May be Nikon is or was planning F mount mirrorless? Otherwise so much investment in new products that’s going to fed away in 3-5 yrs time does not make sense...unless that’s the life cycle Nikon had in mind
Chris Court wrote:
For a technology that is supposedly on its last legs (DSLRs), Nikon seems to be going full steam ahead with it.
How much this lens is worth to me compared to the 300mm f/4 PF which cost $2000?
500mm/300mm=1.67,
so $2000x1.67=$3333.
f/5.6/f4=1.4,
so $3333/1.4=$2380
Sold! 👌🛒😀
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 think FL = flat lens, a protective flat element at the rear, to keep dust out.
ilkka_nissila wrote:
I think FL = flat lens, a protective flat element at the rear, to keep dust out.
That makes the most sense to me. After finding that FL in a bunch of other patents for consumer lenses I figured it wasn't anything special. Still I wonder why it isn't in the 500PF patent?
Sagar wrote:
May be Nikon is or was planning F mount mirrorless? Otherwise so much investment in new products that’s going to fed away in 3-5 yrs time does not make sense...unless that’s the life cycle Nikon had in mind
I don't believe any of the major manufacturers consider seriously a DSLR mount mirrorless. This is because originally film SLRs were thinner and the extra thickness due to the LCD has lead to what they see as compromised handling and the designers want to take advantage of the opportunity to fix this with the mirrorless. There are possibilities to make wide angles smaller (Sony have now capitalized on this, with their fairly small 12-24/4 and other lenses) and potentially also increase the freedom of movements in superwide angle tilt/shift lenses (something no one has taked advantage of, yet), the opportunity to make superfast lenses like 50/0.9 etc. I think Nikon want to make their serious mirrorless take advantage of these things and that means a new mount with a significantly shorter flange distance.
As for why introduce DSLR lenses now, DSLRs still have a 2:1 market share advantage over mirrorless and that's in the sales of new cameras. Think about the tens of millions of existing DSLRs and the possibilities to sell lenses to their users and how long it will take for the new Nikon mirrorless bodies to be sold in comparable numbers. I think whatever the future advantages of mirrorless in long lens photography are, today the best ranges of long lenses are with Canon and Nikon DSLRs and that's where the majority of users of such lenses are. Even if I would start out today from scratch I would still buy a Nikon DSLR system. Long lens photography isn't my primary area of interest but for what I want to do, Nikon offer the most options and generally the best fit equipment. It will take a long time for the upcoming Nikon mirrorless system to grow into something that can be used for all the same applications as DSLRs can (with native lenses).
I think the time scale of DSLRs going out of use is not 3-5 years but more like 20+ years. This is because the majority of the adult user base did not grow with Nintendos and virtual reality but seeing the world with their own eyes and I just don't see this transition to EVF to be so fast as some people seem to think it will be. The new users may well be used to living in a virtual world and consider EVFs acceptable as the only viewfinder available but for me they're not. This can be debated endlessly and none of us know what the future will be like. Let's just let the future play out rather than spend endless time speculating what Nikon or others should do. By each making our own purchase decisions based on our needs and preferences and what products are available on the market, we can ensure that manufacturers can continue to supply a variety of equipment suitable for different users and purposes.
I for one welcome the new 500/5.6 PF and can't wait to see how its optics and AF get reviewed and try it out to see how it would fit my applications.
I wonder if "FL" means filter, as in rear filter in the long lens filter drawer.
The 300/4 PF VR has no filter drawer, and the 500/5.6 PF seems to have no filter drawer either. Maybe it can take a 95mm filter instead? The absense of a filter drawer on the 500/5.6 in the picture could also just be a result of this being a prototype lens. On a 600/4 a filter drawer is the only practical solution, and that's likely so even with a 500/5.6. The patent drawings may not be final products either.
Telephoto lenses are already "shrunk", so they won't get smaller on a mirrorless camera. It's the opposite principle of retrofocus wide angles. A retrofocus wide angle has an artificially long rear focus distance, which is used to make space for the mirrorbox, originally on SLRs now DSLRs. (This can also be used to make telecentric wide angles without space for a mirror box, as in mirrorless designs.) Telephoto lenses have an artificially short rear focus distance to make them shorter and handle better. Note how all telephoto lenses are physically shorter than their stated focal length. Nikon PF and Canon DO lenses have taken the "shrinking" one step further.
Market split has been 60:40 between DSLR and mirrorless for some time now.
That's a possibility, though the 500/5.6 would benefit from a rear filter slot more than the 400/5.6 (since for the latter, a 77mm front filter is sufficient and would probably be preferred as many users already have filters in this size). The 500 would need a 95mm front filter, the same as the 200-500, and these filters aren't common.
