Jump to content

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


ShunCheung

Recommended Posts

This is one of those pre-announcement of a future announcement. Nikon is planning to introduce an AF-S 500mm/f5.6 E PF ED VR lens, where PF is Phase Fresnel where a super-telephoto lens can be shorter. This will be Nikon's second installment of PF lenses, following the 2015 300mm/f4 E PF AF-S VR.

 

Nikon will announce pricing and availability date information later this year.

 

Nikon's patent for the 500mm/f5.6 PF lens suggests that it will be approximately 28cm long. The front element should be similar in size as that for the 200-500mm/f5.6 AF-S VR, i.e. around 90mm, and the 200-500mm zoom uses 95mm front filters.

 

Please keep in mind that Canon has a 400mm/f4 DO lens, which is the equivalent of PF, and that lens is currently $6900 or so at Adorama, B&H, etc. A 400mm/f4 has a slightly larger front element than a 500mm/f5.6, such that the new Nikkor could be a bit cheaper, but IMO it is likely going to be over US$5000. Clearly it will be far more expensive than the $1400 200-500mm/f5.6 AF-S VR, which is very handhold-able. I would imagine the 500mm/f5.6 PF will have a stronger AF motor, but I still wonder how fast AF is on an f5.6 lens.

 

More info on Nikon global site: Nikon | News | Development of AF-S NIKKOR 500mm f/5.6E PF ED VR, a fixed focal length super-telephoto lens compatible with the Nikon FX format

Edited by ShunCheung
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me this is of academic interest only since I'd have to sell my child into slavery to afford one—but I'm curious: why doesn't Nikon use AF-P stepper motors in their exotic supertelephoto lenses? Are these motors too weak to drive the larger focusing groups of those lenses?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am no expert on that, but I think AF-P is mainly for smaller lenses such as those 18-55mm zoom and 70-300mm slow zoom.

 

My expectation is that this 500mm/f5.6 will be around 4 times as expensive (give or take) as the 200-500mm/f5.6 zoom, which is optically very good at 500mm/f5.6; its main drawback is fairly slow AF speed, which I experience every time I use it. The PF lens is going to be shorter and most likely lighter, but it'd better have excellent AF to justify the cost difference. Personally I never like the AF speed on any max f5.6 lens. Maybe this lens will be different. We'll see.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd assumed the recent bigger superteles tended to have small focusing groups rather than racking big elements around - the 200/2 doesn't feel like it's moving much.

 

This feels odd to me. Sure, the 200-500 isn't perfect at 500mm, but it's certainly not awful - and while it's not tiny, it's also small enough to hand-hold (for a while and with a little practice) and fit in cabin baggage. PF has some (small) optical compromise when it comes to flare. And for sports and wildlife (even if it's distant wildlife and you're just trying to find the subject) the zoom is very handy. I suspect it's going to have to be very light, very good and actually quite affordable to justify itself over the 200-500 or Sigma sport zoom. I agree about the AF performance of the 200-500, but how much would you pay to improve that?

 

If they'd gone 400 f/4 or 600 f/5.6 I think Nikon would have provided something more distinct from their current line-up - unless they're worried about poaching its sales, the 180-400 is a much bulkier and more expensive target to aim under. And the bigger the lens, the more weight PF saves. Maybe they're working on these too, just not pre-announcing. Or maybe they're trying not to be too "me too" when it comes to Canon's 400mm f/5.6 and 400mm f/4 DO primes.

 

To be fair, I've sometimes decided I can't be bothered to take the 200-500 on a trip, and just taken the 300/4 with a TC-14. I'm sure this lens will fill that niche, but it feels like a small niche - the 200-500 is no 180-400 for bulk.

 

Of course, if it turns out to be under $1000, I'll take it all back. But I'll be more than a bit surprised.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would expect price to be approximately one half of the 500/4 FL's price but it is difficult to estimate weight. I am guessing 1.2-1.4kg. :)

 

I found the 200-500/5.6's focus to be slow in the near range and the zoom to be stiff. I didn't think it could be easily used to cover subjects at different distances because of the relative difficulty of adjusting the focal length. The image quality was quite good though. I think the 500 PF will be more portable, focus faster and the mage at 500mm f/5.6 can be expected to be significantly sharper than the 200-500 at 500mm.

