Considering all the interests in PF lenses off late, would like to understand the PF glass most (wildlife/sports/action) would be interested in. I am not considering the top exotics options here (like 300/F2 or 2.8, 400/f2.8, 500/F2.8 or F4, 600 F4 etc.) as one of the main requirements with PF is how agile the lenses are. Which implies there is an optimal balance between optical quality, size/weight and price.
Also please note the underlying assumption with the focal length/ aperture combinations here is that the native focal lengths will always be better than adding TCs (like a 400 F4 with a 2X TC can be an 800 F8).
A 400 should be f4, which will have actually have a tighter window (+100mm) than a 600 f5.6 PF (+108mm). With TC14 a 400 f4 is already a 560 f5.6, and 800 f8 with TC2.
Although wider, a 400 f4 should be more compact - still being short (so similar to 200 f2 but lighter). Conversely, the advantage of a 600 f5.6 is to get to 800 f8 with TC14. And one can expect decent IQ with this combo in many contexts (ie not pushing subject distances too far out).
Actually this poll presents hard choices especially as many of of us are likely to budget to own both a 600 PF and a 300 or 400. So - ideally - Nikon should aim to maximize options in their PF tech - ideally 400 f4, 600 f5.6 and even 800 f8
I agree. Of the above options i'd be interested in at least 2 of them (300 F4 and 800 F8) but if i could select only one that'd be 600 F5.6.
I wonder if there is a way to modify this poll to allow multiple selections. I tried but couldn't see an option.
chambeshi wrote:
A 400 should be f4, which will have actually have a tighter window (+100mm) than a 600 f5.6 PF (+108mm). With TC14 a 400 f4 is already a 560 f5.6, and 800 f8 with TC2.
Although wider, a 400 f4 should be more compact - still being short (so similar to 200 f2 but lighter). Conversely, the advantage of a 600 f5.6 is to get to 800 f8 with TC14. And one can expect decent IQ with this combo in many contexts (ie not pushing subject distances too far out).
Actually this poll presents hard choices especially as many of of us are likely to budget to own both a 600 PF and a 300 or 400. So - ideally - Nikon should aim to maximize options in their PF tech - ideally 400 f4, 600 f5.6 and even 800 f8...Show more →
I'm not a bird photographer. I'll photograph birds, but they are what I pursue when I can't spend time with mammals. As such, I chose the 400mm f/4. Ideally, this lens would be coupled with a 24MP DX milc Z500, but all of this is wishful thinking.
I think Nikon will release the 600mm f/5.6 (or f/8) PF and a 300mm f/4PF... but I think we'll be waiting until 2023 to see any of these lenses.
I'm not even sure what I'd pick at this point. 400/4, 500/5.6, 600/5.6 would all get consideration. We know the 600PF patent was 5cm longer than the 500PF. Front element at 107mm.
We have some idea of what a 400/4 would look like because Canon has one. Of course a 2022 lens may have some advancements over a 2014 lens. But still 100mm front element and in all likelihood a similar length to the 400DOII. Maybe less weight and cost though.
If anyone has some time to kill, it is interesting to go back and read the first 10-15 pages of the 500PF thread. Some people's opinions have stayed firm, many others have changed their mind since back then. Some said no way to a 500PF...I think all of those people now own one
But there is still lots of good discussion in those pages about different PF options (keep in mind the early posts were just based off patents as I'd changed the thread title once the lens was released).
Something else to think about. We know Nikon has a 200-600 coming. Let us assume for now that it is pretty much identical to what Sony has...so f/6.3 at 600mm and internal zoom. Same length/weight.
Sony 200-600 is 31.8cm long.
500PF is 23.7cm long
600PF based on patent would be 28.7cm long.
However a Z lens may end up being slightly longer due to the flange/sensor distance. So could be like adding an FTZ on the F-mount patent.
So would length of a 200-600 and 600PF end up similar? Would one value the 200-600 zoom and loss of 1/3 stop at 600 over the prime? Or would one value the prime?
Of course there is weight to consider also. 200-600 weighs identical to Canon 400DOII....will 600PF weigh similar? One would think they would be close just like a 400/2.8 and 600/4 are very close.
