Hey there!
This means I will be quite accurate with my assumption - 1460 g with the foot, so without that could be quite correct
Yep, you nailed it! I still wish it was 200g lighter, but that's certainly not a huge deal.
Now I hope that Sony doesn't announce their ~2.5kg 500/4 at Photokina That'd be 3150g for a 500/4 + A7rIII vs 2470g for a 500/5.6 + D800.....With only ~700g difference I'm no longer sure that 5.6 is a no-brainer for hand-holding (and yes, I do realize that 500/4 will be 3.5x more expensive and much larger than 500/5.6 PF)
Another concern: 500/5.6 is made in China just like 300 PF... could that be an issue?
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.
I can't say I'm disappointed, but now I just hope that all the extra weight results in uncompromised IQ and low copy to copy variation. At this point (1.4kg+) weight savings over mirrorless + new gen supertele are too close to not being worthwhile, especially if accessories for another camera system are taken into account.
And I'm not sure if Chinese factory is capable of a supertelephoto-grade build quality.
There's still a massive advantage in price over anything f4 including Sigma, so I'll probably go for it.
maratus wrote:
I can't say I'm disappointed, but now I just hope that all the extra weight results in uncompromised IQ and low copy to copy variation. At this point (1.4kg+) weight savings over mirrorless + new gen supertele are too close to not being worthwhile, especially if accessories for another camera system are taken into account.
And I'm not sure if Chinese factory is capable of a supertelephoto-grade build quality.
There's still a massive advantage in price over anything f4 including Sigma, so I'll probably go for it.
I'd suspect that it's a lack of FL elements that makes it not able to beat the weight of the shorter 70-200. If this combined PF and FL elements, they'd probably bring the weight down more, but at a much higher cost. They've made a bit of compromise, I'd guess, to keep the price relatively low. It would be interesting to see if you could combine the fresnel and fluorite elements that seem to be getting lighter and lighter (Sony 400mm f/2.8) to make even lighter lenses. If they can get optical quality of the PF lenses to match that of the big exotics, maybe one day we'll see those things shed a bunch of weight.
Ouch. Well for me that means my recent decision to purchase the 200-500VR has been vindicated. I’m sure the 500PF will perform very well, but around here I need f4 for almost all my BIF shooting so f56 was never going to work for me anyway. I’d rather put this kind of money towards the 180-400....or 500E.
Well... I guess that I am a man of my words...
I pre-ordered the lens 20 minutes ago from B&H. I will be faced with the dilemma of keeping or selling my 200-400VR1. The zoom has served me well throughout the years, but it is not handhold able.
With plans confirmed to go to the Khutzeymateen on June 14 where shooting from a zodiac is a must, my wife and I will be traveling with a 70-200 f/4, 300mm f/4 PF, 200-500f/5.6 VR, and the new 500mm f/5.6PF.
For those who are interested, I will be comparing the new lens to my stable of optics (including the 200-400VR) and will share my thoughts, once I have a few to share...
For me, this is a huge huge decision. I have never had the stones to plunk $3650 on a single piece of camera gear before, preferring the used market to the new... but, this is the lens that I have been hoping someone would introduced for years!
Go Nikon for having the courage to innovate in the super-tele world!
regards,
bruce
reggieb wrote:
You have to pay for government programs somehow. No such thing as a free lunch.
It's not just that, but also Nikon take more from the price of a product sold in the EU than US. For example there is a significant difference in the D850 prices across the Atlantic, even if taxes etc. are subtracted.
ilkka_nissila wrote:
It's not just that, but also Nikon take more from the price of a product sold in the EU than US. For example there is a significant difference in the D850 prices across the Atlantic, even if taxes etc. are subtracted.
There is more to the cost of the taxes than the VAT that you pay, including extensive overhead costs for reporting, and I'm sure a myriad of complex regulatory requirements that all factor in, and wheresoever demand is relatively inelastic, you the consumer will bear that cost. The incidence and burden of a tax aren't the same thing. Doesn't matter WHO the government is charging (or whose costs go up), if they're able to pass the cost to the consumer, then they will. If demand is really flexible (that is a small change in price would drastically reduce the number purchased) then they won't pass it to you. They might even lower the cost to help pay for the tax.
That does not seem to be the case with camera gear, however.
reggieb wrote:
that seem to be getting lighter and lighter (Sony 400mm f/2.8)
The Sony 400mm f2.8 doesnt use lightweight glas elements or anything like that, it uses a simple trick: only use one of these very expensive very heavy big optical elements, not a couple, like Nikon and Canon do, and try to compensate the resulting optical errors in the section with the much cheaper small optical elements. However the total optical performance probably is lowered and thus I dont think Canon or Nikon will ever want to copy that idea.
reggieb wrote:
There is more to the cost of the taxes than the VAT that you pay, including extensive overhead costs for reporting, and I'm sure a myriad of complex regulatory requirements that all factor in, and wheresoever demand is relatively inelastic, you the consumer will bear that cost.
For the D800 the US and EU prices were very close to each other but with the D850 there is a considerable extra that Nikon are charging us in the EU market.
I doubt regulations would have changed in this time in such a way that it would force Nikon to place it to the customer.
The demand is very dependent on price, as in the US market the D850 is in short supply whereas in the EU stores it has been continuously in stock since December.
This is something Nikon is simply taking from us, not explained by regulations etc.
For the tax part that goes to government we are generally happy to pay it, as it pays for socioeconomic status independent, free education (right up to and including university), almost free health care in many cases, cheap day care etc. Someone living in the US would need much greater income to support a family than in my country. Cheap electronics do not really compensate for the difference.
Sauseschritt wrote:
The Sony 400mm f2.8 doesnt use lightweight glas elements or anything like that, it uses a simple trick: only use one of these very expensive very heavy big optical elements, not a couple, like Nikon and Canon do, and try to compensate the resulting optical errors in the section with the much cheaper small optical elements. However the total optical performance probably is lowered and thus I dont think Canon or Nikon will ever want to copy that idea.
I'm considering selling 300PF (never thought I'd say that anytime soon) and the 200-500 and getting this instead.
I noticed in the press release it specifically mentions use with 1.4TC being excellent so that of course is important to me as I mentioned previously. If they actually mention 1.4TC use then I'm also hopeful that 1.7TC use will be useable for good light static subjects.....
The price is reasonable and thankfully better than the NR predicted $4300USD which would have been a no go for me.
If I go ahead with the selling and buying I will be left with a fairly oddball Nikon lens lineup (500E and 500PF)....that doesn't seem right but maybe it makes sense
apertur3 wrote:
I preordered in the wee hours of the morning. Hopefully, this thing turns out to be a winner.
It surely looks like a big winner to me. However, if one really values lightweight then the 300PF and 1.7TC for 500/6.7 if you don't use 3D or Auto is still a lighter, smaller option and works really well IME.
I'm still contemplating what to do....I'd rather have a 300PF/600PF combo...if I buy the 500PF I think I will just sell the 300PF which mostly lives with a TC on it in my bag anyways......
just like 300 PF... could that be an issue?