Edited by ilkka_nissila
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmh, only 80mm more than the 300/4 with 1.4x TC - but I expect better optical quality.

My expectations: at most 1.5 kg (1/2 the weight of the 500/4), price at least $3500 (1.75x the cost of the 300/4E PF VR - a bit more than the 1 2/3x focal length factor); shouldn't be more than $4K, $4.5K at the most. 1/2 the price of the 500/4 would put it above $5K though - and squarely into competition with Sigma's 500/4 ($6K).

28cm long

which is about the length of the 200-500 zoomed in. Or about 1.75x the length of the 300/4E PF VR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, Photokina will be held from September 26 to 29 this year. I would imagine this lens will be available on display by then, hopefully as a product but at least an almost final prototype.

 

In 2019, Photokina will be an annual event in May, instead of every 2 years. Therefore, the next Photokina after September will be merely 8 months later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I certainly hope it'll focus faster and be sharper at 500mm than the 200-500, which I try to shoot stopped down a bit if I can. Still, the 200-500 certainly isn't as awful as, say, the old 150-500mm Sigma - I remember Amateur Photographer doing a comparison with the 500mm Canon prime at one point and trying to claim that they were comparable, and, even in tiny images, they really weren't. (The -600mm Sigma zooms are much better, in case anyone thinks I'm disparaging them.)

 

I guess 500mm is a popular birding length (maybe more on DX), so maybe that's the market Nikon are aiming for? My feeling is that it's popular mostly because the 500 f/4 is so much smaller and easier to carry than the 600 f/4, 800 f/5.6 and 400 f/2.8 rather than because 500mm is somehow optimal - and I'm not sure how much of that still holds once you're not looking at f/4. I'm still lusting after a 400 f/2.8 partly because I've shot in light and busy backgrounds that could really use the aperture (even if I'd sometimes want to teleconvert it - I'll obviously buy the whole set if I win a lottery). I do admit that a 200-500 doesn't feel unbalanced on a D8x0 body, but might if you were putting it on a D7500. Or mirrorless, of course.

 

Oh well, so much comes down to the pricing and reviews, which we're a long way from knowing. I'm not really expecting this to be on my radar (although I have the pre-PF 300mm and the 200-500 already), but there's no accounting for NAS once the details come in, and I'm under no delusion that everyone should own exactly the same kit that I do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Dieter. I am amazed at the excellent image quality of my hand held shots (not flight shots) using my 300mm f 4 PF E lens when mated with the Nikon 1.4 TC III on my D 500. I now use this combo a lot instead of my 500mm f4 E lens on the D500 on a tripod. For flight shots, I use the 300mm f4 PF a lot on FF or DX Nikon bodies without a TC. See attached image

 

.

 

1392531925_JVSmith_2_180609_ArmandBayoyBoat_1_D500_58_01.thumb.jpg.d142bc46d994b40ba1f336b59ffa00e3.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I strongly doubt it'll be heavier than the 200-500 - my concern is how much lighter it'll be. Since I can handle the weight of the 200-500 and it feels okay on my D8x0 bodies (especially with L-plates on them), a lightweight prime isn't a major concern for me - at least, unless it's very affordable and significantly sharper (I'm expecting "a bit" to both). But as a DX birding lens for people with lighter dSLRs (or, I guess, mirrorless cameras...), it makes a bit more sense to me.

 

Since my IR-converted D90 just turned up, it strikes me that it's not that much smaller or lighter than a D8x0. I'm sure I thought the D7x00 series felt very light when I last tried one, but I might be getting weak in my old age - I admit I was losing a bit of arm steadiness after trying to hand-hold a 120-300 and a 400 f/2.8 for a few minutes. So I don't know how much the "balance for DX bodies" argument really holds up (assuming a D3400 owner is unlikely to buy one of these). The D500 is obviously very close to the D8x0 series in weight, so I'm not putting that in the same category.

