This could be a pretty awesome lens if done right-- much like a modern 400L that Canon seems to have forgotten to update. 700mm on a D850 is still a LOT of reach and it may even come in under 2kg (400 DO I believe is just over 2kg).
They should have released the 600 f5.6, not a 500 f5.6. The 600 f5.6 will be relatively light, I believe in the order of about 2kg which is very handholdable. We already have a 500 f5.6 in the 200-500 f5.6 and those that have one won't be "upgrading" to a 500 f5.6 at the cost it is likely to be, there is just no real point and you lose the flexibility of a zoom. A 500 f5.6 PF doesn't interest me, a 600 f5.6 PF does. It is pointless releasing a 500 f5.6 because Nikon believe it is cheaper than a 600 f5.6 as due to the fact that we have the 200-500 f5.6 as they just won't be enticing "that market segment" anyway either because they can't afford it or because they have that focal range covered well with the 200-500. And with an f5.6 lens, you need to start off as long as you can get because you can't realistically use a TC with it as it slows things down way too much.
I was told that 600/5.6 will follow in a reasonable time. Since I already have 500/4, I am looking forward to 600/5.6 very much as I think 600/4e FL is too big and heavy and I would not like the idea of having to travel with it. 500/4e FL is about the limit that I can handhold and easy enough to travel with.
Over here, I was told to expect 100,000+ THB for 500/5.6 so that could be anywhere from $US3-6000 depending on the +, I supposed.
dpreview news claimed 50% lighter than its predecessor. Not sure which 500mm they are talking about but if it is 50% lighter than 500/4e FL then 600/5.6 PF will be very easy to travel with.
mb126 wrote:
This could be a pretty awesome lens if done right--.
Keeping in mind that the PF design does not provide same sharpness/image quality as the FL or G design, done right might be disappointing to some. Then maybe, Nikon has improved the design.
RoyC wrote:
Keeping in mind that the PF design does not provide same sharpness/image quality as the FL or G design, done right might be disappointing to some. Then maybe, Nikon has improved the design.
Based on what? My 300PF is pretty close if not equal to my 500FL. Basically not noticeable in real world images of birds, looking at feather detail.
arbitrage wrote:
Based on what? My 300PF is pretty close if not equal to my 500FL.
To begin with, owning the 300mm f2.8 G VR II, the 300mm f4 D and the 300mm f4 PF and shooting all three. The PF is OK, but nothing to brag about. The other two clearly are sharper.
And if you check a testing site that has PF/DO lenses tested and the company's non PF/DO design, the sharpness rating are always lower for the PF/DO design. And finally, we have the interviews with Nikon glass engineers during the release of the 300 PF where they (Nikon) stated that the PF design does not permit the best IQ.
Lastly, your statement 300 PF being pretty close to your 500 FL supports my observations, OK lens nothing to brag about.
Then again, as I originally stated maybe Nikon has improved the design, six months after release we will know.
Lance B wrote:
They should have released the 600 f5.6, not a 500 f5.6. The 600 f5.6 will be relatively light, I believe in the order of about 2kg which is very handholdable. We already have a 500 f5.6 in the 200-500 f5.6 and those that have one won't be "upgrading" to a 500 f5.6 at the cost it is likely to be, there is just no real point and you lose the flexibility of a zoom. A 500 f5.6 PF doesn't interest me, a 600 f5.6 PF does. It is pointless releasing a 500 f5.6 because Nikon believe it is cheaper than a 600 f5.6 as due to the fact that we have the 200-500 f5.6 as they just won't be enticing "that market segment" anyway either because they can't afford it or because they have that focal range covered well with the 200-500. And with an f5.6 lens, you need to start off as long as you can get because you can't realistically use a TC with it as it slows things down way too much. ...Show more →
If your assumption about the quality of the pf is accurate... that is, the 500mm f/5.6 pf image quality is close enough to the 200-500 @ 500mm... then you are correct. A 500mm pf like this would be an expensive and redundant product. On the other hand, if the 500mm pf has a pro build with weather sealing, fast AF, and significantly better image quality, the lens would create an entry point into pro-level super telephoto optics. Let's face it... with the exception of the 300mm f/2.8 VR (which isn't really a super-tele), all of Nikon's current super telephoto lenses are upwards of $10,000 US. As a result, the majority of people wishing to shoot a high-end prime are turning to the used market or Sigma 500mm f/4 where Nikon makes nothing.
