Ai and K Nikkors 400mm f5.6 ED "non-IF"

[David H. Hartman]

...on the TC, I would also think about using a smaller format camera to extend the "equivalent focal length", given today's performance of it.

A benefit of using a smaller format such as a D500 is the viewfinder. The D500 offers a finder magnification of 1.0x with a 50mm focused to infinity. This will help with manual focus v. a D850 with a viewfinder magnification of 0.75x. I don't know about mirrorless viewfinders. I live in the land of "The Dirt People" and there are no real camera stores near by so I've never touched a Nikon Z6 ~ Z7 II.

Just a guess but I think the D500 w/o a Teleconverter would beat a D850 with a TC. I have a TC-14B somewhere if I can find it. If I do I'll give it a spin.

Dave

[Akira]

A benefit of using a smaller format such as a D500 is the viewfinder. The D500 offers a finder magnification of 1.0x with a 50mm focused to infinity. This will help with manual focus v. a D850 with a viewfinder magnification of 0.75x. I don't know about mirrorless viewfinders. I live in the land of "The Dirt People" and there are no real camera stores near by so I've never touched a Nikon Z6 ~ Z7 II.

Just a guess but I think the D500 w/o a Teleconverter would beat a D850 with a TC. I have a TC-14B somewhere if I can find it. If I do I'll give it a spin.

Dave

Dave, the magnifying function of EVF of mirrorless cameras (and of LCD screens of any digital cameras) are far more helpful to nailing the focus.

[David H. Hartman]

Dave, the magnifying function of EVF of mirrorless cameras (and of LCD screens of any digital cameras) are far more helpful to nailing the focus.

I'm concerned with the magnification of the complete frame not zooming in to a portion of the frame. You can't for example follow a bird in flight while zoomed in to 100% or even 50%, not in any practical sense. If the subject is static, say a bird sleeping on a branch you can zoom in focus and zoom out but not one in flight.

The Z50, a DX format, has a viewfinder magnification of 1.02x with a 50mm lens focused to infinity while the Z6 II, an FX format, has a viewfinder magnification with a 50mm lens focused to infinity of 0.80x. From this the advantage of the DX over cropping the FX might be the same as an optical viewfinder but if shooting with say a Z7 II is the frame shown with a grayed frame like a D850 might show or does the finder zoom in to show the full DX format. If the latter then a Z7 II in DX crop should be roughly on par with a Z50. As I say, I've never touched a mirroless Nikon. I'm sure a Z7 or Z7 II owner can tell me.

Dave

Now I find zooming to 100% with a D800, hand held almost, not quite useless. I did this with a 20/2.8 AIS in low light. I focused in live view then returned to the optical viewfinder to frame. I did my best to keep the lens to subject distance static. A tripod is surly the way to go if, and that's important, if a tripod is permitted. I think I stopped down to f/8 for DoF which helped.

I've messed around with focus peeking and found it quite useless for focusing a 50/1.2 AIS even stopped down to f/2.0~2.8.

Again I have no experience but I read or view that mirrorless viewfinders still have a lag that make them somewhat unsuitable for sports and wild life. 

I've got to find out why this computer corrects my spelling on the fly using the correctly spelled, damned wrong word! 

[Akira]

I'm concerned with the magnification of the complete frame not zooming in to a portion of the frame. You can't for example follow a bird in flight while zoomed in to 100% or even 50%, not in any practical sense. If the subject is static, say a bird sleeping on a branch you can zoom in focus and zoom out but not one in flight.

The Z50, a DX format, has a viewfinder magnification of 1.02x with a 50mm lens focused to infinity while the Z6 II, an FX format, has a viewfinder magnification with a 50mm lens focused to infinity of 0.80x. From this the advantage of the DX over cropping the FX might be the same as an optical viewfinder but if shooting with say a Z7 II is the frame shown with a grayed frame like a D850 might show or does the finder zoom in to show the full DX format. If the latter then a Z7 II in DX crop should be roughly on par with a Z50. As I say, I've never touched a mirroless Nikon. I'm sure a Z7 or Z7 II owner can tell me.

Dave

Now I find zooming to 100% with a D800, hand held almost, not quite useless. I did this with a 20/2.8 AIS in low light. I focused in live view then returned to the optical viewfinder to frame. I did my best to keep the lens to subject distance static. A tripod is surly the way to go if, and that's important, if a tripod is permitted. I think I stopped down to f/8 for DoF which helped.

