p.1 #1 · Which Phase-Fresnel telephoto primes would you buy?
Nikon's 2018 patent lists a 400, 500, 600 PF of 22cm, 28cm & 33cm length, respectively. All listed as f5.6. These lengths include the 46.5mm throat depth of the F-Nikon mount.
300 f4E PF = 755g 148 x 89mm; 77mm filter on 75mm window
500 f5.6E PF = 1460g 237 x 106mm, 95mm filter on 89.3mm window
400 f4E FL = 22cm TL; 100mm window
600 f5.6E FL = 33cm TL; 107mm window
So we could see a 600 f5.6E PF of approx dimensions of 330mm x 112mm. It could weigh <2kg. In an interview soon after releasing the 300 PF, three of its designers admitted the goals were challenging to meet. However, they succeeded again with the widely popular 500 PF. There appear to been challenges in yield of the foundry making the 90mm diameter phase-fresnel elements, but availabilities of this prime have improved since last year.
It also has been mentioned by a Nikon engineer they had planned PF camera lenses earlier: “….Mr. Fujie was active in many fields, not only with photographic lenses, but also with viewfinder optics and device optics. He also took the initiative in the development of PF lenses, though none of these lenses were ever released.” https://imaging.nikon.com/history/story/0057/index.htm
p.1 #2 · Which Phase-Fresnel telephoto primes would you buy?
I'd go for the 600 I think. Although I did love my 400DOII and it is a more compact option that still gets you 560/5.6 with a converter. Still though I'd probably opt for getting out to 840/8 with only a 1.4TC. Unless we are talking Z-mount and then maybe the 2xTC Z will be better than the F version (one can only hope)
Aug 03, 2020 at 09:05 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #3 · Which Phase-Fresnel telephoto primes would you buy?
arbitrage wrote:
I'd go for the 600 I think. Although I did love my 400DOII and it is a more compact option that still gets you 560/5.6 with a converter. Still though I'd probably opt for getting out to 840/8 with only a 1.4TC. Unless we are talking Z-mount and then maybe the 2xTC Z will be better than the F version (one can only hope)
I didn't vote because my preference would actually be a 300 f/4, 500 f/5.6, 800 f/8 trio of PF lenses. I would much rather have the 800 f/8 than the effective 840 f/8 of a 600 f/5.6 with a 1.4X TC.
p.1 #5 · Which Phase-Fresnel telephoto primes would you buy?
600mm f5.6. I would pre-order day of release. I cannot believe that Nikon is not putting this lens out immediately, especially given the success of the 500PF. I would greatly prefer it to be a Z lens. It would be a unique offering, potentially drawing people to the Z system, simply because no one else has a comparable offering, and it does seem PF is Nikon's forte. With the Z1.4TC, you would have a 840mm f8 lens, solidly besting Canon's 800mm f11 offering.
p.1 #7 · Which Phase-Fresnel telephoto primes would you buy?
600 5.6 PF I would order today. Even better if they offer it in a Z config. 400 F4 PF, very tempting. 400 5.6, nope
The 300PF with the 1.4 works just dandy.
p.1 #8 · Which Phase-Fresnel telephoto primes would you buy?
Does phase fresnel lenses only work on slower apertures? is it possible to create faster 2.8 lenses at smaller sizes? For example if Nikon remade some classics like the 135mm f/2 and 180mm f/2.8, but at far more compact sizes.
Aug 03, 2020 at 01:36 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #9 · Which Phase-Fresnel telephoto primes would you buy?
Jonathan F wrote:
Does phase fresnel lenses only work on slower apertures? is it possible to create faster 2.8 lenses at smaller sizes? For example if Nikon remade some classics like the 135mm f/2 and 180mm f/2.8, but at far more compact sizes.
Interesting idea. I would love to see a Z 135 f/2 PF that was less than 500g and a Z 180 f/2.8 PF that was around 600g. I would definitely buy one and maybe both.
p.1 #10 · Which Phase-Fresnel telephoto primes would you buy?
It's possible to make larger-aperture PF lenses but the benefits from the use of PF would be less than they are in 300/4 or 500/5,6, and the people who buy faster lenses are typically demanding on bokeh. PF is convenient and fun to shoot withbut aesthetically the images often have some issues (out-of-focus areas in front of the subject tend to double-line and the transition is a bit abrupt). Nikon also say that the PF lenses are not quite as rugged as conventional lenses can be.
I've been printing my nature portfolio and I find my PF images to be a bit harsh overall, whereas refractive lenses produce more pleasing results to my eye. I suppose a part of it may be exposure: how do the images relate to previously seen images. Still, it's enough that I'm considering whether I should replace my PF's with conventional lenses.
Positives that I've noticed include very good AF performance, good correction of LoCA, and of course, the extreme portability. Downsides include artifacts in out of focus areas, reflections causing flare and I even got a ghost image of the concentric rings of the PF element in some images where I was photographing flowers and including background highlights as another visual layer.
p.1 #11 · Which Phase-Fresnel telephoto primes would you buy?
ilkka_nissila wrote:
It's possible to make larger-aperture PF lenses but the benefits from the use of PF would be less than they are in 300/4 or 500/5,6, and the people who buy faster lenses are typically demanding on bokeh. PF is convenient and fun to shoot withbut aesthetically the images often have some issues (out-of-focus areas in front of the subject tend to double-line and the transition is a bit abrupt). Nikon also say that the PF lenses are not quite as rugged as conventional lenses can be.
