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

I check the knob when I mount the lens on tripod (in my case don't yet have the 500 PF but the 70-200/2.8). I don't carry the lens from the foot rather I hold the barrel and camera in my hands (and usually camera strap around neck) when walking and shooting.

When wandering around, I usually also support the lens barrel with the camera strap round my neck. When saving my neck, I've been known to carry the lens by its foot, usually with the camera strap wrapped around my wrist just in case. When carrying a lens by the foot, I do usually keep a finger on the lens barrel for stability, so I hope I'd know if it started sliding. (I was going to say I normally block the foot from sliding with my finger, but now I think about it, I can't work out what lens I could make this help with, so I must be imagining it. I dreamt shooting with an Eos 300D last night [although I do still own mine], so clearly I'm prone to photographic fiction.)

....or has anyone who hasn't ordered a 500mm 5.6 PF, received one?? !! ;)

You'd hope Shun would get a review copy ASAP, to drum up sales, although I get the feeling that won't be needed for this lens!

Actually I have done both, Nikon USA has promised a review copy, and I also ordered one in mid September. Unfortunately neither one has come thru so far.

It looks like Nikon sent out a bunch of them in early September, and a number of people have received them early on. The initial responses look good, and that was why I decided to order. But it looks like it has been a month since that initial, and so far last, shipment.

Meanwhile, there seems to be no shortage of the Z7 initially. Not all kit combinations are available, e.g. the FTZ seems to be in short supply, but it is easy to get the Z7 with or without the 24-70mm/f4 S kit lens.

Attached is a cropped image taken last night with my Nikon 500mm f5.6 on my D 810 with a Nikon 1.4x tc attached. Image area was set to DX on the camera so effective focal length was 1050mm. Shooting data was ISO 400, f 11, 1/100, exposure set at a minus 1.3. Mirror lock up used. Camera and lens was mounted on a tripod. I left VR ON by mistake. I believe focusing was done by the camera using AF-C in S. Image looks pretty sharp to me. AF by the camera was easy as the moon was very bright and the sky was dark.

In other tests, none scientific, in bright sunlight, AF acquisition seems to be faster with f 4 lenses than with the f5.6. The subjects were birds in flight at very long distances as I was taking picture of hawks migrating.

Lensrentals shows an available date of 1/04/2019. Any ideas as to what is taking so long?

Lens Rentals may be a totally different story. Perhaps all samples they have are already reserved through January. However, I haven't seen any additional shipment from Nikon since the initial batch from over a month ago.

Here is a link to Steve Perry's field test review of his Nikon 500mm f5.6 PF lens. It has comparisons to the Nikon 300mm f4 PF, the 600mm f4 and the 200-500mm. It is geared toward nature photographers.

Nikon 500 PF Review - Backcountry Gallery

Perhaps all samples they have are already reserved through January.

Most likely what's happening - I had checked lensrentals several times for availability of the lens - and when it finally appeared in their offerings, the availability had been for some time in late November. Obviously, this has shifted to a much later date now.

Most likely what's happening - I had checked lensrentals several times for availability of the lens - and when it finally appeared in their offerings, the availability had been for some time in late November. Obviously, this has shifted to a much later date now.

Potentially the availability date can shift forward or backward. I would imagine Lens Rents may eventually have like 10 samples of that lens for rental. When they receive additional samples from Nikon, more will become available.

I have one on order since mid September and am still waiting, and unfortunately a test sample from Nikon USA also has not come thru yet.

Interestingly Steve Perry's excellent review/comparison concludes the centre sharpness of the 200-500mm v 500mm PF is very similar.

But the measurements on the Lenstip site(s) show a markedly sharper 500mm PF.

Zoom. Nikon Nikkor AF-S 200–500 mm f/5.6E ED VR review - Image resolution - LensTip.com

Prime. Nikon Nikkor AF-S 500 mm f/5.6E PF ED VR review - Image resolution - LensTip.com

Zoom. Nikon Nikkor AF-S 200–500 mm f/5.6E ED VR review - Image resolution - LensTip.com

 

Prime. Nikon Nikkor AF-S 500 mm f/5.6E PF ED VR review - Image resolution - LensTip.com

The summaries do not offer much help in comparison of the two lenses. Other than the obvious size difference (which is not even mentioned), the reviews have not indicated differences that reasonably justify replacing the 200-500mm with the new.

I simply posted links to the relevant lens resolution pages of 2 separate lens reviews.

There is no comparison summary, just that, numerically, the PF is notably sharper than the 200-500mm @ 500mm, which seems to contradict the view of Steve's review.

I don't think replacing the 200-500mm with the PF is anyone's idea, especially Nikon's: it's in addition too!! :)

However, if you use the 200-500mm @ 500mm for over 90% of your shots, the PF is the better lens in every way, apart from financially....:(

the PF is the better lens in every way,

That's the part I am not sure about other than the size and weight issue (which my M43 system provides). The most important for me is focus and tracking speed and accuracy; and it appears that - so far - the reviews are not citing this as superior to the 200-500mm.

Here is a link to another review:

Nikon 500 f5.6 PF review. On safari with the small lens packing a powerful punch!

