New Nikon 300mm f4 E AF-S VR Phase Fresnel Lens Announced

[ShunCheung]

<p>First of all, for those who are not yet familiar with Fresnel lenses, here is a link to its Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresnel_lens</p>

<p>Personally, I welcome the new 300mm/f4 PF with some guarded optimism, but we need to keep in mind that Fresnel is not some magic bullet or Nikon (and others) would have made lots of lenses with that technology already. As it indicates in Wikipedia:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Fresnel lens design allows a substantial reduction in thickness (and thus mass and volume of material), at the expense of reducing the imaging quality of the lens, which is why precise imaging applications such as photography still use conventional bulky lenses.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As I pointed out earlier, the first version of Canon's 400mm/f4 DO was not that well received, but apparently version 2 introduced last year was an improvement. Besides its higher price, the Nikon 300mm/f4 PF will likely involve some optical compromises, but for certain applications, its light weight and small size outweighs such limitations. We really need to test this new lens under various conditions to see where the boundaries are.<br>

<br>

But the real payoff should be some 400mm/f4 PF or 500mm/f4 PF where size and weight reduction could be serious, if the optical quality is sufficient. So hopefully the 300mm/f4 is only the first installment of a series of long teles.<br>

<br>

BTW, the comparison to the 24-70mm/f2.8 AF-S was suggested to me by Nikon. They both use 77mm filters:</p>

<ul>

<li>24-70mm/f2.8 AF-S: max diameter 83mm and length 133mm, weight 900g/31.7oz</li>

<li>300mm/f4 PF AF-S VR: max diameter 89mm and length 147.5mm, weight 755g/26.6oz</li>

</ul>

<p>The 300mm is slightly wider and about 15mm (0.6 inch) longer but 5 ounces lighter.</p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>It will be interesting to see if Nikon is working an a 400 or 500mm f2.8 PF lens. Not that I would personally be interested in it, but there are many wildlife and sports photographers that certainly would be.</p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>Shun, it also looks like the 300 lens hood is considerably smaller than the 24-70 lens hood.</p>

<p>Another minor point.<br /> Tripod collar is shared with 70-200/4G-VR, which means I won't need another one to carry around (or buy).</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Since merely 8 months ago Nikon just introduced a new 400mm/f2.8 AF-S VR with fluorite elements, which reduce weight but are more fragile: http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00caD8, it seems another 400mm/f2.8 is unlikely in the next few years.</p>

<p>The thing is that using Fresnel elements will not change the fact that you need a large front element for fast super teles to gather enough light. A 400mm f2.8 will need a 400/2.8 = 143mm front element. Any 500mm/f2.8 will be unrealistically huge like the Sigma 200-500mm/f2.8 zoom that weights 15.7 kg (35 lbs): http://www.sigmaphoto.com/product/200-500mm-f28-apo-ex-dg</p>

<p>I think something similar to Canon's 400mm/f4 DO or a 500mm/f4 PF is more practical. A shorter, lighter 500mm/f4 PF can really change the game for sports and wildlife photography even though it may cost a bit over $10K.</p>

[CvhKaar]

<blockquote>

<p>Kent, according to the Nikon website (with regard to ring-shaped colored flare), <em>"This phenomenon can be minimized with "PF Flare Control" included in Capture NX-D."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> <em>Would that mean that other raw developing software ( Lightroom , Capture NX2 etc.) will not be able to "Minimize " this effect because the "PF Flare Control" is not included ? E.G. you would become dependend on Capture NX-D for this ? <br /></em></p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>BTW, the new 300mm/f4 AF-S VR is an E lens, so only the higher-end bodies from the D3 on can control its aperture without the mechanical coupling</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> <em>Does this say you need a D3 or better to be able to use this lens at all , because other Nikon DSLR's depend on the mechanical aperture coupling ? Then what camera's would, and woulfd not be able to control the aperture for this lens ? <br /></em><br /> <br /> <em>Seemingly the previous F-S 300mm F4 is or will be discontinued, so for a lot of ppl a 300mm Nikkor primary lens will be out of reach unless they buy the newer Nikon DSLR models , looks like then..<br /></em></p>

[mike_halliwell]