I've been printing my nature portfolio and I find my PF images to be a bit harsh overall, whereas refractive lenses produce more pleasing results to my eye. I suppose a part of it may be exposure: how do the images relate to previously seen images. Still, it's enough that I'm considering whether I should replace my PF's with conventional lenses. ...Show more →
I agree with you, I prefer traditional super telelenses to DO or PF lenses for rendering. The Canon 400DOII was sharp as can be, the Nikon 500PF is sharp, but they also have a certain harsh rendering. Their huge benefit though is weight, size and cost.
p.1 #13 · Which Phase-Fresnel telephoto primes would you buy?
Actually a 400/5.6 is in the patent along with the 600/5.6 and the 500/5.6. The 400/4 is not in a known patent. However, I feel my 300PF with 1.4 TC performs so well that I’d never consider a 400/5.6 myself.
nandadevieast wrote:
400/5.6 will do it for me. Its not there in the patents though
p.1 #14 · Which Phase-Fresnel telephoto primes would you buy?
The lens preferred depends on the body; my 300PF kit really only makes sense for me on the DX body. And on bodies, I assume any future Z "action camera" would these days be full frame only, not sure Nikon would ever do a D500 style Z camera. So, again, I'd go for the 600PF, to duplicate the focal length I shoot with now. As Geoff notes, this would be particularly valuable in Z mount.... maybe Nikon would time it to coincide with the next high end Z body. They have to notice how Canon is releasing long glass with their new mount. Any lens expert know how difficult it would be for Nikon to modify the current PF duo to Z mount? Yes I know, adaptors, but something is always going to be lost there, an extra joint to wiggle, etc.
Aug 03, 2020 at 05:21 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #15 · Which Phase-Fresnel telephoto primes would you buy?
NorthMac wrote:
The lens preferred depends on the body; my 300PF kit really only makes sense for me on the DX body. And on bodies, I assume any future Z "action camera" would these days be full frame only, not sure Nikon would ever do a D500 style Z camera. So, again, I'd go for the 600PF, to duplicate the focal length I shoot with now. As Geoff notes, this would be particularly valuable in Z mount.... maybe Nikon would time it to coincide with the next high end Z body. They have to notice how Canon is releasing long glass with their new mount. Any lens expert know how difficult it would be for Nikon to modify the current PF duo to Z mount? Yes I know, adaptors, but something is always going to be lost there, an extra joint to wiggle, etc....Show more →
I am not a lens expert, but I will offer my best understanding anyway. I think for Z lenses (and really any mirrorless lens) you will want to consider when you are designing the lens making the focussing group smaller. You will also want to consider using the new ultra quiet and potentially very fast stepper motors and for a long lens probably more than one. You may also want to tune the VR so it works better with IBIS as well. All of that suggests that releasing a 300 or 500 PF to Z mount is more work than just bolting on an adapter. If they are going to do it, then, IMO, they ought to do it right and redesign the lenses a bit to work better with a mirrorless camera.
p.1 #16 · Which Phase-Fresnel telephoto primes would you buy?
Steve Spencer wrote:
I am not a lens expert, but I will offer my best understanding anyway. I think for Z lenses (and really any mirrorless lens) you will want to consider when you are designing the lens making the focussing group smaller. You will also want to consider using the new ultra quiet and potentially very fast stepper motors and for a long lens probably more than one. You may also want to tune the VR so it works better with IBIS as well. All of that suggests that releasing a 300 or 500 PF to Z mount is more work than just bolting on an adapter. If they are going to do it, then, IMO, they ought to do it right and redesign the lenses a bit to work better with a mirrorless camera....Show more →
Yes, it seems to me that to get the best out of the Z-system, Nikon has to design a 600PF lens from the ground up, so that the responsiveness, accuracy and speed of the AF system is perfectly tuned to the requirements as well as strengths of on-sensor PDAF. The 500PF with firmware 3.1 on the Z7 works great, but it just does not "stick" to a subject, it doesn't "bite" and does not tenaciously track a subject. Part of this will no doubt be the camera, the limitations of the current on-sensor PDAF, of the current processor, but undoubtedly it also has to do with the lens AF system being designed with conventional dslr AF in mind. We may see the possibilities of a Z designed telelens with the Z100-400S when it comes, but after that it will still be a long wait for e.g. a Z600S PF, which is on my mind currently.
p.1 #18 · Which Phase-Fresnel telephoto primes would you buy?
Thread question: none.
Wildlife isnt my genre, and others have already explained that PF elements are rather expensive and overall tend to degrade image quality, so they are really okay if you want a lightweight lens for wildlife, but they make absolutely no sense for people who dont specifically want lightweight extreme telephotos.
Certainly they are counterproductive with a 135/2 or 180/2.8 which can be made lightweight enough with regular optics.
p.1 #19 · Which Phase-Fresnel telephoto primes would you buy?
I have to say, I own both the 300 and 500 right now. Love them both dearly. They're an impeccable pairing. I took them both to Africa last year and left the 400/2.8 at home. I'm not sure I'd move on the 400/4 but a 600/5.6 would definitely be welcomed.
p.1 #20 · Which Phase-Fresnel telephoto primes would you buy?
I'd definitely get the 600 f5.6 in a heartbeat as long as it is at least as good as the 500 f5.6 PF. I would possibly get the 400 f4 PF but that is just a "possible". I did vote for getting both.
)