Nikon D6 w super tele lens lineup - new FL lens???

[Roland Vink]

Looking at this group shot I am wondering about the lens on the far right - is this the upcoming 200mm FL version???
D6 with 120-300mm
from left to right: 80-400, 180-400, 200-400, 800, 600, 500, 400, 300, and
Logically it would be the 200mm VRII (which I own) but the lens shown exhibits the updated FL design!
Wondering???

Wally's original post was correct, except the last one is the 500/5.6PF. A 200/2 of any type will be shorter and fatter.

It seems a little odd to include the 200-400 when it is surely superseded by the 180-400, but not show the 200/2.

[Wally]

It seems a little odd to include the 200-400 when it is surely superseded by the 180-400, but not show the 200/2.

Indeed. I'd say the usual inconsistent marketing Also towards the shorter focal lengths why not showing the 300PF? It's unique and apparently selling well (> 40k units)

[MILLIREHM]

It is clear to me that Nikon is not including lenses that are not yet even announced on a marketing pic like the given. The 300 PF should have been included.

The 200/2 is a superheavy superfast lens and definitely belongs to the "big-glass" fraction but its focal length of 200 mm is not supertele maybe this was the reason for not including it (or the fact that it is listed as discontinued and there is no replacement so far)
It easiliy takes converters (better than other lenses) and then reaches supertele focal length so it should have been included here imho

[Frank Fremerey]

Frank, I don’t think so: the second from the right has a filter slot which (see the button) the 500mm hasn’t. 

true. could the second be a zoom?

[MILLIREHM]

true. could the second be a zoom?

There is just one focus ring, not a focus plus zoom ring
and it looks like the 300/2,8 VR II

[Ilkka Nissilä]

Do you think the "PF" principle will be the new standard for super-teles to make them more compact or do you make some optical compromises using this principle so the real "top-notch" prof. grade super-teles will still be made "old-school"?

PF is used for the lightest weight, moderate maximum aperture long prime lenses but not for the fastest-aperture lenses nor for zooms as for these the gains from PF would not be as great.

PF introduces some compromises in optical quality and ruggedness. There are other ways of reducing weight in wide-aperture superteles that result in less compromise.

[Ilkka Nissilä]

So these super-teles are only made in F-mount.
Is that because you can't benefit from larger mount / closer distance to sensor when designing super teles?
It may also be cost…..that there is not a market for these in Z-mount yet.

Optically there is not so much of a drawback in using the F mount for these lenses, and Nikon has better AF for action in their current F-mount cameras. However, there are advantages such as silent high fps photography that may be realized in a future mirrorless camera.

I think Nikon will introduce Z-mount supertele primes at approximately the same time with a flagship sports camera with Z mount.

[MILLIREHM]

Optically there is not so much of a drawback in using the F mount for these lenses, and Nikon has better AF for action in their current F-mount cameras. However, there are advantages such as silent high fps photography that may be realized in a future mirrorless camera.

I think Nikon will introduce Z-mount supertele primes at approximately the same time with a flagship sports camera with Z mount.

I totally agree. And I am sure ther will be at least one Z-mount lens of this type, when the (lets call it) Z9 will be released maybe even a 120-300/2,8.
Furthermore I wonder whether we see a totally new type of lens or whether it will be a parallel version (like the two 70-200/2,8) versions - either letting the SLR sports photographers in their own rights or trying to force them to switch systems if they want to use the new lens.