Nikon Announces the Development of a 500mm/f5.6 PF Lens

I'm not sure I've thought of AF-S lenses as loud - but it probably depends heavily on the lens.

 

Like I said, AF-s is dead silent compared to in-body, but on many lenses(even high end ones) it still makes some noise.

 

As I said, AF-P is both dead silent, and as we've been saying(I think you included) it's pretty consistent in its focus speed vs. AF-S. I'll still take a fast AF-S lens over AF-P...

Yes - my understanding is that SWM (like USM and HSM) is a high frequency ring motor which moves the lens quickly, but not necessarily repeatably (you wouldn't expect the same input to move the lens the same distance because of slop in the system, acceleration and torque variations etc.)

 

A stepper motor typically has less torque and sometimes less speed, but the motion of the driveshaft is (unless it freewheels completely) repeatable - there are a number of steps in a rotation, and the controller has exact control over when the corresponding electromagnets activate, theoretically ensuring the location of the driveshaft (without necessarily needing a rotational encoder to feed back where it got to). The prime benefit is that such a motor can quickly toggle back and forth between nearby positions in a repeatable way, which is the behaviour you need when a contrast-detect autofocus system (as Nikon uses for video) is trying to achieve focustor. Traditional phase detect autofocus has a better idea of how far out of focus a lens is, meaning it can handle an acceleration/deceleration curve without a high frequency jitter needed at the end for final alignment.

 

At least, that's why I believe stepper motors came in. They're more complicated to drive, but electronics are relatively cheap these days. The lenses the technology has been used on so far haven't really needed to move heavy elements a long distance, so I don't know whether it would be competitive at doing that.

 

Massive disclaimer: I'm a software person, and probably learned about stepper motors in the 1980s. There's a sporting chance that the technology, as with most of my knowledge of electronics, has moved on a bit in the meantime.

 

And I am an industrial automation person and servo system is always more expensive and accurate with encoder feedback (of course a servo system wouldn't work without encoder feedback). Stepping motor is much less expensive and is also easier to program. They are very accurate if they don't hit the torque limit that would stall them and miss steps.

Yes - AF-D (and presumably by proxy AF-S) lenses do have distance encoding, but I don't believe it's very precise. I've no idea whether the AF-P lenses have a separate encoder or just rely on staying within the torque range - autofocus may not require absolute positioning.

 

(It strikes me that monitoring inducted current through the stepper electromagnets might give you some passive location tracking. But presumably a controller that does so kind of defeats the point of using a stepper motor in the first place, so I don't know if this is any easier than just using an optical encoder. This is why I'm a software person...)

I don't think one would use stepping motor with encoder feedback. The whole idea of using stepper so that you don't have to deal with feedback. No I don't think the distance encoding is what they use as feedback for the AF-S or AF-D. There may be an encoder built in to the motor.

A rumour site is reporting an RRP around $4300 (converted currency), and about 3cm shorter than the 200-500 (presumably at 200mm). We'll have to wait for confirmation from a non-leaked source, obviously, but that's out of consideration for me. The 200-500, while certainly not perfect, is just too good, and that's too close to the 500 f/4 options (other than Nikon's current one).

A rumour site is reporting an RRP around $4300 (converted currency), and about 3cm shorter than the 200-500 (presumably at 200mm). We'll have to wait for confirmation from a non-leaked source, obviously, but that's out of consideration for me. The 200-500, while certainly not perfect, is just too good, and that's too close to the 500 f/4 options (other than Nikon's current one).

I am afraid that these rumors are pretty useless. For one thing they are highly questionable. And Nikon can make a $2000 500mm/f5.6 AF-S lens (but probably not PF) or a $7000 500mm/f5.6 AF-S PF lens. It all depends on how well the lens is made and more importantly, how fast AF is. At $1400, the 200-500mm/f5.6 E AF-S VR is highly affordable; at 500mm it is still very good optically, but its AF is definitely on the slow side. I often pair mine with a D5 body, and sometimes it still has difficulty acquiring focus with birds in flight. Thus it has a lot of limitations for action photography.

