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

Previously Nikon had pre-announced this lens back in June:

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

 

The actual announcement became part of the Nikon mirrorless Z system announcement and is buried under. I think this lens deserves its own thread.

 

The fact that Nikon announced another high-end F-mount lens along with its brand new mirrorless system shows that DSLRs and the F mount isn't going away any time soon, but current emphasis will be mirrorless such that I would expect fewer new DSLRs and F-mount lenses in the next couple of years.

 

Officially, Nikon calls the new lens AF-S NIKKOR 500mm f/5.6E PF ED VR, and the key word is PF, Phase Fresnel, a technology that makes super teles short and light:

• Length 237mm/9.3 inches
  
• Maximum diameter 106mm, accepts 95mm front filters, just like the 200-500mm/f5.6 E AF-S VR zoom
  
• Weight 1460 grams/3.21 pounds, roughly the same weight as the 70-200mm/f2.8 E FL zoom
  
• Minimum focusing distance is 3 meters, just below 10 feet
  
• Price in the US is $3599.95
  

Link to Nikon USA:

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 500mm f/5.6E PF ED VR super telephoto prime lens

 

 

Here are a couple of product images from Nikon:

 

Edited August 24, 2018 by ShunCheung

Gotta say, if it shoots as good as it looks, they've got a winner....;)

The actual announcement became part of the Nikon mirrorless Z system announcement and is buried under. I think this lens deserves its own thread.

Shun I hope you will have the chance to test drive it and let us know how it compares to the 200-500 and the old 500mm AF-S.

 

Meanwhile, found this on YouTube (Link). Looks promising.

Edited August 24, 2018 by Mary Doo

The lens must be a lot sharper than the 200-500mm f/5.6 as it's the same speed, same max focal length and not zoom and cost 3 times as much.

In my experience, sharpness isn't the issue with the 200-500mm/f5.6 E AF-S VR lens. It is a very sharp lens for a zoom. I have added a TC-14E III onto it, and it is still quite good. Its main problem is slow AF. When you miss focus, the greatest sharpness in the world is still meaningless.

 

I am always skeptical about AF speed and accuracy with any f5.6 (or slower) lens. Canon is charging almost $7000 for their second-generation 400mm/f4 DO (same as PF) lens. A 500mm/f5.6 has a slightly smaller front element than a 400mm/f4 such that one would expect a 500mm/f5.6 to be a bit cheaper, but Nikon is only asking for almost half as much as Canon's 400mm/f4 DO. It sure makes me wonder how good its performance is, but we can only find out from field tests, under various conditions, especially dimmer light. Otherwise, I sure am glad to see a pretty compact and light 500mm lens.

The Nikon published MTF is extremely impressive.

With Fresnel technology, you trade size, weight and cost for unusual bokeh and flare issues. That didn't work out well for catadioptric lenses. We'll see how this lens fares.

I am very happy with the optics in the 300mm/f4 PF, although some people have VR issues around 1/125 sec. I waited several months until after Nikon had a firmware fix for the VR issue; whether that is completed fixed or not is a matter of opinions. I don't depend on VR much such that it doesn't concern me much.

 

AF on that lens is quite good, but then it is an f4. By all means I would rather have a 500mm/f4 for better AF performance and lower light conditions, but that is going to be 2 to 3 times as heavy and costs a lot more.

With longer lenses, VR in the lens and camera body is more effective than either by itself. I find that an 85 mm lens without built-in VR, on a Sony body, is noticeably sharper on a tripod, even at 1/250 or so. I found that a (rented) Sony 100-400/4.5-5.6 lens with VR did not need a tripod, at least in good daylight. The 500 PF is light enough to be hand-held if needed.

My 200-500mm goes notably softer from ~420mm to 500mm. If I'm chasing dragonflies, I'll leave it @ 400mm f9 Auto ISO. The difference in crop is worth it.

If this new 500mm is a bit faster AF and a bit sharper, I'd consider it after 6 months for Nikon to work out the kinks.

I think the price is pretty competitive. However, I'd pop over to Florida for a few weeks birding and bring it back.

I also noticed the 200-500 copy that I used briefly was very sharp from 200 to 400mm but at 500mm it was slightly but noticeably softer. I did not like that lens's zoom ring implementation and the AF was ok at mid to long distances (on a D810) but at close distances it would often fail.

 

I have the 300 PF and it's one of my most used lenses. I wouldn't compare PF with mirror lenses. The lens has slightly lower contrast (but colors are vividly rendered) so in practice I've been happy with it in contrasty light / with contrasty, colorful subject matter. In rainy/overcast, dim lighting I haven't liked the results so much. I think a conventional lens is a better fit for low contrast low light conditions. I have not encountered PF flare but when shooting subjects in strong backlight (sun behind and above the subject but with rays directly hitting the front element) I have seen strong conventional looking flare. I these situations, of my lenses, the 70-200/2.8E FL has been the best performer, maintaining contrasty rendering of the subject even in the most difficult light.

