OwlsEyes wrote:
The lens is smaller than I imagined, or the shooter has huge hands!
If the 500mm PF is sharper than the 200-500VR @ f/5.6, it will be a very popular lens for those of us willing to give up a stop of light in order to save weight and money over the faster 500mm FLE.
I am looking forward to seeing the output of some raw files and the final pricing.
bruce
Me too. And it's certain to trounce the 200-500VR in terms of IQ.
There is a so called leaked Twitter photo of a pre-production model of the 500 PF up on Nikon Rumors... looks to be an awesome design. I don't really NEED this lens but I do really WANT it.
Just to see the design a bit, here are pictures from the 500PF and 600PF patents and the official 300PF from Nikon...
I notice they all use the same elements except the 600 has one extra thing at the rear labeled FL...(and the 400PF also has that FL at the rear)....otherwise all four lenses have the exact same type of elements in the same order just different diameters and I'd guess spacing based on the focal length/aperture.
arbitrage wrote:
I notice they all use the same elements except the 600 has one extra thing at the rear labeled FL...(and the 400PF also has that FL at the rear)....otherwise all four lenses have the exact same type of elements in the same order just different diameters and I'd guess spacing based on the focal length/aperture.
I wonder if these larger PF lenses will get fluorite elements, better build and nano-coatings, along with more powerful AF motors compared to the 200-500. If so they are worth the much higher price tag. As I see it, a stop slow for more than a stop of price savings.
The FL notation is probably the spot for the drop in filter holder.
arbitrage wrote:
Just to see the design a bit, here are pictures from the 500PF and 600PF patents and the official 300PF from Nikon...
I notice they all use the same elements except the 600 has one extra thing at the rear labeled FL...(and the 400PF also has that FL at the rear)....otherwise all four lenses have the exact same type of elements in the same order just different diameters and I'd guess spacing based on the focal length/aperture.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
I wonder if these larger PF lenses will get fluorite elements, better build and nano-coatings, along with more powerful AF motors compared to the 200-500. If so they are worth the much higher price tag. As I see it, a stop slow for more than a stop of price savings.
Tres awesome.
I have no prior knowledge, but I doubt they will get the fluorite element or fluorine coating. This is just conjecture, but I think that this is Nikon's attempt to hold on to users that are thinking about switching to Sony or Fuji. The development of these lenses at an "affordable (<$5000 US)" price might persuade enough photographers to stick with Nikon because they are realizing the weight reduction that was the promise of MILC.
The addition of fluorite and special coating would put the price at a substantially higher point.
They are at a substantially higher price. The 500 is about 3x dearer than the zoom, so it better offer some improvements. For a PF lens nano coatings are a must as they tend to have worse contrast. I think lack of such coating on the 200-500 is an oversight. I don't think PF alone is enough to justify the much higher price, but we shall see soon enough. OwlsEyes wrote:
I have no prior knowledge, but I doubt they will get the fluorite element or fluorine coating. This is just conjecture, but I think that this is Nikon's attempt to hold on to users that are thinking about switching to Sony or Fuji. The development of these lenses at an "affordable (<$5000 US)" price might persuade enough photographers to stick with Nikon because they are realizing the weight reduction that was the promise of MILC.
The addition of fluorite and special coating would put the price at a substantially higher point.
If you do a price comparison between the 300mm f/4 AFS-D with the 300mm f/4 PF, we are paying about $1000 more and there is not an included tripod color. This leads me to believe that the R&D and manufacturing cost of the PF element must be pretty steep. Without knowing any specifics, it appears that the 500mm PF has the pro-design ethos... that is, it includes on lens programmable buttons and a built in tripod. The 300PF is nano-coated, so I think we can expect that on the 500mm lens. If the lens is weather sealed like the other pro teles and has the faster AFS motor then I think it does make sense to hit that $4000 price point. I'd be thrilled if there were fluorite elements, but I don expect any to be in the design at the predicted price...
