fbpixel

Moderators: Greg Downing, E.J. Peiker

All times are UTC - 5 hours

  
« Previous topic | Next topic »  
Reply to topic  
 First unread post  | 108 posts | 
by DChan on Wed Jun 13, 2018 11:24 pm
DChan
Forum Contributor
Posts: 1714
Joined: 09 Jan 2009
Time to start saving??

Nikon developing compact and lightweight 500mm F5.6 lens
 

by Swissblad on Thu Jun 14, 2018 12:48 am
User avatar
Swissblad
Forum Contributor
Posts: 778
Joined: 17 Jun 2016
I was hoping they would do a 600mm f5.6 PF first, but if the price is right...... this will go in our bag.
Lighter lenses are a godsend as one gets older.
;)
 

by Tim Zurowski on Thu Jun 14, 2018 1:59 am
User avatar
Tim Zurowski
Forum Contributor
Posts: 18830
Joined: 04 Apr 2006
Location: Victoria BC, Canada
I too was really hoping they would do a 600 f5.6 PF. I would take the 200-500 f5.6 over this lens for the versatility factor.
Cheers
Tim Zurowski
www.timzphotography.com
 

by photoman4343 on Thu Jun 14, 2018 11:02 am
photoman4343
Forum Contributor
Posts: 1727
Joined: 01 Feb 2004
Location: Houston, TX
The excellent image quality of hand held images I get from the Nikon 300mm f4 PF E when mated with the Nikon TC 1.4 III on my D 500 makes me wonder what the 500mm f5.6 will have that the 300 + 1.4 x does not have. That being said, if the 500mm f4 Pf E is as good as the 300mm f4 PF E , Nikon should sell a bunch of them if AF is great and the price is not too high.
Joe Smith
 

by E.J. Peiker on Thu Jun 14, 2018 11:39 am
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 81934
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
Pretty exciting news. As others, wish it were a 600/5.6 though.  My fear is that it will still be $8K though.

I hope the do expand out the line with a complete set of PF super teles:
300 f/4 PF (already exists)
400 f/4 PF (patent for a 400 f/5.6 PF exists)
500 f/5.6 PF (development announced)
600 f/5.6 PF (patent exists)
 

by Scott Fairbairn on Thu Jun 14, 2018 12:20 pm
User avatar
Scott Fairbairn
Forum Contributor
Posts: 4415
Joined: 13 Jan 2005
If the price isn't crazy, I bet this will be popular very quickly. It will certainly make air travel easier.
 

by John Guastella on Thu Jun 14, 2018 12:29 pm
John Guastella
Forum Contributor
Posts: 340
Joined: 23 Oct 2010
This product may be what finally pushes me to ditch my Canon gear and switch to Nikon. 

Any speculation on how this lens will perform with a 1.4X teleconverter attached?

John
 

by david fletcher on Thu Jun 14, 2018 1:03 pm
User avatar
david fletcher
Lifetime Member
Posts: 17029
Joined: 24 Sep 2004
Location: UK
Member #:00525
I'd be quite interested in this too. Pretty certain the performance won't be an issue... Price placement for me will determine it's appealability. Be great for travel.
Make your life spectacular!
 

by DChan on Thu Jun 14, 2018 2:14 pm
DChan
Forum Contributor
Posts: 1714
Joined: 09 Jan 2009
E.J. Peiker wrote:
  My fear is that it will still be $8K though. [snip]


Anyway to make a reasonable guess on the dimensions of this lens?

I'm interested in this lens if it's much more portable than a 500 f4. Still, if it's gonna be $8K or more then I'm out.
 

by Gary Irwin on Thu Jun 14, 2018 4:30 pm
Gary Irwin
Forum Contributor
Posts: 532
Joined: 17 Sep 2008
Location: Ontario, Canada
I really don't understand Nikon's thinking...you can get an excellent 500mm f5.6 with the quite-light 200-500VR, or an even lighter way with the 300/4 + TC17EII. A 600/5.6 or a 400/4PF would make more sense to me.
Gary Irwin -- some Nikon stuff
 

by Tim Zurowski on Thu Jun 14, 2018 6:30 pm
User avatar
Tim Zurowski
Forum Contributor
Posts: 18830
Joined: 04 Apr 2006
Location: Victoria BC, Canada
Gary Irwin wrote:
I really don't understand Nikon's thinking...you can get an excellent 500mm f5.6 with the quite-light 200-500VR, or an even lighter way with the 300/4 + TC17EII. A 600/5.6 or a 400/4PF would make more sense to me.

