Not sure why some are so concerned on how this lens will compare to 300 f2.8, 500 f4, 600 f4, etc.
That is not the market target for this lens. It is for those who don't want or need the weight or expense of those lenses.
My 300 PF on my D500 gives very sharp results and the AF for small & fast-moving subjects. While others may certainly have got better results than mine below with any of the above lenses, I would not have. And many others would not have. That is simply because they and myself could not wield the above super-teles to get the shots in the first place.
So just like the 300 PF, there are many who will find a 500 PF better for themselves than than a 500 f4, etc.
It matters not if other lenses have better IQ & AF for those unable to use them.
I have hundreds of shots where my 300 PF/D500 combo has grabbed and locked onto a small subject at a great distance with a busy background.
Imagemaster wrote:
...My 300 PF on my D500 gives very sharp results and the AF for small & fast-moving subjects. While others may certainly have got better results than mine below with any of the above lenses, I would not have. And many others would not have. That is simply because they and myself could not wield the above super-teles to get the shots in the first place.
So just like the 300 PF, there are many who will find a 500 PF better for themselves than than a 500 f4, etc.
It matters not if other lenses have better IQ & AF for those unable to use them.
... "Different lenses for different photographers"....Show more →
Very well put...
For some money is not an obstacle to making a purchasing decision, and for others weight is not an obstacle.
On the flip side, there are many where both budget and mass are significant factors. In these cases, the PF lenses appear to provide the opportunity for those willing to spend a fair of money to get the benefits of modern optics and a reduction of mass.
Regardless of what one chooses to attach to the camera, getting to your desired location and making strong compositional decisions will have a greater impact on the final image than shooting with the most perfect lens. For those who can have it all... good for you!
Imagemaster wrote:
I would only consider buying the 500 PF if the AF and IQ was considerably better than the 300 PF with the 1.4x TC.
And of course I would also expect it to do both better than the 200-500.
If it doesn't do better than the 200-500 than Nikon has lost it's marbles....I really doubt it will do much better than the 300PF/1.4TC....maybe better at going far to near where the 300PF suffers IME.
It will be a tough sell if the price is as high as NR reports (even for me ). But as I've said, I'll be looking more towards it being used as a relatively lightweight 700/8 where the 200-500 sort of fails (although can be used for some stuff) and the 300PF can't reach.
bs kite wrote:
I am likely to wait to see the 600 5.6 PF.
Same here. Especially if the lens is $4300 USD then I'd rather spend that kind of money on a 600. Even though the 600 will be a few $1000 more than that.
bs kite wrote:
I am likely to wait to see the 600 5.6 PF.
I am still interested to see how (if) that 600 f/4 DO shakes out.
I love my 300PF, but I'm not personally interested in this one. When I want decent tele in a really small lightweight package for a tough hike, or just in case I see something on a business trip, the 300PF is perfect. This just seems a bit too slow, a bit too short, and a bit too big for me. Of course, that's all just personal preference. I do hope sales are enough to justify continued expansion of the PF line. Though I'd like the next one to be a 300mm f/4 Z lens.
1.2kg seems optimistic. This is supposedly built to higher standards than 200-500 more like the f/4 superteles and I'd expect more like 1.4-1.5kg even if all plastic. Which is still amazingly light.
Pixel Perfect wrote
1.2kg seems optimistic. This is supposedly built to higher standards than 200-500 more like the f/4 superteles and I'd expect more like 1.4-1.5kg even if all plastic. Which is still amazingly light.
It's skinnier than 70-200/2.8 everywhere except for the very front part and has fewer elements (and supposedly smaller mid/rear elements to emphasize weight reduction). I don't see why it can't be lighter than 70-200/2.8 (1.4kg) while maintaining the same build quality.
maratus wrote:
It's skinnier than 70-200/2.8 everywhere except for the very front part and has fewer elements (and supposedly smaller mid/rear elements to emphasize weight reduction). I don't see why it can't be lighter than 70-200/2.8 (1.4kg) while maintaining the same build quality.
We can just start guessing and see who get‘s closest.
So my guess is 1.380g !
( without anything, just the bare lens)
Official pics....now onto the real important stuff:
PRICE and WEIGHT
But it does look like that might be an Arca Swiss foot...not totally sure.
Having the lens buttons is a big plus for me as it gives me one more easily accessible AF mode without using the stupid AF-Mode switch.
