Sauseschritt wrote:
The Sony 400mm f2.8 doesnt use lightweight glas elements or anything like that, it uses a simple trick: only use one of these very expensive very heavy big optical elements, not a couple, like Nikon and Canon do, and try to compensate the resulting optical errors in the section with the much cheaper small optical elements. However the total optical performance probably is lowered and thus I dont think Canon or Nikon will ever want to copy that idea.
So far every review that compared the Sony to the Canon and/or Nikon has said the IQ is essentially equal in sharpness and bokeh. Granted there aren't many review out there (early on Matt G review and recent TCSTV review).
arbitrage wrote:
It surely looks like a big winner to me. However, if one really values lightweight then the 300PF and 1.7TC for 500/6.7 if you don't use 3D or Auto is still a lighter, smaller option and works really well IME.
I'm still contemplating what to do....I'd rather have a 300PF/600PF combo...if I buy the 500PF I think I will just sell the 300PF which mostly lives with a TC on it in my bag anyways......
If I already had the 300PF, it'd be a harder decision. I'll still probably keep my 200-500 just because the zoom comes in handy sometimes. I never had much luck with the 300PF + TC, so being able to use the 500 bare will be nice. I just hope there aren't any VR issues at certain shutter speeds.
My wildlife combo will be the D7200 plus 500PF, which puts me around 4.7 lbs, vs 6.6 lbs with the 200-500. What's actually really interesting is the Sony a7riii + 100-400 is about 4.7 lbs as well, but of course it's 100 mm shorter, and it'd cost me like $5500. The high MP would be nice, but since I crop DX most of the time anyway, it wouldn't be a big advantage for my wildlife shooting needs.
ilkka_nissila wrote:
For the tax part that goes to government we are generally happy to pay it, as it pays for socioeconomic status independent, free education (right up to and including university), almost free health care in many cases, cheap day care etc. Someone living in the US would need much greater income to support a family than in my country. Cheap electronics do not really compensate for the difference.
You just said that it PAYS for things that are FREE. If they are free, why do you pay for them?
Again, everything you buy is more expensive, not just electronics. And you have less money to do so. I am not getting in to a this or that country is better, I am pointing out to you WHY you pay more. There are certainly things that you get for what you pay, but you pay for it. And yes, it's a combination of many factors that include elasticity of demand, plus the prices that you pay in VAT, plus the additional cost that your regulatory structure necessitates, which all have an impact on price to someone. The demand side allows companies to adjust prices based on what the market is willing to bear to help compensate for all that additional cost.
I decided to go for the new lens for a few reasons.
1. The price of a 500mm f/4E is out of my comfort zone, but I wanted a 500mm prime rather than relying on converters.
2. Weight is a huge thing when it comes to hiking through snow and in the mountains. I find myself stumbling more on the trails as I age. My 200-400 has been a burden on the back and I can only hold it for about 20 minutes without taking a break.
3. I think it pairs well with the 300mm pf if you have a DX and FX option... there are lots of focal lengths available by switching bodies.
4. Air travel... I just returned from Iceland and I struggled to get my gear down to Iceland Air's 10kg requirements. I left my 200-400 home and packed a D500, D810, 16-35, 70-200f/4 & 200-5005.6 w/ 2 filters and no batteries. This was 10kg on the nose in an F-stop Tilopa. Tamy carried the same two bodies, a 24-120, 20f1.8 and 300mm pf... and was way below the limit.
5. The 300mm pf image quality has been good enough... I think the 500mm PF should be at least as good.
6. Price... it is low enough that it counts twice.
7. I don't shoot small birds... 500mm is great for mammals, raptors, and flying cranes and herons.
Sauseschritt wrote:
The Sony 400mm f2.8 doesnt use lightweight glas elements or anything like that, it uses a simple trick: only use one of these very expensive very heavy big optical elements, not a couple, like Nikon and Canon do, and try to compensate the resulting optical errors in the section with the much cheaper small optical elements. However the total optical performance probably is lowered and thus I dont think Canon or Nikon will ever want to copy that idea.
No, it doesn't use lightweight glass. But it does replace some of the heavy glass with lightweight fluorite elements, plus shifting more in to the back of the lens, etc. It has 3 FL elements, compared to 2 in the Nikon 400mm f/2.8. The total optical performance of the lens is excellent. You don't have to speculate about your "cheaper" elements degrading performance as you imply, because results are in from testing. It's a great lens. Period.
People are hilariously negative to everything from a different system. Canon makes really good stuff. Nikon makes really good stuff. Sony, Olympus, Panasonic, and Fuji do too.
reggieb wrote:
You have to pay for government programs somehow. No such thing as a free lunch.