 

I like the 300 PF for its compactness, light weight, very good AF (in outdoor daylight; in dim indoor conditions it is not quite as good as faster lenses). I use the VR sport mode to stabilize the lens most of the time and am quite happy with the VR, though I recognize that at intermediate speeds (ca. 1/125s) there is some chance of a softer result. I do not see the double image blur that some report. I normally shoot at fast shutter speeds with this lens because of subject movement. With regards to sharpness, it is excellent at close distances and slightly less excellent at long distances where especially TC use can lead to a bit less good results. Without TC I have gotten good results with the 300 PF also at longer distances but I can sense it has been optimized for near rather than far. Overall I am very pleased with it. If anything I sometimes miss the higher contrast of the conventional high end lens (i.e. 200/2 II). But the 300 PF is nevertheless the lens I often pick because it is so much more enjoyable to shoot with. Bokeh ... I would say it is average, not quite as good as the best lenses but not as bad as some zooms.

 

I am considering adding the 500mm f/5.6 PF. My back got a bit angry with me when helping to transport a 130kg instrument and I have to keep the bag light whenever I can to allow it to heal. I think the 500 PF is my most realistic chance of using a supertelephoto lens. I know it is not going to have the contrast of the 500 FL but also it is lighter and cheaper and the MTF suggests I won't find anything to complain about in subject detail.

Edited August 25, 2018 by ilkka_nissila

While I agree AF with f/5.6 lenses tends to be so-so, I think if the goal is to shoot in daylight rather than indoors, it should be ok. In a lightweight prime lens the focus group is probably small and light and should be able to be moved quickly, and high MTF means the phase difference should be clear so the camera should be able to accurately estimate where to drive the lens.

For some hard to explain reason the 500mm PF has a lower mag. ratio than the 200-500mm 5.6, namely, 0.18 : 1, rather the 0.22 : 1

 

Annoying shortcoming for what would have been a good bug chaser.

 

Mind you, I don't know how much the 200-500mm breathes at close range??

The zoom has 2.2m min focus distance the new prime 3.0m. At the same distance the prime should have a bit higher magnification.

That didn't work out well for catadioptric lenses. We'll see how this lens fares.

 

"Working" is a matter of what you are trying to do, I think.

I still use my Reflex-Nikkor 500mm f/8 frequently on both Nikon and Canon bodies.

 

Else, how would I get all those polyspheroid images?

da wadda towah :D

"The zoom has 2.2m min focus distance the new prime 3.0m. At the same distance the prime should have a bit higher magnification."

 

Err, doesn't closer mean bigger.....:confused:

 

(all things being equal)

"The zoom has 2.2m min focus distance the new prime 3.0m. At the same distance the prime should have a bit higher magnification."

 

Err, doesn't closer mean bigger.....:confused:

 

(all things being equal)

 

The zoom has 27% shorter MFD than the prime but the magnification is only 22% greater. Without testing it’s not possible to know for sure but I think it is likely that at 3m distance the prime has slightly greater magnification (less focal length loss). I guess I am guessing more than usual here.

 

If the 500 PF is like the 300 PF, it is likely also that the AF near MFD is better. But this will have to be verified when the lens is available.

I guess even a modest extension tube (with pass-through contacts) would gain a bit. There's a formula somewhere that will tell how much, but I can't remember it...:(

This article shows a size comparison image of the two versions of Nikon's 500mm lenses:

 

Nikon 500mm f/5.6E PF Lens Announcement - Photography Life

Thanks Joseph, that is one crazy silhouette comparison...!

This article shows a size comparison image of the two versions of Nikon's 500mm lenses:

 

Nikon 500mm f/5.6E PF Lens Announcement - Photography Life

One is f4 and the other f5.6. Even without PF, just because of the aperture difference is going to make a huge size difference.

 

The difference in AF capability, especially under dimmer light, should also be very noticeable.

Edited August 26, 2018 by ShunCheung

Is light falloff and distortion documented?

Looking back at the MTF for the 300mm PF, (whose page seems to have moved from the Nikon site??) they seem to have made a bit of a breakthrough with this new one.

I wonder just how good the 600mm 5.6 PF will be....;)

The Nikon MTF is wide open so the 300 PF is evaluated at f/4 and the 500mm at f/5.6. At f/5.6 the 300 PF is also better than it is at f/4, though maybe not quite as good as the 500mm.

 

I quite like what I'm seeing from the 500 PF, and look forward to seeing actual in-use reviews.

I've never seen such a flat set of lines on an MTF chart!