Further details supposedly "later this year". But this confirms what was rumoured previously.
I'm not sure how I feel about this lens....I'm happy with my 300PF with 1.7TC which gives me a 500 f/6.7 lens and surely will be a smaller package than this lens will be. Still I also like to use Auto AF mode for fast BIF and I can't use that mode with the 300/1.7....that alone would be the reason I'd consider this lens...but I'm still not sure...if it is significantly smaller/lighter/easier to handhold and has faster AF than the 200-500 then that will help make a case for it....
************EDIT*****EDIT************
Made this to be the official discussion and image thread....
TimMunsey wrote:
Disappointed, I think the 600mm F/5.6 PF is far more attractive.
Tim
Yes, that would be a little more unique as we already have 500/5.6 in the 200-500. However, a 600/5.6 front element puts that lens into $7000 territory like the Canon 400/4 DOII and although the 400DOII is a relatively lightweight lens it is still not an ideal lightweight BIF lens. But a 600/5.6 PF would be a very attractive lens no doubt.
Hopefully the 600/5.6 PF will come out eventually as we did see the patent for it. I think the 3rd patent for the 400/5.6 PF lens would be a bad idea to produce as the 300PF/1.4TC is as good as I could see anyone needing even for the toughest BIF subjects.
arbitrage wrote:
Yes, that would be a little more unique as we already have 500/5.6 in the 200-500. However, a 600/5.6 front element puts that lens into $7000 territory like the Canon 400/4 DOII and although the 400DOII is a relatively lightweight lens it is still not an ideal lightweight BIF lens. But a 600/5.6 PF would be a very attractive lens no doubt.
Hopefully the 600/5.6 PF will come out eventually as we did see the patent for it. I think the 3rd patent for the 400/5.6 PF lens would be a bad idea to produce as the 300PF/1.4TC is as good as I could see anyone needing even for the toughest BIF subjects....Show more →
I was thinking more for static subject use, light enough to carry and with a 1.4TC make a usable 800mm F/8.
For BIF I like faster aperture, F/2.8 or F/4. I can get BIF with the 200-500mm, but not instantly like the 300mm F/2.8.
I'd consider a 600/5.6 PF but a 500/5.6 PF is too close to the 200-500VR IMO. If sells for anywhere near $5k I'd rather have the flexibility of the 180-400.
arbitrage wrote:
Yes, that would be a little more unique as we already have 500/5.6 in the 200-500. However, a 600/5.6 front element puts that lens into $7000 territory like the Canon 400/4 DOII and although the 400DOII is a relatively lightweight lens it is still not an ideal lightweight BIF lens. But a 600/5.6 PF would be a very attractive lens no doubt.
Hopefully the 600/5.6 PF will come out eventually as we did see the patent for it. I think the 3rd patent for the 400/5.6 PF lens would be a bad idea to produce as the 300PF/1.4TC is as good as I could see anyone needing even for the toughest BIF subjects....Show more →
Yes, 5.6/500PF has two competitors with similar focal length and aperture in the 300PF + 1.7xTC and the 200-500. Of course those are both quite different in many other ways but it will be interesting to see where the 500PF lands regarding image quality, AF speed, size/weight and price compared to these other options.
I think a 5.6/400PF could make sense for birders because in most areas 300mm is really too short and 400mm is a better starting point, assuming the price isn't much higher than the 300PF. A bit brighter like 4.5/400mm would be welcome though if they can build that for a reasonable price.
TimMunsey wrote:
I was thinking more for static subject use, light enough to carry and with a 1.4TC make a usable 800mm F/8.
For BIF I like faster aperture, F/2.8 or F/4. I can get BIF with the 200-500mm, but not instantly like the 300mm F/2.8.
Yes, for more static subjects and BIF up to a certain speed, I think it would be very attractive. I again liken it to my Canon 400DOII which is probably my favourite Canon lens and the last one I will sell.
Gary Irwin wrote:
I'd consider a 600/5.6 PF but a 500/5.6 PF is too close to the 200-500VR IMO. If sells for anywhere near $5k I'd rather have the flexibility of the 180-400.
My wild guess is a 500/5.6 PF will sell in the high $3Ks. A 600 f/5.6 could get up to 400 DO II levels at $7000
technic wrote:
Yes, 5.6/500PF has two competitors with similar focal length and aperture in the 300PF + 1.7xTC and the 200-500. Of course those are both quite different in many other ways but it will be interesting to see where the 500PF lands regarding image quality, AF speed, size/weight and price compared to these other options.
I think a 5.6/400PF could make sense for birders because in most areas 300mm is really too short and 400mm is a better starting point, assuming the price isn't much higher than the 300PF. A bit brighter like 4.5/400mm would be welcome though if they can build that for a reasonable price....Show more →
The one benefit that I could see with a 400 f/5.6 versus the 300PF + 1.4TC is that because I'm always putting TCs on lenses I would only need a 1.4TC (much better quality) to get to 560 f//8 instead of the questionable 2xTC I sometimes use on the 300PF to get 600 f/8. Using the 1.7TC to get a likely useable 680mm f/9.5 could be nice also but AF may get questionable....My 200-500 can AF at f/9.5 with the 1.7 but I don't bother as it's IQ and AF is questionable.
Still, even the 2xTC on the 300PF does fairly well sometimes...
I am on the other side of the preference spectrum. A 500mm f/5.6 PF would be perfect for me. If the lens is lighter than my 200-400VR, I'd buy the 500mm pf and pair it with my 300mm pf and a 70-200. If you pack a D500 and D850 you have a powerful mix of gear that is light enough for hiking distances and small enough for air travel.
600mm is too long for my shooting preferences... really a specialized optic for those who spend most of their time shooting small birds.
Far less people would buy a 600/5.6 PF than a 500/5.6 PF simply because it would still be too heavy and expensive for too many.
Fewer people would buy a 400/5.6 than the existing 300/4 PF because many 300/4 PF owners love shooting at 300mm, and still get great results with a 1.4x TC on the 300.
Makes sense along with the rumored 600/5.6 PF. Also makes sense that they might want some super-tele's that are actually somewhat reasonable to handle with a future mirrorless body.
Pricing would probably have to be somewhere between the $2000 300/4 PF and Canon's $7000 400/4 DO...quite the range haha. I'd guess between $3299 and $4499, depending on what build quality/AF motor/coatings they went with and how unique or valuable they think it is. Currently Nikon charges a ~47% premium for the 300/4 VR PF over the older AF-S 300/4, and we've seen they can give us 'consumer build' 500/5.6 for $1400 in the form of the 200-500. Take that $1400, add 50% for PF and another 50% for 'premium' prime build and you get around $3150. Not very scientific is it haha...we will see I guess.
Even tough I have not yet started to shoot with Nikon gear (it’s on the way), I will watch closely what this 500mm f/5.6 can do, as I prefer to use primes and avoid TCs. I assume it will be cheaper than the Sigma 500mm f/4, which I see as the next 'reasonably' priced option for the 500mm FL.
Gary Irwin wrote:
Good question...I only wish I had the option to choose. As things are, I'm thinking more and more about the 180-400 because it can do so much.
I know the feeling, I lusted over the Canon version for some time before finally buying it. I used it on a lot of overseas trips and it was perfect for most of those giving me a very versatile set of focal lengths (as I was happy using it up to 784mm when needed) and close to prime like IQ and AF.
But in the past couple years my use for it dwindled and better lightweight options arose that came close to matching it in IQ/AF like the 100-400II and the 400DOII. So that is why I sold it in the end. Of course my shift towards Nikon and Sony gave me even more reason to sell it.