No, I'm not referring to the extra cost due to VAT but what we pay extra after factoring in VAT and currency conversion. This is just "what the market will bear" and has nothing to do with government programs. One can also see this from the very different pricing strategies of different manufacturers (Canon and Nikon being among the worst offenders for EU customers).
Another factor is probably that the average US customer is more sensitive to discounts as a buy-trigger for this kind of products, while EU customers are more likely to grudgingly pay the high price anyway if they really want something (based on my discussions with Canon marketing from years ago, but I doubt much has changed since then). Discounting is not going to generate a lot more sales in EU like it does in the US.
technic wrote:
No, I'm not referring to the extra cost due to VAT but what we pay extra after factoring in VAT and currency conversion. This is just "what the market will bear" and has nothing to do with government programs. One can also see this from the very different pricing strategies of different manufacturers (Canon and Nikon being among the worst offenders for EU customers).
Sorry, increasing the cost from the government side of things does affect prices to consumers beyond what you pay in VAT. Again, incidence and burden of taxes aren't the same thing. When demand is relatively inelastic for a good (and these high level niche cameras have relatively inelastic demand) price gets passed on to the consumer (at least some of it) and there is far more than just VAT affecting the market in the EU. Period. I am talking about more cost on top of VAT. There is never a free lunch, including with regulatory burden, taxes on corporations, etc. Some of that cost will always get passed on to you, the consumer.
arbitrage wrote:
I'm considering selling 300PF (never thought I'd say that anytime soon) and the 200-500 and getting this instead.
I noticed in the press release it specifically mentions use with 1.4TC being excellent so that of course is important to me as I mentioned previously. If they actually mention 1.4TC use then I'm also hopeful that 1.7TC use will be useable for good light static subjects.....
The price is reasonable and thankfully better than the NR predicted $4300USD which would have been a no go for me.
If I go ahead with the selling and buying I will be left with a fairly oddball Nikon lens lineup (500E and 500PF)....that doesn't seem right but maybe it makes sense...Show more →
Interesting to hear that. I noticed recently how many excellent shots of the 300PF can be found that are using the 1.4x or 1.7x TC. It suggests that for many a 5.6/400PF would be a more suitable product, assuming the price would be similar to 300PF+TC ;-)
I don't have to decide yet as I have postponed buying a new (Nikon) camera to next spring, but for me the 300PF would be more suitable now. But you never know, those long focal lengths can be addictive. Come spring next year it should also be clear if the new Z cameras are a better starting point - which is another factor in the decision, if only because one has to use the adapter to mount the 300PF or 500PF on these cameras which kind of negates the size/weight advantage of the mirrorless camera, and I bet they are not going to offer a mount conversion service in future, like Sigma does for some of their new lenses ;-(
AF-S NIKKOR 500mm f/5.6E PF ED VR Lens High performance in a compact package is trending, especially when you look at the just announced AF-S NIKKOR 500mm f/5.6E PF ED VR Lens for FX-format F-mount cameras. This lens uses Phase Fresnel optics to deliver super telephoto range in an easy-to-hold form factor. It also aims to be among the best performing lenses at this focal length with various coatings and specialized elements combatting aberrations and the latest VR tech stabilizing your shots. AF-S NIKKOR 500mm f/5.6E PF ED VR Lens $3,596.95
Ouch! For ~$400 more you could buy a used 500 f4 VR. f4!!!! I understand the
lightweight attraction...BUT f5.6 I'm stayin' pat. My 200-500 is my "light" 500.
reggieb wrote:
Sorry, increasing the cost from the government side of things does affect prices to consumers beyond what you pay in VAT. Again, incidence and burden of taxes aren't the same thing. When demand is relatively inelastic for a good (and these high level niche cameras have relatively inelastic demand) price gets passed on to the consumer (at least some of it) and there is far more than just VAT affecting the market in the EU. Period. I am talking about more cost on top of VAT. There is never a free lunch, including with regulatory burden, taxes on corporations, etc. Some of that cost will always get passed on to you, the consumer. ...Show more →
Tax on multinationals in Netherlands (which includes Canon and Nikon Europe) is effectively close to zero, so this would argue for LOWER prices after conversion compared to the US. There is some extra cost in EU from multiple language support and different warranty requirements etc. but that is irrelevant for the total cost picture. Marketing cost can be a big factor, but I don't think it is a valid argument in such discussions (do we have to pay extra for more expensive marketing campaigns??).
trenchmonkey wrote:
Ouch! For ~$400 more you could buy a used 500 f4 VR. f4!!!! I understand the
lightweight attraction...BUT f5.6 I'm stayin' pat. My 200-500 is my "light" 500.
