p.4 #1 · Does Nikon have answer to Sony’s extreme aspherical element?
suteetat wrote:
It really depends on what is the most common focal length that you need.
600PF can be used with 1.4xTC or 2xTC as well. For bird and wildlife shooting, I have both 400/2.8s TC and 600/4s TC and used to have 800PF, along with 600PF, 100-400, the most used focal length is pretty much 600 and 800mm. 80% of the time.
I used to shoot 400/2.8s TC and 800PF and thought I have everything cover. Then I find that I ended up using 560 and 800mm the most so I eventually got 600/4s TC.
400mm is used only in specific situation and I still use it enough and I love the lens so I keep it but it does not get used nearly as often as 600/4s TC and I sold 800PF.
The situation where I used 400/2.8s TC the most is when I really need f2.8 as well. So 300/2.8 + TC1.4 is not ideal either.
600PF + TC1.4 is actually very good when the situation is right. Not something you can do with 300/2.8.
So pick your own poison, longer reach when neccessary or more light gathering at shorter focal length. One is not
an automatic winner for everybody.
I use it mainly when I need something light and small or when I travel where wildlife photography is not a priority and just have it there just in case.
I have 300PF at home and hardly ever touch it. Still a good lens in its own right but just not a focal length that I need and there are other much more suitable lens for me to use.
Also a lens that is married to TC almost all the time is never going to be my primary lens period. ...Show more →
Of course, I was just giving an example where having the option of going faster is handy - related to the comment that "f/6.3 often falls apart".
Not sure how you square away your last comment when you have just bought the 600 TC - if ever there is a lens married to a TC that's it
p.4 #2 · Does Nikon have answer to Sony’s extreme aspherical element?
duncangr wrote:
Of course, I was just giving an example where having the option of going faster is handy - related to the comment that "f/6.3 often falls apart".
Not sure how you square away your last comment when you have just bought the 600 TC - if ever there is a lens married to a TC that's it
Haha, I wonder if anybody is going to pick on that. Of course, married to TC means that TC needed to be use most if not all the time. 600TC, you can use it bare which is a suitable focal length often and engaged TC only when necessary (while not a breakthrough, is incredibly convenient in the field and I could not stress that often enough). Regardless, I think my involvement in this thread has pretty much runs its course. Those that think this lens the best thing ever, feel free to think so but it is not a universal feeling. 600PF, love it or hate it is entirely up to the person. There is no one perfect, one best lens for everyone.
p.4 #3 · Does Nikon have answer to Sony’s extreme aspherical element?
fnzmf25 wrote:
Inspired by this post, https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1915421/1, it seems like some folks suggest Sony’s extreme aspherical element is the reason why Sony is able to make such lightweight lenses - I’m thinking of the 300 GM. Is this true? Does Nikon have any similar technology (disregarding PF)?
Answer a: yes
Answer b: yes
There is no Z 2,8/300 available (yet), so we need to wait what technology Nikon is using, Aspherical lenses are in use for a very long time, producing them in large size for an affordable price makes the difference. Any incremental advantage may hold for a certain time only. In this case probably not too long as we talk about incremental updates. Sigma had an edge producing great aspherical glass for a very good price. Others followed, but sometimes one technology is over stressed a little bit. We still want great performance, nice bokeh, balanced weight or stable manufacturing processes.
A lightweight 2.8/300 is a nice eye catcher, but shaving weight from the really big glass helps a lot more.
Let’s see what the 120-300 brings technology wise and performance wise.
p.4 #4 · Does Nikon have answer to Sony’s extreme aspherical element?
fnzmf25 wrote:
Inspired by this post, https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1915421/1, it seems like some folks suggest Sony’s extreme aspherical element is the reason why Sony is able to make such lightweight lenses - I’m thinking of the 300 GM. Is this true? Does Nikon have any similar technology (disregarding PF)?
Can you clarify where the term "Extreme Aspherical" element is used, all I can find is "Super Aspherical" elements used in any description of the 300 f2.8 GM.
Nikon uses various terms for their Aspherical elements, like "Aspherical ED" Glass elements and "Super ED" glass elements and "Fluorite" glass elements. Nikon may have their own nomenclature for the same thing as "Super Aspherical" or they don't specify a difference between standard Aspherical and any type of "super" Aspherical.