Exactly!  A 600 f5.6 would be something no one else has and IMHO would be a big seller, assuming the price was in league with the 300 PF.
Cheers
Tim Zurowski
www.timzphotography.com
 

by E.J. Peiker on Fri Jun 15, 2018 7:53 am
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 81934
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
Gary Irwin wrote:
I really don't understand Nikon's thinking...you can get an excellent 500mm f5.6 with the quite-light 200-500VR, or an even lighter way with the 300/4 + TC17EII. A 600/5.6 or a 400/4PF would make more sense to me.

The 200-500 is good for what it is, a low cost super tele zoom, but it is FAR from excellent optically when compared to a 500 f/4 or really any 500mm prime lens in the last 30 years.  The 300 PF + 1.7x, or anything with the 1.7x doesn't even make it up to mediocre by today's standards for optics.  The 300PF with 1.4 is pretty good though.  But yes, a 600/5.6 makes more sense - they do at least have a patent for it. 
 

by WJaekel on Fri Jun 15, 2018 5:35 pm
User avatar
WJaekel
Forum Contributor
Posts: 510
Joined: 30 Jun 2007
Location: Germany
Member #:01354
John Guastella wrote:
This product may be what finally pushes me to ditch my Canon gear and switch to Nikon. 

Any speculation on how this lens will perform with a 1.4X teleconverter attached?

John

Canon has shown a prototype of a 600mm/f4 L IS DO BR USM some time ago. It will probably cost a fortune and the release date is not announced, though. It seems logical that they will close the line to the excellent 400mm/f4 DO II, by introducing a 500mm DO, too. Maybe wait until Photokina in September before ditching your gear for that reason.

Wolfgang
 

by E.J. Peiker on Sat Jun 16, 2018 12:13 pm
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 81934
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
Well one thing we can get out of the way on size is that the front element, for it to be a true f/5.6 lens, and assuming it is a true 400mm (manufacturers tend to cheat both of these by as much as 10%) will need to be at least 89.3mm wide.  So, the lens should be able to take standard 95mm filters!

Now to speculate length, if we scale the 500PF the same way that Nikon scaled the 300PF, the length of the lens should be around 246mm which is about 50mm longer than the average 70-200 f/2.8 zoom.

So if it is 95mm x 250mm, compared to a 500 f/4 that measures about 140mm wide by 390mm long we have a very serious reduction in size and weight.  My calculations put the weight at about 3.8 lb assuming the same construction materials as the 500 f/4.

To summarize, my prediction based on calculations is as follows:
True focal length: 486mm
True aperture: f/5.77
T-value: T/6.0
Length: 246mm
Diameter: 98mm allowing for a 95mm thread
Weight: 3.8lb
Price: $6495

Lets see how close I am when it finally gets announced :)
 

by david fletcher on Sat Jun 16, 2018 1:04 pm
User avatar
david fletcher
Lifetime Member
Posts: 17029
Joined: 24 Sep 2004
Location: UK
Member #:00525
E.J. Peiker wrote:
Well one thing we can get out of the way on size is that the front element, for it to be a true f/5.6 lens, and assuming it is a true 400mm (manufacturers tend to cheat both of these by as much as 10%) will need to be at least 89.3mm wide.  So, the lens should be able to take standard 95mm filters!

Now to speculate length, if we scale the 500PF the same way that Nikon scaled the 300PF, the length of the lens should be around 246mm which is about 50mm longer than the average 70-200 f/2.8 zoom.

So if it is 95mm x 250mm, compared to a 500 f/4 that measures about 140mm wide by 390mm long we have a very serious reduction in size and weight.  My calculations put the weight at about 3.8 lb assuming the same construction materials as the 500 f/4.