You could, but you'd also be getting A) old technology B) a used lens, and C) a much larger and heavier lens.
Eventually the PF will hit the used market and there will be a much larger than $400 discrepancy - I'm already quite happy with the brand new price. I'm ready to say so long to my 500 f/4 for the PF...but of course for anyone who needs one more stop of light, that does make all the difference in the world.
trenchmonkey wrote: AF-S NIKKOR 500mm f/5.6E PF ED VR Lens High performance in a compact package is trending, especially when you look at the just announced AF-S NIKKOR 500mm f/5.6E PF ED VR Lens for FX-format F-mount cameras. This lens uses Phase Fresnel optics to deliver super telephoto range in an easy-to-hold form factor. It also aims to be among the best performing lenses at this focal length with various coatings and specialized elements combatting aberrations and the latest VR tech stabilizing your shots. AF-S NIKKOR 500mm f/5.6E PF ED VR Lens $3,596.95
Ouch! For ~$400 more you could buy a used 500 f4 VR. f4!!!! I understand the
lightweight attraction...BUT f5.6 I'm stayin' pat. My 200-500 is my "light" 500....Show more →
Nothing wrong with that logic but for me going smaller and lighter is my priority....I have a Canon 600II if I want to lug around 500G weight
reggieb wrote:
People are hilariously negative to everything from a different system. Canon makes really good stuff. Nikon makes really good stuff. Sony, Olympus, Panasonic, and Fuji do too.
/off topic
Not me! If Sony released a successor to the A7RIII w/A9 AF system that can do 20FPS, between that and Sony's new 400/2.8 I couldn't switch systems fast enough.
trenchmonkey wrote: AF-S NIKKOR 500mm f/5.6E PF ED VR Lens High performance in a compact package is trending, especially when you look at the just announced AF-S NIKKOR 500mm f/5.6E PF ED VR Lens for FX-format F-mount cameras. This lens uses Phase Fresnel optics to deliver super telephoto range in an easy-to-hold form factor. It also aims to be among the best performing lenses at this focal length with various coatings and specialized elements combatting aberrations and the latest VR tech stabilizing your shots. AF-S NIKKOR 500mm f/5.6E PF ED VR Lens $3,596.95
Ouch! For ~$400 more you could buy a used 500 f4 VR. f4!!!! I understand the
lightweight attraction...BUT f5.6 I'm stayin' pat. My 200-500 is my "light" 500....Show more →
Or a refurb Sigma Sport directly from the manufacturer!
But yeah, the old Nikon is pretty darn heavy. Not for me, either, but I think there's a market for it.
reggieb wrote:
Or a refurb Sigma Sport directly from the manufacturer!
But yeah, the old Nikon is pretty darn heavy. Not for me, either, but I think there's a market for it.
The refurb Sigma's have been far and few between. I have seen only one for sale in the year or so that I have been looking... in fact, you might have pressed purchase about 10 minutes before me.
I had my eyes on that lens for the better part of year and decided to wait out the 500mm PF when I saw a used one appear on the buy-sell board. While I am sure that I will miss the f/4 aperture on occasion, I am now thinking about buying a used D5 from the proceeds of the inevitable sale of my 200-400VR and just bump of the ISO when I need the light. Alternatively, if the Z6 + F-mount Adapter turns out to be a winner, this could become a great high ISO wildlife cameras... 24mp and 11fps... not a bad option.
I am looking forward to using this lens, if it works well with the TC14E-III it will be a winner in my book. It's almost 1.5lb lighter than my beloved Canon 400DOII and at $3500 the price is just right.
Good job Nikon, now please give me a light 600mm one as well
ELinder wrote:
For some of us the 500/f4 lenses are not an option at any price due to their size and weight, so this lens is particularly interesting to me.
Erich
Yeah, and some people don't seem to grasp that concept. Whether one can handhold a 500 f4 or not, everyone can handhold and maneuver a 500 f5.6 lens easier.
Where this lens will no doubt beat the 200-500 is not only with lower weight, smaller size, probably better IQ, but will probably give much better results when used with a 1.4x TC.
...and at this price you can bet Nikon put a good AF motor in the 500PF which to me is the biggest limitation of the 200-500VR. Still, I'd rather have -- and will likely hold out for -- a 600PF, assuming one is coming.
Add me to the list of folks who may buy the new 500/5.6, due to size/weight. I continue to keep the 500/4E on my wish list, but my gimpy left shoulder and arm are not healing well; it seems I have reached the age at which every joint injury becomes a chronic condition. I may never again be able to shoot hand-held with any lens heavier than about 2800 to 2900 well-balanced grams.
I'm stayin' pat. My 200-500 is my "light" 500.