I read a comment on the NR post that said someone asked the Russian guy about the weight on his twitter and he said "less than 1kg"....that seems impossible to me as the 300PF is 750gm already....wishful thinking
arbitrage wrote:
I read a comment on the NR post that said someone asked the Russian guy about the weight on his twitter and he said "less than 1kg"....that seems impossible to me as the 300PF is 750gm already....wishful thinking
Maybe slightly lighter than the Canon 400/4 DO v.2 lens?
bjornthun wrote:
Maybe slightly lighter than the Canon 400/4 DO v.2 lens?
I'd expect significantly lighter than the 400DOII...the 600PF would be closer to the 400DOII weight. The 500PF should be much lighter...the 400DOII weighs about the same as the 200-500 so it has to be much lighter than that. I'd hope for maybe 1.25kg or so?? The 400DOII and 200-500 are over 2kg.
arbitrage wrote:
I'd expect significantly lighter than the 400DOII...the 600PF would be closer to the 400DOII weight. The 500PF should be much lighter...the 400DOII weighs about the same as the 200-500 so it has to be much lighter than that. I'd hope for maybe 1.25kg or so?? The 400DOII and 200-500 are over 2kg.
I guess anything from 1.25 - 1.5 kg. Perhaps they can come down to 1.25 kg with carbon fibre housing?
Added, found a comparison:
The Nikon manual focus 400/5.6 Ai-S weighs 1200 grams and is 262mm long wirh 254mm extension from the flange. The new 500/5.6 PF is said to be 24cm long, so a tad shorter (!) than the old 400/5.6 Ai-S, but with a 95mm filter thread compared to 72mm of the 400/5.6. The old lens has got an all metal barrel, but now Nikon can use a combination of metal and carbon fibre materials to optimize the weight of the 500/5.6. The old 400/5.6 was easy to hand-hold, but it lacked VR, which reduced that kind of usability.
The new 500/5.6 PF will likely be light weight (1.25 kg), easy to hand-hold and to carry in the field.
It looks like the Nikon 300/4 PF, 500/5.6 PF and Sony 400/2.8 GM all represent the future for super tele lenses.
arbitrage wrote:
I read a comment on the NR post that said someone asked the Russian guy about the weight on his twitter and he said "less than 1kg"....that seems impossible to me as the 300PF is 750gm already....wishful thinking
Update: Nikon Rumors is hearing that the lens has a length of 24cm (~9.5in) and a price tag of around $4,300. By comparison, the Nikon 300mm f/4 PF and 500mm f/4 (non-PF) measure 14.7cm (5.7in) and 38.5cm (15.15in), respectively, and cost $2,000 and $10,300, respectively.
Update: Nikon Rumors is hearing that the lens has a length of 24cm (~9.5in) and a price tag of around $4,300. By comparison, the Nikon 300mm f/4 PF and 500mm f/4 (non-PF) measure 14.7cm (5.7in) and 38.5cm (15.15in), respectively, and cost $2,000 and $10,300, respectively.
When is the release date?... I've been eyeing the 500mm G's that have proliferated the Buy/Sell board... I keep telling myself... Must be patient, must be patient, ...
Also threw in my own image of the 500E vs 200-500E to get an idea how 500PF compares to 2-5.
Judging by my image versus the gear image I'd say the 500PF hits just above the focus ring in length (after compensating for the off set placement in the gear photo). The 200-500 retracted hits about 1/3rd up into the distal grip material. Not to mention how long the 200-500 gets at 500mm. The 2.7cm difference based on the rumours looks to be right on.
Looks nice, I will likely pick one up is price is right....then I will have four ways to 500mm in my Nikon kit
nuclearjock wrote:
The price will be right, right through the roof!
I'm really hoping the guys that have reported inside sources within Canada saying ~$3500CDN are correct and not NR that reports $4300 USD....those prices are so far apart that someone is so far off it is just silly.
Most products are selling at 30-40% in CDN over USD so a $3500CDN would make it a $2600USD lens (way to cheap IMO)....on the other hadn't a $4300USD price would give something like $5800 CDN.
arbitrage wrote:
I'm really hoping the guys that have reported inside sources within Canada saying ~$3500CDN are correct and not NR that reports $4300 USD....those prices are so far apart that someone is so far off it is just silly.
Most products are selling at 30-40% in CDN over USD so a $3500CDN would make it a $2600USD lens (way to cheap IMO)....on the other hadn't a $4300USD price would give something like $5800 CDN.
nuclearjock wrote:
I'M planning on the $4300 number FWIW.
I'm thinking 2x the price of the 300mm f/4 PF (about $4000 +/-). This would be in line with the pricing of the faster glass, as the 500mm f/4E is about twice the price of the 300mm f/2.8G vII
Anyone know the predicted release date?... 2018?...