I think that I am the target audience for a sub-$5000 super-tele. I am an NPS member, a freelance writer/photographer, contracted per project by the Nature Conservancy, and teacher. I can not afford to buy a new super-tele prime, so I have scrounged the used market for "good enough." If a new, compact, pro-built, fast autofocusing 500mm f/5.6 lens were introduced $4600... I'd find a way to buy it. Anything more would have me looking for a used 500mm VR1 or not buying anything at all. ...with that said, I am now eyeing a demo Sigma 500mm f/4 for $5000, if I go this way, Nikon will have lost a sale.
Lance B wrote:
They should have released the 600 f5.6, not a 500 f5.6. The 600 f5.6 will be relatively light, I believe in the order of about 2kg which is very handholdable. We already have a 500 f5.6 in the 200-500 f5.6 and those that have one won't be "upgrading" to a 500 f5.6 at the cost it is likely to be, there is just no real point and you lose the flexibility of a zoom. A 500 f5.6 PF doesn't interest me, a 600 f5.6 PF does. It is pointless releasing a 500 f5.6 because Nikon believe it is cheaper than a 600 f5.6 as due to the fact that we have the 200-500 f5.6 as they just won't be enticing "that market segment" anyway either because they can't afford it or because they have that focal range covered well with the 200-500. And with an f5.6 lens, you need to start off as long as you can get because you can't realistically use a TC with it as it slows things down way too much. ...Show more →
RoyC wrote:
Keeping in mind that the PF design does not provide same sharpness/image quality as the FL or G design, done right might be disappointing to some. Then maybe, Nikon has improved the design.
Quite the opposite, I'd be shocked if this lens has a significant IQ hit compared to the FL super-teles. Doing so gives a pretty clear three-pronged approach around 500mm:
(1) 200-500 VR -> cheaper, decent IQ but f/5.6 and slower AF
(2) 500 PF -> more expensive (4-6k?), fewer if any IQ compromise, but still f/5.6
(3) 500 FL -> Ultimate IQ, costs as much as the car you drove to the trail, but gets you to f/4.
The Canon 400 DO (which is evidently a brilliant 560 f/5.6 with a 1.4) definitely shows there isn't an inherent IQ penalty with a similar design. If the Nikon design is too close in IQ to the 200-500 VR then what the hell are they even making this lens for?
In terms of pricing I don't think they can go much over 6k for it. Both the Canon/Nikon 500s were released before the Sigma 500 and going over the MSRP of that lens starts looking unattractive.
If bragging about your lens’ score on a test site is the objective you need to buy a 400 f2.8 FL and call it a day.
The 300 PF and likely the 500 PF are more than capable of making a sharp real world image.
RoyC wrote:
To begin with, owning the 300mm f2.8 G VR II, the 300mm f4 D and the 300mm f4 PF and shooting all three. The PF is OK, but nothing to brag about. The other two clearly are sharper.
And if you check a testing site that has PF/DO lenses tested and the company's non PF/DO design, the sharpness rating are always lower for the PF/DO design. And finally, we have the interviews with Nikon glass engineers during the release of the 300 PF where they (Nikon) stated that the PF design does not permit the best IQ.
Lastly, your statement 300 PF being pretty close to your 500 FL supports my observations, OK lens nothing to brag about.
Then again, as I originally stated maybe Nikon has improved the design, six months after release we will know.
Lance B wrote:
They should have released the 600 f5.6, not a 500 f5.6. The 600 f5.6 will be relatively light, I believe in the order of about 2kg which is very handholdable. We already have a 500 f5.6 in the 200-500 f5.6 and those that have one won't be "upgrading" to a 500 f5.6 at the cost it is likely to be, there is just no real point and you lose the flexibility of a zoom. A 500 f5.6 PF doesn't interest me, a 600 f5.6 PF does. It is pointless releasing a 500 f5.6 because Nikon believe it is cheaper than a 600 f5.6 as due to the fact that we have the 200-500 f5.6 as they just won't be enticing "that market segment" anyway either because they can't afford it or because they have that focal range covered well with the 200-500. And with an f5.6 lens, you need to start off as long as you can get because you can't realistically use a TC with it as it slows things down way too much. ...Show more →
"Relatively light" is relative to each individual. I am guessing it will be 1.5kg, or lighter. The 200-500 is 2.3kg and is relatively too heavy for many.
My 300 f4 PF is 755g, and with the 1.7x TC comes to around 1kg. That is a BIG weight reduction compared to the 200-500. Of course I prefer a zoom, but not when it is too heavy for me.
