 but not so much of the 200-500. Of course people have different requirements for hand-holdability, and physical build, but I would set the requirement at comfortable hand-held continuous use for 2-3 hours. If my arms are not shaking after that and if there is no pain anywhere, then I would consider the lens hand-holdable. Of course the 300 PF passes with flying colors.
Anyway, each of us have our own requirements, it is nice to see a potential broadening of offerings from Nikon.
I agree to the broadening
The other thing of course is debatable
For me the 80-400 and 200-500 bare my long range hiking and travel lenses - the fast superteles are not suitable for that kind of agility. The 200-500 is not really compact and lightweight (it is compared to the 200-400) but gives me a little more range, the 80-400 fits in my shoulder bag. Both have good handheld operation - sustainable. The 300 PF would be too short to replace them - it would find its use though - its on my list but had to wait so far.
I have the 70-300VR surely not as good and fast as the PF - both are more compact and lightweight than the two mentioned above. The70-300 is
not bad but proved to be too short and needs to be stopped down to F/11 to give me good results.
-
I agree to the broadening
The other thing of course is debatable
For me the 80-400 and 200-500 bare my long range hiking and travel lenses - the fast superteles are not suitable for that kind of agility. The 200-500 is not really compact and lightweight (it is compared to the 200-400) but gives me a little more range, the 80-400 fits in my shoulder bag. Both have good handheld operation - sustainable. The 300 PF would be too short to replace them - it would find its use though - its on my list but had to wait so far.
I have the 70-300VR surely not as good and fast as the PF - both are more compact and lightweight than the two mentioned above. The70-300 is
not bad but proved to be too short and needs to be stopped down to F/11 to give me good results.
I agree. The new AFP 70-300 for FX is a dinky zoom at g. It's getting favourable reviews but it's a f5.6 at its longest FL. I seek a f4 - hence the 300 PF. My niche tends to the more mobile nature genre, and in tropical climes. I hold fond memories of my manual focus Nikkor 400 f5.6AIS EDIF on a FM2 or F3
Luggability is one big factor and it's more and more of a consideration for many transporting telephotos plus all the other gear to a site. Air travel is the burgeoning problem. Based on my reading of forums and blogs, there seems to consensus is the curve of luggability (including air travel) hits the asymptote at about 3kg. And many of us also find that a balanced outfit of DSLR + telephoto cannot go much above 4kg (with camera) to handhold realistically.
Along with Pros, there seem to be the swelling ranks of wildlife enthusiasts - especially travelling - seek the telephoto lens weighing well under 2kg, and even lighter and shorter but with the same reach. One only has to devote some minutes to photographing birds in flight - free hand - to appreciate the practical meaning of the ergonomic factor eg a 300 f2.8 weighing 2.9kg on a D850 versus the same camera with the dinky 300 f4E PF!
And I remembered this post that speaks loud and clear :-) Attached the illuminating graph!
http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,2990.105.html
Moving from time series to focal length series: i.e. 4x 300mm lenses
from left to right: f5.6, f4, f2.8, f2
(750gr, 1450gr, 3100gr, 7100gr)
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pbase.com%2Fandrease%2Fimage%2F140808657%2Foriginal.jpg&hash=5acd9f0915d164528c368cdeb50eee60360c5f8b)
rgds, Andy
Please find below the "lugging factor" the speedier lenses have built-in, impacting the fun-factor pre-picture taking :)