And a link to a test shot:

Ringed Teal (Nikon 500 f/5.6 PF test)

Maybe I have an unconscious bias, but most of the reviews I've read seem to think it's markedly better everywhere, but obviously much, much more expensive.

Now, as and when the 600mm 5.6 PF comes out, is that extra 100mm worth it for the obvious £££ hit .. who knows?

The most important for me is focus and tracking speed and accuracy; and it appears that - so far - the reviews are not citing this as superior to the 200-500mm.

When I tested the 500/5.6 PF prime, I noted that initial focus lock was noticeably faster than the 200-500 zoom. This was also true when the TC-14E III was attached. The 500 PF with the TC-14E III felt about as quick as the 200-500 without it. The 500/4E is even quicker, both with and without the TC.

While I am sure all three would be able to track most birds, I would feel more confident using either primes.

If you are interested, I would recommend you to try it first hand. Shoot against the light and judge for yourself it ghosting is a problem for you. I would say that ghosting is more of a concern than its af speed.

Here is a link to another positive review on the Nikon 500mm f5.6. It addresses AF acquisition compared to the 500mm f4 and the 200-500mm.

http://www.ejphoto.com/Quack%20PDF/Nikon%20500PF.pdf

Here is a link to another positive review on the Nikon 500mm f5.6. It addresses AF acquisition compared to the 500mm f4 and the 200-500mm.

 

http://www.ejphoto.com/Quack PDF/Nikon 500PF.pdf

OKOKOK, I'll consider it. Thanks. :)

Finally found a review that I like (haha). It mentions losing the zoom advantage of 200-500 but I believe it should not matter much when it's used with the 80-400.

Thanks for the link Joseph, I think he likes it...:)

Anyone think there's going to be a 600mm 5.6 PF, after-all there is a patent...? ;)

A compact 600mm would make a great warbler chaser!

Anyone think there's going to be a 600mm 5.6 PF

A 600mm f/5.6 requires a front lens diameter of more than 100mm which seems to be the magical boundary that makes prices jump into really expensive territory. So rather than costing about $4300 (estimate based on cost of 300 and 500 PF lenses and their relation to the 500/4 and 600/4), I'd say a 600/5.6E PF VR would cost about twice as much as the 500/5.6E PF VR. Size and weight about the same as the current 200-500 - so there definitely would be a weight and size savings similar to the one between the 500/4 and 500/5.6. But if my price estimate is in the ballpark, I doubt we'll see a 600/5.6E PF VR. I rather think that Nikon would release a 300/2.8E PF VR with a set of dedicated TCs (1.4x and 2x) - which certainly wouldn't help to keep cost down.

It is certainly possible that they would make also a 600 PF but common sense dictates that they first produce the 500mm for a while, until it is no longer selling well and then introduce the 600mm. :) This way, some customers will buy both. Is that the right thing for us? Not necesari

From my perspective the 500mm is of a good length and excellent portability, and there is a reasonable gap in focal lengths between 300 PF and 500 PF. With a 600mm, I would find there something missing between the 300mm and 600mm. (I do not like to use TCs.) Thus I think Nikon made a good choice. I suspect the 500 PF may well be equal to or longer than the 60-600 at "600mm" in many practical scenarios given the focus breathing. A 600mm f/5.6 PF would be more expensive, though my guess it would be around 6000€ in Europe. A higher price would suggest that they don't expect to sell that many, or difficulties in manufacturing, or a bit of both. As price goes up, the market becomes smaller.

Nikon commented a few years ago on the issue of making fast teles with PF and they said (not verbatim, quoting from memory) that they had found that the weight savings with PF designs in large aperture lenses are not as much as with the 300/4, and that the customers of the fast tele primes are particular about the bokeh and image quality, and thus other approaches than PF would be used for a better result in those lenses. Also they investigated 24-70 style lens with PF but it seemed there were similar compromises (not much weight and size savings, bokeh issues, image quality) mean they didn't go ahead with it.

They've also said recently that the PF lenses aren't quite as rugged and that conventional refractive lenses produce better image quality. So for Nikon PF is for the intermediate level telephoto primes, it seems, not lenses like 300/2.8.

A 600mm f/5.6 requires a front lens diameter of more than 100mm which seems to be the magical boundary that makes prices jump into really expensive territory. So rather than costing about $4300 (estimate based on cost of 300 and 500 PF lenses and their relation to the 500/4 and 600/4), I'd say a 600/5.6E PF VR would cost about twice as much as the 500/5.6E PF VR. Size and weight about the same as the current 200-500 - so there definitely would be a weight and size savings similar to the one between the 500/4 and 500/5.6. But if my price estimate is in the ballpark, I doubt we'll see a 600/5.6E PF VR. I rather think that Nikon would release a 300/2.8E PF VR with a set of dedicated TCs (1.4x and 2x) - which certainly wouldn't help to keep cost down.

Agree. Think the current 500mm is an optimum solution for now in term of cost, size, and [light] wight.

Thanks for the link Joseph, I think he likes it...:)

Not that it matters so much in this day and age, but she is a more accurate description. :D Thanks.