 

My real concern is how much of the time f/5.6 provides enough light and subject separation for the kind of subject this kind of lens is most likely to help with. But "a bit slow" is probably better than "left at home", I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me this is of academic interest only since I'd have to sell my child into slavery to afford one—but I'm curious: why doesn't Nikon use AF-P stepper motors in their exotic supertelephoto lenses? Are these motors too weak to drive the larger focusing groups of those lenses?

Can you still sell your child to slavery? I think the AF-P is a cheap way and not a better way for AF motor so Nikon doesn't put that in an expensive lens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hope it's not heavier than the 200-500. To me they can use plastic or whatever, as long as the use of a tripod can be optional.

According to Nikon's press release, hand-holdability is a main design objective for the new 500mm/f5.6 PF lens. The tripod collar is likely going to be optional as the 300mm/f4 PF, as well as the 200-500mm/f5.6 zoom (which has a removable collar). I am sure the PF lens will be a lot lighter and smaller than the 200-500mm @ 500mm, but so will your purse after purchasing this lens. :rolleyes:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the AF-P is a cheap way and not a better way for AF motor so Nikon doesn't put that in an expensive lens.

 

It may be cheaper. But, in the lens models where stepper motors have replaced SWM—for example the 18-55mm DX and the 70-300mm FX—isn't the stepper motor better in every way? Faster. Quieter. Works better for CDAF. Works better for video. The only drawback that I can think of is that the AF-P lenses like to reset focus when you cut off power to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It may be cheaper. But, in the lens models where stepper motors have replaced SWM—for example the 18-55mm DX and the 70-300mm FX—isn't the stepper motor better in every way? Faster. Quieter. Works better for CDAF. Works better for video. The only drawback that I can think of is that the AF-P lenses like to reset focus when you cut off power to them.

 

I admit to not having handled all the versions of the 18-55mm, but the non-AF-P ones I handled didn't have a "real" ring focusing AF-S motor like better lenses. Rather, they seemed to more or less work like in-body focusing lenses but with the motor in the lens. By that I mean that they require you to manually disengage the focus motor rather than just grab the focus ring as on a ring-focus lens.

 

I have a non-VR 18-55 and a VR 55-200 that both work this way.

 

My general impression is that AF-P is dead silent and very accurate. That makes it ideal for video. By contrast, the big AF-S motors on big lenses can slam the elements around pretty quickly but can make a fair bit of racket(compared to AF-P, although still much quieter than in-body focus) and also are prone to overshoot the focus and come back.

 

Admittedly my experience with AF-P is limited, but from what I've seen I'll take AF-S any day for still photography. The dead silent focusing on the little kit lenses is nice and as I said is perfect if you want to do video, but I don't care about video.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The improved AF in the new AF-P lenses is not just due to the new motor but overall design improvements (optical and mechanical design that permits fast focusing). AF-S lenses also are becoming faster, quieter and more precise than past versions (e.g. 70-200/2.8E and 24-70/2.8E).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It may be cheaper. But, in the lens models where stepper motors have replaced SWM—for example the 18-55mm DX and the 70-300mm FX—isn't the stepper motor better in every way? Faster. Quieter. Works better for CDAF. Works better for video. The only drawback that I can think of is that the AF-P lenses like to reset focus when you cut off power to them.

Actually I don't think the AF-P is better than the AF-S in every way. I think it would have more tendency to have back and front focus problem. AF-S I believe is a servo system while AF-P is a stepping motor system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 focus. 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There again, I go back to the fact that AF-P(and other stepper motor focus) is dead silent and repeatable.

 

The first Nikon DSLR I bought was a D70s, and when I was in the camera store buying it they first grabbed the 18-55 AF-P to sell me with it. Of course it didn't focus on the D70s, but when they stuck it on a newer body(not sure what-I think a D3x00 or D5x00) they thought at first that the lens was a complete dud. I pointed out that it WAS in fact focusing, it was just hard to tell because it only made a tiny whine similar to what early versions of VR made.

