roland_vink

My focal length estimates at 1:1 are just that: estimates. I am assuming the lenses behave like a perfect "thin lens" where the focus distance at 1:1 is 4x the focal length. For example, the 105 MC has a focus distance of 0.29m at 1:1, a thin lens with the same parameters would have a focal length of 72.5mm. Modern macro lenses have complex optics which may mean the focus distance is shorter or greater than an equivalent thin lens. I remember seeing an animation showing how the focal length of the AFS 105 micro changes with focal distance. At far distances the focal length hardly changes before rapidly shrinking at close range. At close range this makes framing difficult since small adjustments to the focus distance have a large effect on the framing and magnification (focus breathing). I suspect the 105 MC has more even reduction in focal length through the entire focus range, which would reduce the amount of focus breathing. This could explain the perceived difference in field of view compared to earlier models. The AFD 200 micro was always a very expensive lens which made it unaffordable for many photographers and resulted in relatively low sales. Sigma and Tamron had macro lenses with long focal length of 150mm and 180mm, which shows there is a market for this type of lens. I think an updated lens from Nikon, with improved focus system and VR could be popular. Ideally it would be a 100-200 f/4 zoom or similar, with decent tripod mount. It should come with a dedicated closeup lens for magnifications beyond 1:1 (or even a built-in close up lens that can be switched in like the big TC telephotos). An efficient focus limiter would ensure the focus speed is adequate.

A 300mm macro lens would not focus by extension, it would have internal focus like most 180mm and 200mm macro lenses with significant loss of focal length at close range. The Nikon AF 200/4 micro focuses down to 0.5m for 1:1 magnification where the focal length is near 135mm. If we scale that up to 300mm we can expect a close focus distance of about 0.75m with a focal length reduced to 200mm or so. Note that almost all 100/105mm macro lenses also have significant reduction in focal length at close range. The F mount 105mm micro lenses focus to 0.312m with a focal length around 80mm. The Z 105 MC has a shorter focus distance of 0.29m at 1:1, which suggests a focal length less than 75mm. The new Panasonic Lumix 100mm macro has very short minimum focus distance of just 204mm - less than the AFD 60/2.8 micro - suggesting a focal length near 50mm at 1:1. My old AIS 105/4 is an exception, it focuses purely by extension, extending 52.5mm by itself, and requiring the PN-11 extension tube to give the full 105mm extension for 1:1 magnification. The focus distance is 0.42mm, not far short of the 0.5m from the 200mm micro. All this is to say that 200mm or 300mm macro lenses would have a much longer working distance than a 100mm macro lens, even with focal length shortening at close range. Among the long prime lenses, the 300/4 lenses tend to allow relatively high magnifications - the AFS 300/4 gets to 1:3.7, while the 300/4 PF gets to 1:4.1. Adding a closeup diopter to the front will give even higher magnifications, with the loss of some working distance.

It would be unusual for Nikon to discontinue a lens so soon after it was introduced. But it is also strange that Nikon used the older optical design for their lens and then to allow Tamron to introduce the new version in direct competition with their Nikon branded model.

Also, the AI-S 55/2.8 micro and 105/2.8 micro. The latter works quite well as a portrait lens so Nikon probably felt there was no need to keep the 105/2.5 going also.

My AI-S 35/1.4 shows no sight of the white speckles internally. The focus action is a little dry and on the firm side even though the lens is relatively new, it does not have the buttery smoothness of most other AI and AI-S lenses. Only the Nikkor-N and Nikkor-N.C versions have the thorium glass.: "changes were also made to the optical system at the time when the lens barrel design was changed to the NEW-Nikkor. Though the basic lens construction remained unchanged, the glass material and the lens curvature were changed by Teruyoshi TSUNASHIMA, to improve the performance at open aperture" (https://imaging.nikon.com/imaging/information/story/0027/) Regarding the Nikkor-N version of this lens, it was the first Nikkor to be multicoated on all lens surfaces, even though it does not have the ".C" designation. Nikon didn't add this to indicate multicoating until a little later. The early Nikkor-N 28/2 lenses are the same.

I remember when this lens first came out, a lot of reviewers praised the Sigma for its sharpness. However, of the sample images that I saw (which I admit is not many), the background bokeh was terrible with double-line blurs - if there were fine branches or grass in the background it rendered like a mass of crawling worms instead of a smooth blur. The AF-S 35/1.4 Nikkor renders backgrounds much more smoothly, so while it is not as sharp it seems to produce more pleasing images. Sharpness is not everything, although it is one of the easiest things to measure and quantify, and gets talked about a lot in reviews. Nikon often emphasizes other more subjective qualities in their lenses, so they don't always measure so well on test charts, but they produce very good images in real world situation. The AF-S 35/1.5 and AF-S 58/1.4 are good examples of this.