 

I have some doubt that whether Nikon can make any 500mm/f5.6 AF-S lens with excellent AF speed and accuracy, regardless of cost. That is something we can only find out when the new lens is available. If its AF isn't fast, I might as well just use the 200-500 zoom.

Shun, I cant imaging getting consistent critically sharp images of birds in motion hand holding a 500mm lens of any size. I sold my 500 f4 Nikor that fit in a back pack last year in favor of a 600mm f4 that doesn't but neither is truly hand holdable due to their weight and as well long focal length lenses amplify motion. I know younger photographers will make a liar out of me on this issue. Good on em. I like easy to carry systems as much as anyone not only because they are light but because I would other wise not have the lens with me but when push comes to shove I would rather have the sharper lens on a tripod with a good action head. The 500 f5.6 will be an expensive compromise especially with teleconverters but I can expect there will be some who will make it work given the amazing ISO flexibility that current DSLRs afford us. In the right hands this lens will be a good one because of it portability. Hopefully it will focus close and can be used with extension tubes. Good hunting.

Without doubt hand held 500mm images are a bit less sharp than a tripod mounted lens would give. Also composition is much easier to control from a tripod platform. Hand-holding 500mm lenses seems to have become a thing after Canon and Nikon got their 500/4's weights close to 3kg. Now you can quite often see even top photographers shoot their 500 hand held, and the results seem ok for printing in books. So if there is an issue with sharpness it doesn't exhibit itself in any obvious way in the final application. Looking at the original at 100% zoom is also a popular thing to do but what you can see there may not always be relevant in the image's final application. You can have a very successful image even if it isn't quite sharp at 100%.

 

I think a 500/5.6 PF if it is similar in optical quality as the 300/4 PF (or better) can be a useful lens. A 500/4 or especially a 600/4 has a "setup time" - if you see something interesting happening and you're walking in nature, you are likely to need more than a few seconds before being ready to shoot. It might take a minute if your tripod needs opening up. During this time you make some sounds and the subject may decide it is a little too much and slips away. I see this often if my camera is in the bag, just taking it out is enough to lose the opportunity. So, a lens that is so light that you can always have it ready to shoot is a useful thing. The 300 PF certainly is like this, and although the 500/5.6 PF's weight is not known, I would guess it too is so light that you can walk trough woods with then lens and camera around your neck or in hand, ready to shoot. For me the 200-500 was not something I could carry in my hands through some distance in the forest, for example; I would put it in the backpack for transport. This is where I see the value of the 500/5.6 PF. A friend of mine and I were driving on small roads and we noticed a deer at the edge of the field. My friend suggested there might be another and I got out of the car, found the second deer on the forest hill and followed it for a while keeping my distance (I walked through the forest in a parallel path not trying to get closer but tried to get some shots where possible). With the 300 PF I could run through the forest easily and got some quite good shots of the deer. A 500/5.6 would have put me at ISO 3200 but that's quite okay.

 

However, it is likely going to be an expensive lens and a second hand 500/4 VR is likely close to the price of the new 500/5.6 PF, so that does give some pause even though the 500/4G VR is not something I could use hand held at all. But, in other scenarios one can plan the shoot and use a tripod.

 

I see this kind of developments bring a degree of spontaneity into long lens photography. I have no doubt the 500/4 produces better results in terms of technical image quality and AF, but then if you can't take the lens to the subject when there is some activity, then this obviously limits what kind of situations can be photographed with it. Remember also the weight of the tripod and gimbal or fluid head when comparing the ease of application of these lenses.

Ilkka your comment about spontaneity in long lens photography is a good one. To that end I have recently purchased a Tamron 100-400 hand carry lens and bought the optional tripod collar. I normally would have stayed with a Nikon brand lens such as the 200-500 but bought the Tamron because it was one of the smaller telephoto zooms with range out to 400mm that had good image quality. In younger days it would really not have mattered so much. I dearly love my 200-400 Nikor but it is a beast that is less enjoyable to hike with now though I still carry it in a pack 2-3 miles with a series 3 Gitzo in my hands. More than three miles and I am less inclined to carry anything heavy. So now with my new kit I can do the Everest trip this year :) or at least spend the morning with my Audubon friends and keep up with them.