The 200-600 would be much cheaper if it is priced like Sony and a 600PF is priced like a 400DOII.
OwlsEyes wrote:
I'm not a bird photographer. I'll photograph birds, but they are what I pursue when I can't spend time with mammals. As such, I chose the 400mm f/4. Ideally, this lens would be coupled with a 24MP DX milc Z500, but all of this is wishful thinking.
I think Nikon will release the 600mm f/5.6 (or f/8) PF and a 300mm f/4PF... but I think we'll be waiting until 2023 to see any of these lenses.
bruce
[edit: apologies I cannot remove this font!] One option would be to keep 300 f4 PF and 500 f5.6 PF in production, but perhaps in future release "updated version with improved AF-P focusing so it plays even better with the Z’s in the upcoming announcement." to quote mawz from parallel thread (mistaken demise of 500 PF)
However, they could still launch 400 f4S PF and 600 f5.6S PF in only Z-mount. This will meet all categories of wildlife/sports shooters.
After all the dust has settled with a grown up Z system, Nikon stands to benefit by pushing all its telephotos into Z mount. They will be restricted to purely Z cameras (unlike F-Nikkors). Assuming cross-mount adapting is a minimal market...
For me agility is even more important than for most others as my main subject is flying dragonflies. Being able to quickly frame/track the subject with the camera/lens is very important and with big/heavy lenses like 2 kg or more this becomes very difficult. I love the Nikon PF concept but still waiting for the right ML camera to use it on
I would like a 4/300PF because the current F mount version has some IS problems that could be improved, and possibly native is slightly better for AF/IQ and slightly lighter than using an adapter. If Nikon doesn't make/plan a Z version (probably no need in the near future) I would buy the F version anyway and have to accept the IS limitations.
For the same reason I would prefer a 4.5/400 or maybe even a stellar 5.6/400. 4/400 might be on the heavy side judging from Canon 4/400 (way above Nikon 5.6/500PF in weight). Unless Nikon can loose a lot of weight compared to the Canon implementation (which I doubt) an f/4 400mm would probably be too heavy for me for "action" shots.
For me it is also important that both can be combined with a high quality 1.4x TC and have decent MFD. While I understand that bird photographers want a reasonably bright 500 or 600mm, I assume that Nikon can sell a lot more 300/400mm PF lenses with modest aperture because of much lower price and convenience out in the field.
You can avoid those VR problems (of the 300 PF and other lenses) by using EFCS. D6, D780, D850 and (AFAIK) all the Z cameras support EFCS in viewfinder photography (the DSLRs only in certain modes: Q, Qc).
arbitrage wrote:
I'm not even sure what I'd pick at this point. 400/4, 500/5.6, 600/5.6 would all get consideration. We know the 600PF patent was 5cm longer than the 500PF. Front element at 107mm.
We have some idea of what a 400/4 would look like because Canon has one. Of course a 2022 lens may have some advancements over a 2014 lens. But still 100mm front element and in all likelihood a similar length to the 400DOII. Maybe less weight and cost though.
If anyone has some time to kill, it is interesting to go back and read the first 10-15 pages of the 500PF thread. Some people's opinions have stayed firm, many others have changed their mind since back then. Some said no way to a 500PF...I think all of those people now own one
But there is still lots of good discussion in those pages about different PF options (keep in mind the early posts were just based off patents as I'd changed the thread title once the lens was released).
Something else to think about. We know Nikon has a 200-600 coming. Let us assume for now that it is pretty much identical to what Sony has...so f/6.3 at 600mm and internal zoom. Same length/weight.
Sony 200-600 is 31.8cm long.
500PF is 23.7cm long
600PF based on patent would be 28.7cm long.
However a Z lens may end up being slightly longer due to the flange/sensor distance. So could be like adding an FTZ on the F-mount patent.
So would length of a 200-600 and 600PF end up similar? Would one value the 200-600 zoom and loss of 1/3 stop at 600 over the prime? Or would one value the prime?
Of course there is weight to consider also. 200-600 weighs identical to Canon 400DOII....will 600PF weigh similar? One would think they would be close just like a 400/2.8 and 600/4 are very close.