I just realized a 600mm lens with f/6.3 aperture requires an entrance pupil (at infinity) of 600/6.3 = 95.2mm - that is larger than the filter size! Judging from the photos of the 600 PF and 180-600, there is a retaining ring around the front element inside the filter threads, so the overall diameter can't be more than about 91-92mm. I think they cheated a bit on the focal length or aperture - either the focal length is either closer to 580mm, or the max aperture is closer to f/6.5, or some combination of both 🙄

f4.5 is 1/3 stop slower than f/4. I guess this became a popular aperture because it looks "round" and not too slow. f/5 is 2/3 stop slower than f/4. I remember Olympus made a 200/5 lens, there might be others but it is not a common speed for lenses. The true halfway point between F/4 and F/5.6 is F/4.8 (or more accurately, f/4.76). Note that f/5.6 should really be f/5.66, which if rounded correctly would be f/5.7, but f/5.6 looks nicer ... rounder 🙂

The 500 PF has closer focus relative to the focal length compared to the other compact Z telephotos, giving higher magnification at the close limit. This should be useful for photographing small creatures. I also like that the max aperture is a "whole stop" value (and adding a 1.4x TC will give a very nice 700/8). I know it shouldn't really make a difference but I like "round" numbers 🙂. Lastly, the 500PF is compatible with F mount and Z mount via the FTZ adaptor, so overall is a more versatile lens. If I were to buy telephoto, this would be my first choice.

I haven't had any new serial numbers for these lenses recently, so my figures are likely to be out of date. That means they probably made more than my site indicates. I have seen nothing (so far) to indicate there are big gaps in the serial numbers.

The Z9 and Z8 cameras are 45MP, so the need for even higher resolution images is comparatively less than a 24MP camera like the Zf. So it looks like Nikon decided to introduce this technology into a camera which would benefit most from it. If the need for pixel shift is to reduce noise, then instead of taking 4 images and combining them, why not just take one image with 4x longer shutter speed (and two stops lower ISO), wouldn't this give you a similar reduction in noise? If you are already shooting at or near base ISO, the noise will be very low already, so the only purpose for pixel shift is for higher resolution. But if high resolution is what you need, you would probably be using the Z7, Z8, Z9 or medium format instead of a 24MP camera...

At this stage it is not known if the new version is optically superior for general shooting. The built-in VR might offer a little more stability, but the camera IBIS appears to be pretty effective for this focal length. Also, VR does not mean the lens is sharper (provided shutter speed is fast enough), so it is yet to be seen whether the new lens is substantially better. As for the close focus distance, Tamron states "shortened the MOD (Minimum Object Distance) at the wide end to 0.3m compared to the first-generation 0.85m". That seems to be a mistake because the this is almost identical to the first version, which focuses to 0.27m at 70mm and 0.85m at 180mm. Some reviews suggest the closeup performance at 70mm is not great. Tamron hasn't provided any details about the optical schema; it may not be a complete optical redesign, but rather adding VR and new AF motors to the existing design. Nikon did a similar thing with their AF-S 300/2.8 - the optics of the non-VR and VR versions are very similar, almost as if the lens was optically designed for VR from the start but it took a few more years for Nikon to perfect the VR unit and bring it to market.

Tamron just announced a new version of their 70-180/2.8 zoom for Sony E-mount. The new lens features a new optical design with VR and a shorter focus distance. The Nikon 70-180 now becomes the second lens, after the 28-75/2.8, based on an "older" Tamron design.

There are only two unannounced lenses left on the roadmap - a 35mm and 135mm lens, most likely 35/1.2 and 135/1.8. That might be everything announced for the rest of the year, unless Nikon surprises us with something new. The lineup is missing some specialist lenses - fisheye, tilt/shift, wider primes, and also missing an affordable xx-300mm zoom (although the 70-180 goes some way to filling that gap) The roadmap was useful in the beginning when the lens lineup was small. It gave photographers confidence that Nikon was going to add more lenses and fill out their lineup. Now Nikon has a reasonably complete set of Z lenses, they may abandon the roadmap and release lenses at a slower rate.

I would be very surprised if the 70-180 is not a Nikon version of the Tamron lens. On the roadmap it is shown on the same line as the NIkon/Tamron 17-28 and 28-75 lenses which suggests the same connection. If Nikon did resurrect their old 70-180 macro, I am sure it would have a new optical design which takes advantage of the new Z-mount, it would be an S-line lens, and it would be listed in the macro section and not with the zooms.