I think we will know all of these answers in a few weeks or so.
damn it nikon, D500, D5, D850, the 200-500, the 300 PF, soon mirrorless, now this, all those arm chair experts that were predicting nikons demise yet you keep knocking it out of the park, i would really hate to see what they would of done if the demise of nikon wasn't pending
jpelt78 wrote:
The FL notation is probably the spot for the drop in filter holder.
Interesting....if FL is for the filter then I could see why there might be one on the larger 600PF and not the 500 or 300. However, the other patent (which I didn't post a screenshot of) was said to be for a 400 f/5.6 PF (which would be a fairly small lens, much closer to the 300PF's size) and it does have the rear "FL" section on the patent.....I wonder if that patent was misread and it is actually for what everyone really wants....ie a 400mm f/4 (which Canon's version does have a drop-in flitter)....hmmmm....
I need to go back and find which website did the patent analysis and see if there are more specifics from the 400mm patent. As I've said a few times in this thread...I see no reason to make a 400 f/5.6 PF but I can see reason to make a 400 f/4 PF....
2nd EDIT: I looked up some other Nikon patents and a recent one for a suspected mirrorless zoom lens has that FL line on the patent so I don't think it is a drop in filter....I will continue to see if I can find out what all the labels mean...because I have nothing better to do
brian_sp wrote:
damn it nikon, D500, D5, D850, the 200-500, the 300 PF, soon mirrorless, now this, all those arm chair experts that were predicting nikons demise yet you keep knocking it out of the park, i would really hate to see what they would of done if the demise of nikon wasn't pending
Well maybe the criticism is what spurred Nikon on to act. The D500 was an early sign things were changing, and the rest ensured it wasn’t a flash in the pan. They were pretty stodgy like Canon have been for a fair while and like Canon deserved to be criticised. They now are showing Canon you just need the will for change, Canon have the skill and tech, just not the backbone at the moment.
Chris Court wrote:
For a technology that is supposedly on its last legs (DSLRs), Nikon seems to be going full steam ahead with it.
Good for them!
C
I would assume that this lens will be very straightforward to use on their mirrorless bodies with whatever standard adapter they provide. And since the reverse is almost certainly NOT going to be the case, it would make sense to keep on making their long exotic lenses in the F-mount rather than the Z mount even if they expected as many of them to be sold for use on mirrorless bodies rather than DSLR bodies.
brian_sp wrote:
damn it nikon, D500, D5, D850, the 200-500, the 300 PF, soon mirrorless, now this, all those arm chair experts that were predicting nikons demise yet you keep knocking it out of the park, i would really hate to see what they would of done if the demise of nikon wasn't pending
The issue with Nikon isn't the quality of their higher end products. It's their poor marketing, poor support, lousy software, lack of understanding of workflow and what people want to do with their images today. And their inability to stock the D850 in the U.S. nine months after release. Not to mention the abandonment of the DL line, the disaster that was Nikon 1, the mostly uninspiring Coolpix cameras and the absurd and failing KeyMission cameras. And some would say that they're pricing all but high-end photographers out of the market.
On Nikon's own U.S. website, 32% of the lenses can't be ordered and I'm not including 9 lenses that are still on the website but we know are actually discontinued. If you include those, 41% can't be ordered. A few weeks ago, almost all of the esoterics were unavailable both on the Nikon site and at B&H. How can Nikon make money when you can't even buy their products? Nikon consistently loses market share which means their competitors are taking sales away from them.
Things have improved at B&H. Most of the time, about 20% of the lenses aren't available in U.S. warranty editions. But as of 7/8, only 8% of the lenses were out of stock or backordered so that's definitely an improvement and of the "big" lenses, only the 180-400 and the 300 2.8G isn't available.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Well maybe the criticism is what spurred Nikon on to act. The D500 was an early sign things were changing, and the rest ensured it wasn’t a flash in the pan. They were pretty stodgy like Canon have been for a fair while and like Canon deserved to be criticised. They now are showing Canon you just need the will for change, Canon have the skill and tech, just not the backbone at the moment.
i actually think it started further back than that, D3, D3s and the D700 and then the D800 that was the starting point for the now D850
...don't tell.... 