Belatedly, I wanted to be supportive of the 200-500 for hand-held birding. Obviously it's not as fast to focus as, say, my 200 f/2, but locked to its longer focal range it's just about usable. I was having way more trouble trying to get a focus point on these swifts than I was getting the lens to focus. Plus I could zoom out, which always helps when you've completely lost the subject.

 

This isn't brilliant - I was messing around, the sun was very low so the light was iffy, and I'm not very good at this (hence the practice). But the lens did okay, considering, and the rumoured price for the prime is awfully high in comparison for f/5.6. It also sounds big for my "carry around with a D7500" theory about target audience. Being tack sharp at f/5.6 would be nice, but would also put extra demands on the focus system because the depth of field would be smaller.

 

I'll await Shun's hummingbirds to do justice to a lens test, however!

 

Swift (aka slippery little sucker) taking insects out of the air at sunset. 1:1 crop.

D850 (I need to go back with the grip), 1/2500s, ISO 2000 (+boosted shadows), 200-500mm@500mm f/8.

Sharpness (and correction of LoCA in particular) helps avoid AF hunting because the focus is well defined (and the phase difference can be precisely measured). If a lens is poorly corrected for aberrations, the AF system has more than one place it could consider equally in focus and this results in somewhat more erratic focusing. I am not talking about the 200-500 specifically but general observations. Going into the 200-500, I found the AF works well from mid to long distances but in close range it struggled where the 300 PF just snapped into focus. I've found the 300 PF to be one of the most reliable focusers I have used (without TC, in daylight). I am not saying the 500 PF will be like this but I would expect some similarities in behavior. I do expect high sharpness and very good correction of LoCA in a PF prime tele. I can't really say I would be happy to spend 4k€-5k€ on an f/5.6 supertele but since long lenses are not my primary area of interest the "have fun while shooting" factor is very important to me and the 300 PF really passes that test with flying colours. I think with the 500 PF we will just have to wait and see how it performs and handles.

 

If the subject is small in frame, Group-Area AF and Auto-Area AF modes work well. Of those two, group area is probably faster. Dynamic area is better suited for subjects that are large in the frame i.e. relatively close.

I believe you, Ilkka. Since I already have the 300mm f/4 AF-S, I didn't feel I could really justify the PF version, so I can't compare. I've certainly struggled with moving wildlife with the older 300mm prime, but then it's famously a bit slow to focus.

 

I've been using 3D tracking by default, but with the rear joystick button set to 25-point dynamic area. Given that I can already move the AF point with the rear multi-selector, my big complaint is that you can't stop the joystick from also moving the AF point, so when I'm trying to activate dynamic area I keep accidentally moving AF. Practice will probably help. I was out today shooting some of the RAF 100th anniversary flyby (like, apparently, a lot of other people); I'm not very pleased with my results, but then I had the worst seeing I've ever experienced - everything hidden by heat shimmer (and smoke from a nearby field fire).

 

Still, if the price rumours are correct, the 500mm PF seems like a lot of money for a "have fun" lens.

I would highly recommend either auto area or group area for distant subjects that move fast but are only small specs in the viewfinder. I don't think 3D or dynamic area are the best choices for such situations. Dynamic area thinks too much and tries to focus on primary point whenever there is anything it can focus on, and 3D goes wild at times. (If the subject is near, and occupies a large part of the frame, D9 or D25 can work well as long as the primary point can be guaranteed never to leave the subject for a longer time than a split second.)

 

The 300PF is a lot better in AF than the 300/4D. Optically it is not so clear cut. The resale value of the D unfortunately dropped to about 500€-700€ so it is not so inexpensive to switch. But in my use the focus keeper rate is dramatically better with the new lens.

 

I thought we all do photography because we enjoy it for the most part. Enjoying what you're doing also can lead to better results because you want to keep doing it. I am not suggesting that the 500 PF is affordable; it is likely very expensive. But I do believe it has some applications where is likely excels.