I find the bare 300 PF sharper and faster AF than the zoom. With the 1.4x as sharp as the zoom with AF about the same. With the 1.7x not as sharp as the zoom and AF worse. 300 with or without TC's way more maneuverable and can handhold for much longer intervals.
The key factors will be how much lighter it will be and of course the price. There certainly will be a market for this lens. I for one would take it even at double the price of the 200-500. And AF with a 1.4x TC on it will probably be good enough for stationary subjects.
The biggest gap for many photographers for many years has been the lack of a "relatively" light and less expensive alternative 500mm PRIME lens option. 500 f4 primes are still too heavy and expensive for too many.
Nikon is going to satifsy that market need with the 500 f5.6 PF prime lens.
By the way, it was only yesterday that Nikon officially announced "development" of this lens, and I would be surprised if it hits the market this year:
All I’ll say is the differences in IQ between my 500FL and 300PF are meaningless in the final picture I get.
Yes if I’m involved in a bragging contest I’ll use the 500FL but I tend to keep to myself when out taking photos.
The 500 FL to me has value in only one aspect over the 300PF and that is 200mm at the same aperture...period. I find no significant difference in IQ, AF or how well it takes a TC. But YMMV.
RoyC wrote:
To begin with, owning the 300mm f2.8 G VR II, the 300mm f4 D and the 300mm f4 PF and shooting all three. The PF is OK, but nothing to brag about. The other two clearly are sharper.
And if you check a testing site that has PF/DO lenses tested and the company's non PF/DO design, the sharpness rating are always lower for the PF/DO design. And finally, we have the interviews with Nikon glass engineers during the release of the 300 PF where they (Nikon) stated that the PF design does not permit the best IQ.
Lastly, your statement 300 PF being pretty close to your 500 FL supports my observations, OK lens nothing to brag about.
Then again, as I originally stated maybe Nikon has improved the design, six months after release we will know.
arbitrage wrote:
All I’ll say is the differences in IQ between my 500FL and 300PF are meaningless in the final picture I get.
Yes if I’m involved in a bragging contest I’ll use the 500FL but I tend to keep to myself when out taking photos.
The 500 FL to me has value in only one aspect over the 300PF and that is 200mm at the same aperture...period. I find no significant difference in IQ, AF or how well it takes a TC. But YMMV.
There are countless great 300PF images on the forum, it clearly is a very capable lens for nature/wildlife (maybe IQ difference with the best lenses is more obvious with infinity shots, in optimal conditions?).
On the other side, I noticed that there are quite a few 300PF lenses available on the local second-hand market, usually at significant discount to new price. I wonder why that is (why more than e.g. the old 4/300 lens?). Maybe there is significant copy variation and people sell sub-par copies, or some lenses get sold because of the VR problem?
Nikon is using different PF/DO technology than Canon and it might be that the Nikon version is more suitable for slightly less bright lenses, making a 4/400 DO less likely. Or maybe it's just a marketing decision from Nikon to go for more affordable (and smaller/lighter) products that are interesting for semi-pro buyers while Canon is aiming higher, just like they only have a relatively expensive 100-400 and no competitor to the Nikon 200-500.
maybe it's just a marketing decision from Nikon to go for more affordable (and smaller/lighter) products that are interesting for semi-pro buyers while Canon is aiming higher
Well, both manufacturers offer products at different price ranges. If one manufacturer makes a breakthrough product it is not necessarily sensible always for their competitor to make a lens at the same focal length and aperture (if the original design is optimal and patented, it would be difficult to match it without patent violation). By making slightly different focal lengths and apertures Nikon may be able to offer appealing products without having to try to somehow "go around" Canon's patents.
I think 500/5.6 is a smart choice; 1.67x ratio between focal lengths (300 and 500) is large enough so that ownership of both makes sense. 300 and 400 may be too close and 300 and 600 too far apart. I don't like TCs and never really got an image that I was happy with using a TC.
Well, I was more interested in the 600f5.6 PF, rather than this 500f5.6, as already have the versatility of the 200-500f5.6, and like that a lot. Yes it is a great 500f5.6 option. Also I assume that the IQ & AF of 500f4 FL would be hard to beat by any 500mm lens, for the time being.
I would think if the 500 is successful, the 600 may soon follow. For me, 600mm is just too long and I wonder how good hand held results can be with such high magnification in a lightweight lens.