The 200-600 would be much cheaper if it is priced like Sony and a 600PF is priced like a 400DOII. ...Show more →
I remember all of those early discussions, as I was an early adopter/pre-order/NPS purchaser. The 500PF was the lens I wanted at the time and continues to be my go-to lens. Since the purchase of the 500PF, my telephoto system has evolved quite a bit. Recall, I run with a double kit so that my wife does not have to work from my bag and I don't have to pinch her gear. Of course, when I shoot alone, it is all mine
Today our telephoto gear is : 70-200 f/2.8S (w/ 1.4x Z converter), 300mm PF (w/ TC14E III converter), Sigma sport 120-300mm f/2.8 (new to me), and 500mm PF. If Nikon introduces the 200-600mm f/6.3Z (let's call it that), and it has an internal zoom like the Sony, and is <$3500, I will buy it. This will require me to rethink my kit... but it is unlikely that the 500PF will be sold.
I loved shooting with my 200-400mm f/4, but it was too bulky. The 120-300mm f/2.8 fits in a bag w/ the 500PF and gives me really useful coverage... w/ that said, I really want a Z-native super telephoto lens. Why?... well my experiences with the 70-200S leads me to believe that a native lens will focus faster and have substantially better AFc performance than a converted F-mount lens with the FTZ. Even with the 1.4x, the 70-200S is stellar on a Z6ii.
ilkka_nissila wrote:
You can avoid those VR problems (of the 300 PF and other lenses) by using EFCS. D6, D780, D850 and (AFAIK) all the Z cameras support EFCS in viewfinder photography (the DSLRs only in certain modes: Q, Qc).
Good point, I hadn't thought of that because I was initially planning to buy a D500 which doesn't have this option ...
Valid points and the one thing we know for sure is that the 200-600 is not an S line lens, which means the optical quality may not be as good as Z PF, assuming the PF is an S line. If Nikon comes up with an S line version of the 200-600 mm lens, that would change all this equation quite a bit. Wow, i never saw the 600 5.6 patent and if that lens comes at a length of 28.7 cms that'd e truly amazing!
But why do you think the Z lenses maybe slightly longer? Aren't the 70-200 F mount vs Z mount almost the same size despite shorter flange on the Z? I feel the 200-600 will almost match the size of the Sony unless Nikon doesn't end up doing something similar to canon 70-200 and reduce the overall length by sacrificing TC usage.
arbitrage wrote:
I'm not even sure what I'd pick at this point. 400/4, 500/5.6, 600/5.6 would all get consideration. We know the 600PF patent was 5cm longer than the 500PF. Front element at 107mm.
We have some idea of what a 400/4 would look like because Canon has one. Of course a 2022 lens may have some advancements over a 2014 lens. But still 100mm front element and in all likelihood a similar length to the 400DOII. Maybe less weight and cost though.
If anyone has some time to kill, it is interesting to go back and read the first 10-15 pages of the 500PF thread. Some people's opinions have stayed firm, many others have changed their mind since back then. Some said no way to a 500PF...I think all of those people now own one
But there is still lots of good discussion in those pages about different PF options (keep in mind the early posts were just based off patents as I'd changed the thread title once the lens was released).
Something else to think about. We know Nikon has a 200-600 coming. Let us assume for now that it is pretty much identical to what Sony has...so f/6.3 at 600mm and internal zoom. Same length/weight.
Sony 200-600 is 31.8cm long.
500PF is 23.7cm long
600PF based on patent would be 28.7cm long.
However a Z lens may end up being slightly longer due to the flange/sensor distance. So could be like adding an FTZ on the F-mount patent.
So would length of a 200-600 and 600PF end up similar? Would one value the 200-600 zoom and loss of 1/3 stop at 600 over the prime? Or would one value the prime?
Of course there is weight to consider also. 200-600 weighs identical to Canon 400DOII....will 600PF weigh similar? One would think they would be close just like a 400/2.8 and 600/4 are very close.