 

The 200-500 is great value of course, but I enjoy the advantages of the 300 PF more than would need the extra focal length. I can't speak for others, I do believe the 200-500 is more popular.

Edited July 10, 2018 by ilkka_nissila

Thanks, Ilkka. I resorted to a larger dynamic area last night when trying to track swifts (checking that my camera and lens were okay, given how bad the RAF flyby shots were - and it was just heat haze), because I was having such trouble actually tracking them (I need practice, but they're fast and fly erratically). It was vaguely working, but I'll give auto area I go - I'm used to the advice not to use it because it's slow, but maybe not on a D850. I've yet to give the grip a work-out too, and that may help (if only with black-out time, which makes tracking tricky). That the D850 has a viable high speed frame rate means I'm a bit alarmed to see how many shots I'm actually putting through it. I need to restrain myself a little or I'll have to pay for a shutter replacement at some point...

 

If I didn't have the older 300 f/4 I'd probably have the PF - I've partly got it as backup, partly to take on trips where the 200-500 is just too painful to carry (so the PF would certainly be better still), and I can mostly live with the AF speed, since I'm no birding specialist. But I was kind of expecting the 500mm PF to be substantially smaller than the 200-500 (which, of course, is a lot longer zoomed out to 500mm), and rumours suggest it's not; the 300mm PF actually appreciably smaller than the older one. I admit my arm was getting a bit tired after a while with the 200-500, but then I'm not fit.

 

Oh well, we'll see once the 500mm PF is actually available and reviews happen. It looks to be way out of my price bracket (especially for what it is), but I'm not going to dismiss those who find it useful, especially at this point.

If I didn't have the older 300 f/4 I'd probably have the PF

I was in the same boat - I really enjoyed the older AF-S 300/4 but because of its size and weight, there was rarely space in the bag left for it unless I specifically planned for it and knew I was going to use it (usually at the expense of another lens that had to stay home). The newer 300/4E PF VR now takes up about the same space as a 24-70/2.8 and gets taken along a lot more.

 

the "have fun while shooting" factor is very important to me and the 300 PF really passes that test with flying colours

+1

 

D9 or D25 can work well as long as the primary point can be guaranteed never to leave the subject for a longer time than a split second.)

Agreed. I so wish Nikon would release a firmware upgrade giving the D500 the sorely needed d9 option! I use three buttons on the D500 to give me instant access to three different AF area options: group AF is on the joystick, single area on the AF-ON button and d25 on the PRV button. I've tried both auto area and 3D and the D500 is the first Nikon camera on which either is at least halfway competent.

 

my big complaint is that you can't stop the joystick from also moving the AF point, so when I'm trying to activate dynamic area I keep accidentally moving AF.

Same issue here - just learn to push the joystick straight in :D

Just reporting back: I had another go at my local swifts last night while the rest of the UK was watching England not get to the World Cup final. Auto area may well have been helping a bit, although the tracking point in the viewfinder is disconcertingly behind the subject if so. In any case, I did seem to have somewhat more luck with focus - my main problem being learning to track a fast-moving low bird while pointing a 200-500 straight up. I was also using the battery grip - that may have helped the autofocus, but it certainly seemed to reduce black-out time a bit, so it seemed easier to track (though it might be practice). Next time I try to do this seriously, I'm certainly taking the grip. Boy does the buffer fill fast, though.

 

I might resort to reprogramming one of the front buttons to area mode so I don't have to fight the joystick so much. I've got AF-On set to the front function button (the only useful one) on the Coolpix A, so it might not be as unnatural as I fear.

To maximize the burst depth in the D850, I would use the fastest available XQD card and 12-bit compressed or lossless compressed NEF. 14-bit only if using ISO 64-200 or so. You can also use a lower fps than 9.

 

Shutter button AF activation may help in handling if you also need to shift the selected point around.