<blockquote>

<p> an E lens, so only the higher-end bodies from the D3 on can control its aperture</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Anyone got a list? Any 'Higher-End' DX out there?</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>The VR 800/5.6E is compatible with *D3, *D3S, *D3X, *D4, D300, D300S, *D600, D700, D750, *D800, *D800E, D3100, D3200, D5000, D5100, D5200, *D7000, D7100 (the asterisk indicates a firmware upgrade is needed to make the camera compatible). I would assume the 400/2.8 E and 300/4 E and other upcoming E lenses are also compatible with these cameras. Listed as incompatible: D1 series, D2 series, D40 series, D50, D60, D70 series, D80, D90, D100, D200, D3000 and 35mm film cameras.</p>

<p>I suspect the algorithm for fixing the colored flare is something that is specific to the lens and may not interest third party software developers, unless PF/DO lenses become very popular. I hope Nikon fixes the bugs in the NX-D user interface as I would like to use it (because I prefer Nikon's raw conversion algorithm) but as of now it is too immature to use as default converter. I use ACR as default now and resort to NX-D for specific shots where I think I can get a better result using it.</p>

<p>If I buy the 300/4 VR I would expect some trouble with the flare as some stages are like this... (the image was made with an 85mm lens).</p><div></div>

[mike_halliwell]

<blockquote>

<p>an E lens - electromagnetic diaphragm</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>So what bodies will this work with?</p>

[CvhKaar]

<blockquote>

<p>I suspect the algorithm for fixing the colored flare is something that is specific to the lens</p>

</blockquote>

<p>MM For some reason the words "Fixing" and in Nikons own text "Minimizing this effect"do not realy feel right to me ( mininmizing is not Fixing i think). <br>

Shame, I would have liked an "affordable" 300mm lens WITH VR , but for now i think this is not for me then, but i'll sit and wait for othr reviews, maybe all turns out to be OK...</p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>I found this on the electromagnetic aperture lenses:</p>

 

<blockquote><ol>

<li>Electromagnetic diaphragm mechanism is incorporated for enhanced stability in auto exposure control during continuous shooting even when the teleconverter is used (Not compatible with the D2 series, D1 series, D200, D100, D90, D80, D70 series, D3000, D60, D50, D40 series, 35mm film cameras)</li>

</ol></blockquote>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Ok I agree it is a bad choice of words. I had originally written "fixing the coloured flare to be more neutral" but I then simplified the expression too much before posting. I agree that the processed result doesn't look all that great. But we don't know exactly under which circumstances the effect occurs (apart from that street lights at night may give an effect like in Nikon's example) and how it will look in real-world images. Hopefully Nikon posts a few example images soon.</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<blockquote>

<p>Shame, I would have liked an "affordable" 300mm lens WITH VR</p>

</blockquote>

<p>+1</p>

<p>Most people who post on here about the NIKKOR 300mm f4 AF-S team it with a 1.4TC as a way of getting over 400mm.<br>

Why didn't they go to 400mm f4 and do something helpful? The 300mm AF-S f4 wasn't so heavy, just a-bit slow AF and no VR............ and now they've messed with it.</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>Well, nobody should expect this lens to be comparable to a "normal" one... the use of a fresnel lens is a "trick" to avoid the good big spherical one, just to make it smaller. There is no magic on it.</p>

<p>But given the quality of today`s imagery, I think some could accept the compromise. In the same way many people used to use small format cameras instead of medium format, some really don`t need to carry with the biggest, heaviest or more expensive lenses to get the most of a format that is already beyond the quality they actually need. I`m afraid this is something really difficult to assimilate by the average user, but something I think we should know to make our life easier.</p>

<p>BTW, I use to think that the best gear is the one we (I) use, instead of the one left at home (mostly because it`s awkward to use or to carry!).</p>

<p>But obviously, we need to know about the real life performance of this lens. Old catadioptric (mirror) lenses were nice on the bag, but bokeh, resolution and other limitations were real drawbacks. Looks like this fresnel based one could be way more interesting; time (and tests) will tell.</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<blockquote>

<p>Priced at $1999.95</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nice!!, try in the UK and you get no change from <em><strong>$</strong><strong>2700</strong></em> aka £1639</p>

<p>What is it with Nikon's pricing policy???</p>

<p>I don't know about you, but I could do quite a bit with the <strong>$700</strong> difference!</p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>Don't feel bad Mike. I will have to pay 8.25% retail sales tax ($165), and buy it with after-income-tax dollars, which means I have to earn about $2706 to purchase this lens.</p>

<p>We all get screwed by our governments, LOL.</p>

[Two23]

<p><<The example shown here does not bode well if you are hoping the software to work miracles.>></p>