I've messed around with focus peeking and found it quite useless for focusing a 50/1.2 AIS even stopped down to f/2.0~2.8.

Again I have no experience but I read or view that mirrorless viewfinders still have a lag that make them somewhat unsuitable for sports and wild life. 

I've got to find out why this computer corrects my spelling on the fly using the correctly spelled, damned wrong word! 

The difference between 1.0x and 0.7x doesn't make up for the lack of focusing accuracy.  This non-IF 400/5.6 would be the last choice for fast moving objects like BIF!

[David H. Hartman]

The higher the viewfinder magnification the easier it is to see when focus is achieved. I preferred the F3 over the F3HP as the F3 has a 0.8x viewfinder v. the F3HP's 0.75x. The FE2 and FM2n were even better with a 0.86x finder. I'm not checking now but the The D2H has a 1.0x with an DK-17M eyepiece. [I double checked]

If your telephoto lenses are a 300/4.5 ED-IF and a 400/5.6 ED you use what you have. Maybe I should have bought a 400/5.6 ED-IF for the ease of one finger focusing back when I could afford to buy one.

[Akira]

Even though I wear glasses, I also preferred the eye-level finder of F3 to the HP one for its higher magnification.  That 0.8x vs. 0.75x difference did make sense before the presbypya kicked in.   

My current camera offers magnification of the LCD screen image by 8.0x, which is beyond comparison with the OVF images.

[Jack Dahlgren]

I'm concerned with the magnification of the complete frame not zooming in to a portion of the frame. You can't for example follow a bird in flight while zoomed in to 100% or even 50%, not in any practical sense. If the subject is static, say a bird sleeping on a branch you can zoom in focus and zoom out but not one in flight.

The Z50, a DX format, has a viewfinder magnification of 1.02x with a 50mm lens focused to infinity while the Z6 II, an FX format, has a viewfinder magnification with a 50mm lens focused to infinity of 0.80x. From this the advantage of the DX over cropping the FX might be the same as an optical viewfinder but if shooting with say a Z7 II is the frame shown with a grayed frame like a D850 might show or does the finder zoom in to show the full DX format. If the latter then a Z7 II in DX crop should be roughly on par with a Z50. As I say, I've never touched a mirroless Nikon. I'm sure a Z7 or Z7 II owner can tell me.

Dave

Now I find zooming to 100% with a D800, hand held almost, not quite useless. I did this with a 20/2.8 AIS in low light. I focused in live view then returned to the optical viewfinder to frame. I did my best to keep the lens to subject distance static. A tripod is surly the way to go if, and that's important, if a tripod is permitted. I think I stopped down to f/8 for DoF which helped.

I've messed around with focus peeking and found it quite useless for focusing a 50/1.2 AIS even stopped down to f/2.0~2.8.

Again I have no experience but I read or view that mirrorless viewfinders still have a lag that make them somewhat unsuitable for sports and wild life. 

I’ve used the EVF on the Z6 to shoot rowing competitions. The boats move pretty fact, but in a predictable direction (they are very slow to turn). With the 400mm hitting the F1 key to zoom and confirm focus is quite doable. Focus peaking is unusable as there are so many areas of high contrast that faces are never highlighted. I have to say that AF is less tiring and mentally taxing. Just because something is possible doesn’t mean it is easy.

[Roland Vink]

Is that the same glass used in the Nikkor-H 300/2.8 developed for the Olympic games in Saporo?  The special glass was made by Schott and not developed or made by Nikon, which is the reason for Nikon not to mention the use of it.

The original Nikkor-H was released in Jan 1972 for the Sapporo Winter Olympics, using Schott ED glass (see https://imaging.nikon.com/history/story/0011/index.htm). Serial numbers started at 603011 with 72 units made. In late 1975 Nikon produced another batch with multi-coating applied and using Nikon's ED glass. Serial numbers start at 604011 with 78 units made.

The Nikkor-P.C 400/5.6 was released mid-way during this period, in Jan 1973, so it is interesting to guess whether Schott glass was used or if Nikon had already developed their ED glass. I have an old Nikon dealer catalogue which already mentions a "Nikkor-P" (no .C) 400/5.6 in 1971. It looks exactly like the Nikkor-P.C 400/5.6 and uses special glass to eliminate chromatic aberrations (I'll have to dig up that catalogue and double-check, I'm not sure why I haven't put that date on my site...).