 

And, there again, the "AF-S" 18-55 and 55-200 I have are about as noisy as as comparably sized screwdriver focusing lenses.

 

At the same time, not too long ago I was playing with the store's rental D850 and 24-70 f/2.8(the latter the current E aperture version). I was amazed at how fast and dead silent it was too.

 

Still, I think the fact that Nikon continues to release high end lenses as AF-S is telling about the limitations of the technology. To keep beating a dead horse, I see it as a video technology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Canon introduced several diffractive optics lenses about 10 years ago, which received poor response. They are short and light, at the expense of optical performance well below that of conventional lenses. The sole survivor is the Canon EF 400/4 DO (canon diffractive lenses | B&H Photo Video)

 

A significant advantage of AF-S derives from the inverted rotor design, which simplifies the transition from auto to direct manual focus, free of external rotating elements or clutches. The downside, compared to linear motors, is the relatively slow speed of operation and lack of absolute positioning. AF-S relies on predictive control to minimize hunting (iteration).

Edited by Ed_Ingold
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I've thought of AF-S lenses as loud - but it probably depends heavily on the lens. I suspect the question with AF-P is whether it's actually a worse technology than AF-S for fast focus on larger lenses. AF-P certainly has merits for contrast-detect autofocus (which may or may not be relevant in the future depending on the technology in Nikon's putative mirrorless bodies - we have to hope that their dSLR live view autofocus performance isn't going to be representative) - that currently makes it useful for video, but I'm less clear whether AF-S would be bad with PDoS. That said, the only times that the noise of autofocus has bothered me were with AF-D lenses on the F5 (which has a small drill motor turning the autofocus screw) and with an old Sigma zoom on a Canon (with an integrated motor), that did a credible impression of a blender when it was focussing. But I've not been using a microphone on the camera to shoot video with autofocus; not that an integrated microphone on the camera is usually a very good solution anyway...

 

Canon made the 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 DO IS back in 2004 (I was a Canon shooter at the time) - but they also made the 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS about a year later (replacing the previous and not very good 75-300 IS). The DO lens was announced at $1300, was 100mm long and 720g; the non-DO version was about $550, 143mm long and 630g. These were the first 70-300 lenses that weren't embarrassingly awful (soon joined by the Nikkor and Tamron); before that, pretty much any 70-300 was terrible. I had the non-DO version, but have since sold it; I still have an older 100-300 which is awful at the long end, but worth nothing and there in case I want to play with my Eos film bodies. I know someone who had the DO version; unless you were unfortunate enough to shop between 2004 and 2005 (he might have been), the only real advantages to the DO lens were being 4cm shorter and having a non-rotating filter ring (yes, this was annoying for polarisers). Otherwise the non-DO version was massively cheaper, lighter, slightly faster at the short end, and at least optically as good. So the DO version certainly wasn't popular, but I don't think it was because the DO made it a bad lens, so much as being torpedoed by the pricing of its non-DO version; with hindsight, I wonder whether Canon had them both in development in case the DO version had problems.

 

I was under the impression that the 400 f/4 DO was reasonably popular, however. It wasn't quite as good as the 400 f/2.8 (and their newer version is supposedly better), but 2kg is pretty respectable for a 400 f/4 (their previous conventional 400 f/4 was 3kg, which is about what you'd expect given the Nikkor 200 f/2). It was also a fraction of the price of the 400 f/2.8 that they kept alongside it (and the Nikkor 200-400 f/4), which helped.

 

I'd still like to see Nikon make the 18-55 DX (or an FX 24-85) with PF elements that are at least approximately flat, with the intent of making it collapse down to pancake size. The existing collapsible 18-55 is better than nothing, but not all that tiny (compared with, say, the Panasonic 14-42 PZ). Weight isn't really a factor, though - and frankly I'd take some optically modern pancake primes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there is a merit in using the AF-P for contrast detect AF. Contrast detect AF was slower than phase detect because it has to recheck focus after the move. Phase detect can figure out how much the lens has to move to achieve focus thus it's faster but if the motor or some mechanical differences with the lens can cause the lens to focus wrongly.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...