The 200-600 would be much cheaper if it is priced like Sony and a 600PF is priced like a 400DOII. ...Show more →
gannis wrote:
Valid points and the one thing we know for sure is that the 200-600 is not an S line lens, which means the optical quality may not be as good as Z PF, assuming the PF is an S line. If Nikon comes up with an S line version of the 200-600 mm lens, that would change all this equation quite a bit. Wow, i never saw the 600 5.6 patent and if that lens comes at a length of 28.7 cms that'd e truly amazing!
But why do you think the Z lenses maybe slightly longer? Aren't the 70-200 F mount vs Z mount almost the same size despite shorter flange on the Z? I feel the 200-600 will almost match the size of the Sony unless Nikon doesn't end up doing something similar to canon 70-200 and reduce the overall length by sacrificing TC usage.
I was actually looking at the F vs Z 70-200 when I thought about that. The S lens is 2cm longer than the F lens. I figured that may just be because of the flange distance. Of course design could be changed from the old 600PF patent for mirrorless. But if they did use the same design they would need to tack on some extra space to move the rear element away from the closer sensor in the Z camera.
Mar 23, 2021 at 12:30 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
For me, I would ideally like to have a 300 f/4 PF (that could be a 420 f/5.6 with a 1.4X TC), and a 500 f/5.6 PF (that could be a 700 f/8 with a 1.4X TC). Although the idea of a 400 f/4 PF, a 600 f/5.6 PF, or an 800 f/8 PF sound great, I think they would all be bigger than I would want. For longer than 500, which I suspect I would want, I would want to be able to add a 1.4X TC and if I really needed the reach I suspect we will be able to use the Z9 in crop mode and still have about 20 MP, and still lots of pixels per duck. That is quite decent reach. So, I would be happy with just the 300 and the 500, and I could be quite happy with the F mount lenses. I would welcome Z mount lenses, however.
So far it appears 600/5.6 PF is the most wanted. I am surprised there are no takers for the 800/f8 considering there are a lot of bird photographers in this forum. May be the Z9 with its high resolution sensor that offers 20 MP+ files in DX mode changed the preferences a bit.
A high-grade 600/5.6 PF should be able to take a 1.4x just fine at 45MP+.
Beyond that the air will take it's toll for all but close subjects.
An 800/8 will be rather longer even in PF format and then you will have a gap to a shorter lens.
The size of the 500pf for me is perfect. I like the idea of a 600pf but if it is similar in length to the 200-600 the weight alone may not be enough of an advantage to get the 600pf. That is assuming the 200-600 would be as sharp or at least 95% as sharp as the 500pf wide open. If the 200-600 needs to be stopped down to f/7.1 to achieve reasonable sharpness then I would definitely still go for the 600pf. The main draw for the 200-600 for me would then be the price and MFD. I do think the 800 f/8 PF idea is also quite interesting. But in Nikon's statement they seem to imply that they may also use the PF technology for budget lenses like Canon's f/11 lenses and if the performance is only on that level (even if it were f/8) then I would definitely skip them.
JasonTheBirder wrote:
I do think the 800 f/8 PF idea is also quite interesting. But in Nikon's statement they seem to imply that they may also use the PF technology for budget lenses like Canon's f/11 lenses and if the performance is only on that level (even if it were f/8) then I would definitely skip them.
My impression is that the basic image quality of the Canon f/11 DO lenses is pretty good and probably in many situations atmospheric distortion etc. will be the limiting factor. IMHO the main problems are fixed aperture (no stopping down), low light gathering (basically only suitable for good lighting conditions) and not so great AF, IS performance and MF control.
I think there is a market for such lenses if they are VERY compact and cheap, as some kind of emergency solution that you could always take with you with still good image quality. But in many situations these lenses will not get the job done ...
gannis wrote:
So far it appears 600/5.6 PF is the most wanted. I am surprised there are no takers for the 800/f8 considering there are a lot of bird photographers in this forum. May be the Z9 with its high resolution sensor that offers 20 MP+ files in DX mode changed the preferences a bit.
I've always preferred to stop at 600 and use TCs to 800 and beyond. I have a number of subjects where 600 is enough. And that is especially true once we are using 45MP+ sensors.