Thanks for a tip from Dieter Schaefer, it looks like Nikon has a sample of the up-coming 500mm/f5.6 PF lens in Moscow for the World Cup, and a Russian reporter posted an image on Twitter: Pavel Bednyakov on Twitter

 

Please keep in mind that a 500mm/f5.6 lens has about a 90mm front element (the 200-500mm/f5.6 zoom uses 95mm front filters), and this sample lens has a length approximately 3 times as long as the diameter of its front element. Overall a pretty compact 500mm/f5.6 lens, as expected.

 

I would imagine this is a pre-production sample but it should be very close to final. Typically Nikon make you sign an NDA and make sure that you don't capture any image of an unannounced product. Therefore, I assume that this is a "leak" sanctioned by Nikon, and I would imagine that there are a number of test samples at the World Cup in the last month.

Edited July 14, 2018 by ShunCheung

I also think it's an intentional leak, to keep the buzz going. I think the lens must be close to official launch since it looks like it appears to have all the markings you'd expect from a finished lens.

 

It looks very good, something I could imagine finding in my bag. :) I wish they'd launch it soon as during the winter I have a bad habit of buing an f/5.6 supertelephoto lens, realizing the aperture is too small to be useful in the Finnish winter, then selling at a loss after frustrated attempts in using it. In the summer the situation is different and a 500/5.6 would work in many situations provided it is sharp wide open. I am also eager to use one now as there is a large moose and deer population this year. But unfortunately it is likely that the lens won't be available before the hunting season starts (and that's where the moose are smart enough to stay out of sight).

 

This is with 300mm PF, cropped.

 

Edited July 15, 2018 by ilkka_nissila

Reporting back again... having progressed from swifts as very slightly too easy, I wandered to my local mill pond last night, as the sun was setting. I was actually expecting to shoot swifts, but there weren't many about. On the other hand, I was getting buzzed by dragonflies quite a bit - and often too close for the focus limiter on the 200-500.

 

So, when I said the 200-500 is "usually fast enough" to focus, I'll take it back for this. I have a few fairly blurry shots out of a couple of hundred, all bursting with the D850 and grip. Tracking the dragonflies was almost impossible; getting the AF system to keep up was really impossible. I'm going to go back with the 70-200FL and see whether I can do better. I'd take my 200/2 (which at least has a focal length memory, which would really help), but I suspect I'd hit its close focus distance.

 

Add to that, once you've accidentally nudged the AF direction with the joystick, it absolutely will not then activate whatever focus mode you've put on button press until it's timed out - this missed me many shots. I've switched and put area AF activation on the Pv button instead so I stop having this problem. Fortunately I've got used to a front-button focus activation from the Coolpix A (which has its Fn buttons in a dumb place). I just thought I'd pass that on to anyone fighting accidental joystick activation. I'd still rather just have it be possible to turn the joystick off, since the multi-controller is perfectly capable for AF point selection.

I can manage most butterflies OK with my 200-500mm on the D500. Preferred settings are 1/2000 @ ~400mm @ f10 AUTO ISO. D9/21 or sometimes 3D.

 

But yes AF is slow. Admittedly, it's a huge ask of the AF module, but it's the mechanics that aren't fast enough.

 

I guess a 400mm 2.8 AFS with an ext. tube would work?

 

300mm f4 AFS is too slow too....:-(

 

......and yes, Dragonflies excel in high G maneuvers...:)

300 PF is quite fast focusing and optically excellent in the close range. I plan on trying it for dragonflies myself, perhaps tomorrow. We have something of a heat wave going on and we saw dragonflies and a snake while shooting some sundews at a remote pond last week.

Heatwave here in the UK too.... everything green is now brown and crispy!

 

Hopefully, it means clear skies for the Lunar eclipse later in the week...:)

 

I wonder what the close focus and focus speed of this new 500mm 5.6 PF will be?

 

Could be a good bug-chaser?

I've got my fingers crossed for sunset on Friday too! Right, I'm off to chase dragonflies. I tried them in Yellowstone with my previous lenses; here's hoping I'll do better in the UK with newer glass.

This lens was finally announced on August 23, 2018, along with Nikon's new Z mirrorless system:

Nikon 500mm/f5.6 PF Super Tele Formally Announced

 

Please follow up to the new thread.