To summarize, my prediction based on calculations is as follows:
True focal length: 486mm
True aperture: f/5.77
T-value: T/6.0
Length: 246mm
Diameter: 98mm allowing for a 95mm thread
Weight: 3.8lb
Price: $6495

Lets see how close I am when it finally gets announced :)

I'll play EJ.   Good shout.  The only area I'm hoping is not going to happen is the price point.    :)

$6,495 is about $500 over the Sigma 500 F4.  I personally wouldn't bank on Nikon not getting that right but if that's where the cookie crumbles...  Going to be interesting.  
Would you spend $500 more to reduce weight, but lose a stop.. Probably.  
Would you spend $1000 over the current 300 F2.8 VR II,   don't know.  
Would you spend $4000 more over the 300 F4 PF +1.4.. Now there's the thing as I can see loads of it's and but's if the price point is askew.  

I'm hoping to see a $5000 tag area.  Were it the 600 5.6 I'd wouldn't blink... hey ho...  
Make your life spectacular!


Last edited by david fletcher on Sat Jun 16, 2018 1:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 

by E.J. Peiker on Sat Jun 16, 2018 1:38 pm
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 81934
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
Yeah, I hope it's A LOT less than my guess too but of late, new lens models, especially from Nikon and Sony, have been way higher than history would have predicted so I built in an extra $1500 just for that, especially if they see that demand is going to be high which will mean that it will be on back-order for a year - the D850 is still on backorder in the USA.
 

by Tim Zurowski on Sat Jun 16, 2018 7:01 pm
User avatar
Tim Zurowski
Forum Contributor
Posts: 18830
Joined: 04 Apr 2006
Location: Victoria BC, Canada
The Nikon 300 f4 PF is $2300 here in Canada. So what then is it about a new 500 f5.6 or 600 f5.6 that would make it 3 times more expensive? I too was hoping (expecting) that it would be in the $4000 to $5000 range in CAD$
Cheers
Tim Zurowski
www.timzphotography.com
 

by George DeCamp on Mon Jun 18, 2018 8:53 am
User avatar
George DeCamp
Lifetime Member
Posts: 3752
Joined: 20 Aug 2003
Location: Myrtle Beach, SC
Member #:00147
Well the Nikon 800mm f5.6 is 16k so I wouldn't hold my breath for a low price on the 500 f5.6. I think E.J. is on the mark. I wold love the 600 myself.
 

by Anthony Medici on Mon Jun 18, 2018 5:35 pm
User avatar
Anthony Medici
Lifetime Member
Posts: 6797
Joined: 17 Aug 2003
Location: Champions Gate, FL
Member #:00012
DChan wrote:
Anyway to make a reasonable guess on the dimensions of this lens?


The objective needs to be at least 90mm wide to get this aperture. That's 10mm less than the 200 F2 or the 300 F2.8. The article I read gave the length at 280mm. That's 107mm less than the current 500 F4.

Although it is about 13mm longer than the 200-500 when that lens is NOT extended, it should be significantly lighter than the 200-500 because it has less casing to deal with and no zoom mechanism. It will also be easier to handle handheld since it is not as long as the other lens when the other lens is at 500mm. I would also hope for fast focusing since it isn't a zoom.

In terms of price, both the 200 F2 and the 300 F2.8 will be fatter than this lens. Both are selling currently at about $5500. Both of those lenses are older so I'd put the price at about the same since the glass isn't as big but the lens is newer. (Of course, $6000 is certainly in range of that about...)

If I'm going lighter and ending up with an F5.6 lens, I'd rather it would be the 600 rather than a 500. Whether I end up with one of these will depend on when I need at least a 500 for a trip and whether I've already sold off my current 500 F4 yet.

Tony
Tony
 

by DChan on Tue Jun 19, 2018 1:19 am
DChan
Forum Contributor
Posts: 1714
Joined: 09 Jan 2009
Thank you E.J. and Tony for taking up the challenge :-)

Too bad the price could be higher than I would like to pay for even though the weight reduction could be significant for my liking. Like others, if it's $6K I would like it to be a 600mm :-)
 

Display posts from previous:  Sort by:  
108 posts | 
  

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group