new PF Nikkor telephotos? patent for 400, 500 & 600

[MILLIREHM]

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.

[chambeshi]

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)


rgds, Andy

Please find below the "lugging factor" the speedier lenses have built-in, impacting the fun-factor pre-picture taking