"Super ED glass is a development of Nikon’s proprietary ED glass technology. Nikon optical designers developed Super ED glass to have optical properties resembling that of fluorite. Super ED glass exhibits an even lower refractive index and lower light dispersion than ED glass, while excelling at eliminating secondary spectrum and correcting chromatic aberration. Lenses that use Super ED glass deliver outstanding optical performance even under harsh shooting conditions, producing unparalleled sharpness and contrast though out the aperture range including usage at faster apertures."
Aspherical glass:
"A lens with a curved, non-spherical surface. Used to reduce aberrations and enable a more compact lens size. Aspherical lenses minimize coma and other types of lens aberrations, even when used at the widest aperture. They are particularly useful in correcting distortion in wide-angle lenses and help contribute to a lighter, more compact design by reducing the number of standard (spherical) elements necessary. Aspherical lens elements correct these distortions by continuously changing the refractive index from the center of the lens."
Aspherical - Extra Low Dispersion glass elements:
"An ED (Extra-low Dispersion) glass element that features the characteristics of an Aspheric glass element for a more compact size lens. Like Aspherical lenses, AS-ED lens elements minimize coma and other types of lens aberrations, even when used at the widest aperture by continuously changing the refractive index from the center of the lens. The AS-ED lens elements are optical glass developed by Nikon to obtain optimum correction of chromatic aberrations."
ED (Extra low Dispersion) and Super ED Glass:
"ED Glass is an optical glass developed by Nikon that is used with normal optical glass in telephoto lenses to obtain optimum correction of chromatic aberrations. Super ED glass exhibits an even lower refractive index and lower light dispersion than ED glass, while excelling at eliminating secondary spectrum and correcting chromatic aberration"
ED (Extra-Low Dispersion) Glass:
"An optical glass developed by Nikon that is used with normal optical glass in telephoto lenses to obtain optimum correction of chromatic aberrations."
Fluorite Lens Element:
"Fluorite (FL), a lightweight mono-crystal optical material, has excellent optical properties while reducing overall lens weight to improve balance and handling, especially useful in longer focal length lenses."
Looking at any of the above list of glass elements that Nikon uses, to lower weight Nikon would probably be using "Fluorite" glass elements and/or "Super ED" Glass elements where Nikon state that they reduce weight. I may have missed other glass elements used.
Almost all of them are obsessed with correcting the last scintilla of CA, which cannot be fully achieved. Sony starts out that page this way: 'Lenses built with conventional optical glass have difficulties with chromatic aberration..' and they don't even refer to HRI at all.
The people designing your lenses are optical experts, not image experts. The image is a secondary concern, something they believe flows automatically from sound optical design, as a natural consequence. No, it's not.
'The perception of image quality is more than the sum of its technical merits. Image fidelity is not image quality. Sharpness is not the same thing as image quality. It’s not an optical engineering question. In the real world, image quality is actually image appeal.'
Almost all of them are obsessed with correcting the last scintilla of CA, which cannot be fully achieved. Sony starts out that page this way: 'Lenses built with conventional optical glass have difficulties with chromatic aberration..' and they don't even refer to HRI at all.
The people designing your lenses are optical experts, not image experts. The image is a secondary concern, something they believe flows automatically from sound optical design, as a natural consequence. No, it's not.
'The perception of image quality is more than the sum of its technical merits. Image fidelity is not image quality. Sharpness is not the same thing as image quality. It’s not an optical engineering question. In the real world, image quality is actually image appeal.' ...Show more →
p.4 #7 · Does Nikon have answer to Sony’s extreme aspherical element?
I’m honestly not sure. It just seems to me from Sony’s article that they have been heavily invested in developing these aspherical elements that allow them to do crazy things, while for Nikon I see a lot of phase fresnel. Since no other manufacturers are able to make PF lenses as nice as Nikon, it does make me wonder whether Sony due to their early investments have an edge in making these elements.
By the way, people in this thread have been suggesting that the 24-70 f2.8s ii is proof that Nikon is equally advanced in making the aspherical elements, but I’m actually not convinced, the reason is that Nikon has the meso amorphous coating which significantly reduces reflection within the glass, so that could be the reason why they are able to place a large aspherical element in the front (not so much their abilities to produce large aspherical elemwnts).