<p>I do a lot of night shooting too, and that example suggest the lens just won't work for me. I think the lens would be great for travel, or for backpacking it would be nice on a D7100 for a lightweight wildlife lens. I just don't see it replacing the 80-400mm AFS for me, despite the nice size & weight reduction.</p>

<p>Most Nikon's already have a Fresnel on them. It's those little ridges you see on the flash--both pop up and SB. The ridges concentrate the light. Originally developed in the 19th century to make the beam from lighthouses shine further out to sea. The Morris Better Beamer flash attacment is another example.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[joseph_smith3]

<p>My first long Nikon tele was the manual focus 400mm f 3.5 Ais lens. It was one of my all time favorite Nikon tele lenses and wish I had a AFS version of it today. Now I use the 500mm f 4 AFS II and the 300mm f4 AFS. After reading the specs on this lens, I see no reason for me to sell my 300mm f 4 AFS and buy the new version. I will admit the smaller size and lighter weight are big pluses for airline travelers and hikers. This lens certainly should be attractive for someone who does not own a 70-200mm or a 300mm. <br>

Joe Smith</p>

[CvhKaar]

<blockquote>

<p>I will have to pay 8.25% retail sales tax</p>

</blockquote>

<p>MM that's not bad at all, here there is a 21 % tax on most stuff....</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>This lens certainly should be attractive for someone who does not own a 70-200mm or a 300mm.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> I agree with this, but it looks like this will end up in a choice between a Zoom ( 70-300mm) , this lens and a 300mm F/2.8 or a used prime of sorts, so for a lot of ppl it will be the only choice if they want a 300mm prime, wether the fresnel efect shows in ( low light) shots or not ..</p>

 

[Ian Rance]

<p>I have (and regularly use) the ED 300mm f/4.5 Ai-S lens. I am always astonished by the image quality - so full of punch and clarity and it is a doddle to focus with the internal focus. I use it for wildlife mainly.<br>

I do wonder how the image quality of my ED lens and this new one compares. I look forward to some samples.</p>

[Palouse]

<p>There are some sample pictures here:<br /> http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Product/Camera-Lenses/AF-S-NIKKOR-300mm-f%252F4E-PF-ED-VR.html?cid=web-0115-300mm#!</p>

<p>and here:<br /> https://www.flickr.com/photos/ortega_sg/sets/72157649733626509</p>

<p>and here:<br /> http://www.nikon.com.hk/en_HK/product/nikkor-lenses/fx-format/single-focal-length/telephoto/af-s-nikkor-300mm-f-4e-pf-ed-vr#gallery</p>

<p>Actually, they may be versions of the same set. Oh, well . . .</p>

[joseph_smith3]

<p>Thanks Nick for the three links to the images. The flickr link provides access to full shooting data and EXIF data. You can see the different settings for things like contrast, saturation, hue, etc by clicking on EXIF at the bottom of each image in the series taken by Ortega. </p>

<p>Joe Smith</p>

[wchen]

<p>Nikon's short lenses are growing bigger and longer and longer lenses are shrinking smaller and shorter. With the increasing capability of software control of depth of field, and increasing sensitivity of sensor, larger aperture lenses will be fading out like dinosaurs. Eventually, Nikon will make all of their lenses the same size. After eventually, Nikon will supply only one lens for their cameras (if such things still exist): a 12-1200mm f/4 zoom, 4 inches long and use 62mm filter. Now, everyone will be happy like a little dog with a big bone!</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>Ian, the MTF chart is so good on this <a href="http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Product/Camera-Lenses/AF-S-NIKKOR-300mm-f%252F4E-PF-ED-VR.html?cid=web-0115-300mm#!/media:image:20056_MTF_01_en.jpg">new lens</a>, compared to the <a href="http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/singlefocal/Telephoto/af-s_300mmf_4d_if/index.htm">previous</a> 300/4AFS. In the other hand, the 300/4.5AiS IF-ED is a 7/6 elements/groups lens (1xED), while the 300/4AFS is a 10/6 (with 2xED elements), so I`d expect the PF to be <em>much better</em>.</p>

[Two23]

<p>It will be interesting to see how the lens actually performs. IF it turns out to be excellent and the weird flare issue is exaggerated, I would certainly take a serious look at replacing my 80-400mm AFS with the 300 plus 1.4x.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Nick, thanks for those links. In the local Nikon site in Finland there are just thumbnails and one can not click into them, but in the HK site you can open up high resolution images, at least of some of the sample images. There is a mention beside some images that they were shot with a prototype.</p>