The Nikkor 500/4 FL VR & 600/4 FL E VR are coming. Plus 16-80/2.8-4 E

[Jan Anne]

Cool, please let us know how you like the new lens once you get it.

[Roland Vink]

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

[PedroS]

All right sir 

[Akira]

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

[Ilkka Nissilä]

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.

[Akira]

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.

[Jan Anne]

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/

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.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

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?

[Akira]

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.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

You're probably right, Akira. but something must have kept Nikon back from using FL elements in their lenses.

[Akira]

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.

[Roland Vink]

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?

[Akira]

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).

[Akira]

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.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

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.