Why the big delay between its announcement in 1971 and the release date in early 1973? The original lens must have used Schott ED glass since it is even earlier than the Nikkor-H 300/2.8, and we know Nikon did not have ED glass at that time. I think production was delayed until Nikon had developed their own ED glass. In the mean time Nikon had also developed multicoating so the prototype Nikkor-P 400/5.6 using Schott glass finally appeared as a Nikkor-P.C using Nikon ED glass. The only reason it is not marked with "ED" or have a gold band is that the marketing department hadn't thought about it yet. The same lens then continued more or less unchanged to the K and AI versions but with an updated outer appearance - including the *ED marking and gold band.

[Jack Dahlgren]

The original Nikkor-H was released in Jan 1972 for the Sapporo Winter Olympics, using Schott ED glass (see https://imaging.nikon.com/history/story/0011/index.htm). Serial numbers started at 603011 with 72 units made. In late 1975 Nikon produced another batch with multi-coating applied and using Nikon's ED glass. Serial numbers start at 604011 with 78 units made.

The Nikkor-P.C 400/5.6 was released mid-way during this period, in Jan 1973, so it is interesting to guess whether Schott glass was used or if Nikon had already developed their ED glass. I have an old Nikon dealer catalogue which already mentions a "Nikkor-P" (no .C) 400/5.6 in 1971. It looks exactly like the Nikkor-P.C 400/5.6 and uses special glass to eliminate chromatic aberrations (I'll have to dig up that catalogue and double-check, I'm not sure why I haven't put that date on my site...).

Why the big delay between its announcement in 1971 and the release date in early 1973? The original lens must have used Schott ED glass since it is even earlier than the Nikkor-H 300/2.8, and we know Nikon did not have ED glass at that time. I think production was delayed until Nikon had developed their own ED glass. In the mean time Nikon had also developed multicoating so the prototype Nikkor-P 400/5.6 using Schott glass finally appeared as a Nikkor-P.C using Nikon ED glass. The only reason it is not marked with "ED" or have a gold band is that the marketing department hadn't thought about it yet. The same lens then continued more or less unchanged to the K and AI versions but with an updated outer appearance - including the *ED marking and gold band.

Sounds quite logical. 

[MEPER]

Is the Nikkor-P this one?
I don't have it......only as picture in an old Nikkor catalogue. Before the "Noct-time" and where the fastest 85mm still was the Nikkor-H 1.8.
The 6/2.8 fisheye and 2000mm mirror is also in this catalogue.....I don't have those either.....

[Roland Vink]

Yes that's the one. Note how the optical design is identical (as far as you can tell without precise measurements) to the optical schema of the K version that Akira posted.

[David H. Hartman]

On Roland's Ser. No. Page have a look at the 400mm f/4.5 Nikkor-Q.C and imagine trying to photograph birds in flight with that piece of artillery!  Imagine trying to photograph a low flying airplane at an air show. I makes my back ache just thinking about it.

[mxbianco]

...
The Z50, a DX format, has a viewfinder magnification of 1.02x with a 50mm lens focused to infinity while the Z6 II, an FX format, has a viewfinder magnification with a 50mm lens focused to infinity of 0.80x. From this the advantage of the DX over cropping the FX might be the same as an optical viewfinder but if shooting with say a Z7 II is the frame shown with a grayed frame like a D850 might show or does the finder zoom in to show the full DX format. If the latter then a Z7 II in DX crop should be roughly on par with a Z50. As I say, I've never touched a mirroless Nikon. I'm sure a Z7 or Z7 II owner can tell me.

Dave
...

I confirm, if you put a DX lens on a Z6/Z7/Z6II/Z7II/Z5, or choose DX image area with an FX lens, the image projected in the EVF (and LCD screen) is the -enlarged- cropped image.
...And you can still zoom in up to 200% (or 400% ?)  Very useful!

Ciao from Massimo

[David H. Hartman]

That is what I hoped the Z7 II and other FX mirroless Nikons would do.

Dave

[Erik Lund]

On Roland's Ser. No. Page have a look at the 400mm f/4.5 Nikkor-Q.C and imagine trying to photograph birds in flight with that piece of artillery!  Imagine trying to photograph a low flying airplane at an air show. I makes my back ache just thinking about it.

For reference for more info on these lenses, CPU chipping and the like, enjoy this thread 

https://nikongear.net/revival/index.php?topic=5202.0
If you want to skip to chipping the AU-1 / CU-1
https://nikongear.net/revival/index.php?topic=5202.msg82572#msg82572