These are all just my conjectures hence why I’m wondering what others think…
Lance B wrote:
Can you clarify where the term "Extreme Aspherical" element is used, all I can find is "Super Aspherical" elements used in any description of the 300 f2.8 GM.
Nikon uses various terms for their Aspherical elements, like "Aspherical ED" Glass elements and "Super ED" glass elements and "Fluorite" glass elements. Nikon may have their own nomenclature for the same thing as "Super Aspherical" or they don't specify a difference between standard Aspherical and any type of "super" Aspherical.
"Super ED glass is a development of Nikon’s proprietary ED glass technology. Nikon optical designers developed Super ED glass to have optical properties resembling that of fluorite. Super ED glass exhibits an even lower refractive index and lower light dispersion than ED glass, while excelling at eliminating secondary spectrum and correcting chromatic aberration. Lenses that use Super ED glass deliver outstanding optical performance even under harsh shooting conditions, producing unparalleled sharpness and contrast though out the aperture range including usage at faster apertures."
Aspherical glass:
"A lens with a curved, non-spherical surface. Used to reduce aberrations and enable a more compact lens size. Aspherical lenses minimize coma and other types of lens aberrations, even when used at the widest aperture. They are particularly useful in correcting distortion in wide-angle lenses and help contribute to a lighter, more compact design by reducing the number of standard (spherical) elements necessary. Aspherical lens elements correct these distortions by continuously changing the refractive index from the center of the lens."
Aspherical - Extra Low Dispersion glass elements:
"An ED (Extra-low Dispersion) glass element that features the characteristics of an Aspheric glass element for a more compact size lens. Like Aspherical lenses, AS-ED lens elements minimize coma and other types of lens aberrations, even when used at the widest aperture by continuously changing the refractive index from the center of the lens. The AS-ED lens elements are optical glass developed by Nikon to obtain optimum correction of chromatic aberrations."
ED (Extra low Dispersion) and Super ED Glass:
"ED Glass is an optical glass developed by Nikon that is used with normal optical glass in telephoto lenses to obtain optimum correction of chromatic aberrations. Super ED glass exhibits an even lower refractive index and lower light dispersion than ED glass, while excelling at eliminating secondary spectrum and correcting chromatic aberration"
ED (Extra-Low Dispersion) Glass:
"An optical glass developed by Nikon that is used with normal optical glass in telephoto lenses to obtain optimum correction of chromatic aberrations."
Fluorite Lens Element:
"Fluorite (FL), a lightweight mono-crystal optical material, has excellent optical properties while reducing overall lens weight to improve balance and handling, especially useful in longer focal length lenses."
Looking at any of the above list of glass elements that Nikon uses, to lower weight Nikon would probably be using "Fluorite" glass elements and/or "Super ED" Glass elements where Nikon state that they reduce weight. I may have missed other glass elements used....Show more →
p.4 #8 · Does Nikon have answer to Sony’s extreme aspherical element?
fnzmf25 wrote:
I’m honestly not sure. It just seems to me from Sony’s article that they have been heavily invested in developing these aspherical elements that allow them to do crazy things, while for Nikon I see a lot of phase fresnel. Since no other manufacturers are able to make PF lenses as nice as Nikon, it does make me wonder whether Sony due to their early investments have an edge in making these elements.
By the way, people in this thread have been suggesting that the 24-70 f2.8s ii is proof that Nikon is equally advanced in making the aspherical elements, but I’m actually not convinced, the reason is that Nikon has the meso amorphous coating which significantly reduces reflection within the glass, so that could be the reason why they are able to place a large aspherical element in the front (not so much their abilities to produce large aspherical elemwnts).
These are all just my conjectures hence why I’m wondering what others think…
Nikon has had the best coatings for years (with Zeiss) and further improved them with the Z mount glass, but there are no new coatings in the 24-70mm f2.8 mkII. The gains are purely from superior optical tech, both design and manufacturing.
Sony would have done it if they had had the ability. Their 24-70mm f2.8 mkII is very recent.
There is zero reason to think that Nikon isn't at the absolute forefront of lens technology.
p.4 #9 · Does Nikon have answer to Sony’s extreme aspherical element?
fnzmf25 wrote:
I’m honestly not sure. It just seems to me from Sony’s article that they have been heavily invested in developing these aspherical elements that allow them to do crazy things, while for Nikon I see a lot of phase fresnel. Since no other manufacturers are able to make PF lenses as nice as Nikon, it does make me wonder whether Sony due to their early investments have an edge in making these elements.
By the way, people in this thread have been suggesting that the 24-70 f2.8s ii is proof that Nikon is equally advanced in making the aspherical elements, but I’m actually not convinced, the reason is that Nikon has the meso amorphous coating which significantly reduces reflection within the glass, so that could be the reason why they are able to place a large aspherical element in the front (not so much their abilities to produce large aspherical elemwnts).
These are all just my conjectures hence why I’m wondering what others think…
Actually, Nikon has also been concentrating on other lightweight lens elements, Fluorite and Super ED glass. I don't think any specific lens maker has a monopoly on lens expertise.
p.4 #11 · Does Nikon have answer to Sony’s extreme aspherical element?
Mark II has the meso amorphous coating that the Mark I doesn’t, right?
No other lens manufacturers have something similar to that, no?
bernardl wrote:
Nikon has had the best coatings for years (with Zeiss) and further improved them with the Z mount glass, but there are no new coatings in the 24-70mm f2.8 mkII. The gains are purely from superior optical tech, both design and manufacturing.
Sony would have done it if they had had the ability. Their 24-70mm f2.8 mkII is very recent.
There is zero reason to think that Nikon isn't at the absolute forefront of lens technology.
p.4 #15 · Does Nikon have answer to Sony’s extreme aspherical element?
bernardl wrote:
Many other Nikon lenses use meso coating.
Cheers,
Bernard
Currently, seven Z lenses are equipped with Meso Amorphous Coat.
The first two Z lenses with Meso Amorphous Coat were the Z 400/2.8 TC VR S and the Z 600/4 TC VR S.
These were followed by the Plena, the first Nikon Z non-super-telephoto lens with Meso Amorphous Coat.
More recently, the Z 28-135mm f/4 PZ, the Z 35/1.2 S, the Z 24-70/2.8 SII and the Z 70-200/2.8 VR SII, have been added.
p.4 #16 · Does Nikon have answer to Sony’s extreme aspherical element?
Outstanding wrote:
Once again Nikon with Z 70-200 S II showed it can make lenses lighter than GM II versions of Sony.
There is no Z 300mm f2.8 so if and when they make one we can reach to a conclusion.
And all that while coming up with a highly video friendly lens, shorter focusing distance, faster AF,... and the first mainstream lens with an Arca compatible foot. That alone cancels our half of the difference vs mkI price and makes it cheaper when factoring in real inflation, not to mention that it makes the lens tripod compatible from day 1 instead of having to wait weeks until a 3rd party replacement foot starts to ship.
p.4 #17 · Does Nikon have answer to Sony’s extreme aspherical element?
The limit on Nikon isn't tech. They're absolutely at the forefront there. In category after category, either they're best-in-class or tied for best-in-class, or they simply don't have that specific product.
The limit is factory capacity. They've had to pick battles on what products to launch now and what to wait on. But they've 200,000 square feet of new lens factory capacity in Japan currently under construction that's coming online in summer 2027, supporting both their camera lenses and also their microscopes and lithography equipment.
p.4 #19 · Does Nikon have answer to Sony’s extreme aspherical element?
Daniel Bliss wrote:
The limit on Nikon isn't tech. They're absolutely at the forefront there. In category after category, either they're best-in-class or tied for best-in-class, or they simply don't have that specific product.
The limit is factory capacity. They've had to pick battles on what products to launch now and what to wait on. But they've 200,000 square feet of new lens factory capacity in Japan currently under construction that's coming online in summer 2027, supporting both their camera lenses and also their microscopes and lithography equipment.
If they don't make a product then they are not best in that class, they are absent from that class. Nikon had a broad enough range though.
It's like saying Lecia is best in class, but a much smaller class.
