Nikon New Camera Teaser, FX Mirrorless to be Announced on 23 August, 2018

[Andrew Garrard]

I'm not reading too much into "a new dimension" (unlike in some fora, where people are starting to try to make the square sensor argument again - which is, to me, nonsensical). Still, Nikon do seem to be harping on about it. I assume it's just marketing not thinking their terminology through, but you never know!

 

"I wonder if they'll ever make any more 'niche' cams such as the D810A..... Monochrome maybe?"

 

- Like a desaturate tool wasn't available in every image editor worth using?

 

Genuine monochrome sensors avoid Bayer interpolation, capture more light (because there are no filters), and aren't subject to the manufacturer's choice of colour filters in what wavelengths get captured as each tristimulus value. On the other hand, 99% of the time it's absolutely more convenient to capture a colour image and have control over how to blend the values into a monochrome representation in post. Both approaches work.

 

There seem to be quite a few of us with IR adapted cameras around now. While it's not that difficult to pull off some filters, Nikon might consider selling a full spectrum sensor (with or without still having the RGB matrix in place) to avoid third-party adaptations. It's not that hard to add a band-pass filter to return things to "normal" - there used to be versions that end users could clip over the sensor.

 

So. Hands up; who's actually clamouring to be first in line to be a guinea-pig for the Nikon MILC?

 

I certainly wouldn't be interested until at least 6 months after release and any teething problems had been ironed out.

 

Depending on what technology it introduces, I'm not that scared about it not working properly. It should inherently be simpler than a dSLR, so issues like autofocus alignment and mirror issues shouldn't be a problem. We then have to hope that any other problems can be fixed by firmware. That said, I'm in no hurry to acquire one, since I already have a good backup camera - unless it's an awful lot cheaper than predicted.

[BeBu Lamar]

"I wonder if they'll ever make any more 'niche' cams such as the D810A..... Monochrome maybe?"

 

- Like a desaturate tool wasn't available in every image editor worth using?

 

So. Hands up; who's actually clamouring to be first in line to be a guinea-pig for the Nikon MILC?

 

I certainly wouldn't be interested until at least 6 months after release and any teething problems had been ironed out.

 

Since I don't want a mirrorless camera I wouldn't be buying one. If I am in the mirrorless market I am certainly think it's a good camera. I think it could be the best mirrorless (in my opinion) when it's introduced.

[Andrew Garrard]

Could be, BeBu. Or it could be a complete disaster. :-) (Or it could be immensely popular with a relatively small number of people, like the 1 series and the Df.) We'll find out.

[ShunCheung]

My take is that Nikon is trying to emphasis that the new mount has a wide diameter. There are optical advantages but the lens may also be wider, i.e. bigger.

[Dieter Schaefer]

My mirrorless needs are currently satisfied - Nikon's offering will only become interesting once they have the native lenses that I would need. Which will hopefully be the case when I am in the market to replace my current equipment.

 

A bit baffled that Nikon goes with four screws to hold the Z-mount in place when the smaller F-mount on all my DSLRs has five? And at a time when Sony apparently took issue with their use of only four screws for the E-mount and upgraded to six?

[BeBu Lamar]

I think that the immensely popular with a small number of people is out of the question. Although they might make one later on but not at the start. I think it actually will be aimed mostly at people who consider buying the Sony. (not the M4/3 or the Fuji people).

A good number of Nikon users will get pissed off because it doesn't take F mount lenses natively but Nikon knew that. These people actually will eventually accept it if they like the camera otherwise.

[Andrew Garrard]

I think that the immensely popular with a small number of people is out of the question. Although they might make one later on but not at the start. I think it actually will be aimed mostly at people who consider buying the Sony. (not the M4/3 or the Fuji people).

 

When you say "out of the question", because it'll be popular with lots of people, or it won't be popular with anyone at all? :-) If it's a good product, it deserves to do fine, especially with the weight of Nikon behind it. But rumours indicate it might also have the price of Nikon behind it. Nikon are not averse to thinking that their brand name gives them the right to slap a premium on their products, and that they're inherently better than the alternatives. While it's a matter of opinion, I'd say that's not definitively true in all cases (e.g. the 85mm f/1.4 or 24-70 lenses), and I do think it might have hurt the 1 series. Sure, they have to price things to make profit, but Nikon HQ seems to be a little self-obsessed, and what they see people around their head office buying is not necessarily representative of elsewhere. It may be that nobody in Nikon would dream of buying a Sony camera, but there are an awful lot of people who will.

 

Full frame (at least if you ignore the medium format options) is really only up against Sony, unless you count Leica, as you say. Nikon will likely produce a DX equivalent, at which point Fuji may reasonably ask how many lenses suited to the DX format Nikon really has (since even the dSLR line is a little sparse, at least if you want minimal size). Micro 4/3 might compete with that (I don't know if it's losing share to the 1" compacts), but probably not FX. But the rumoured price is way into the stratosphere of the A7RIII and A9, and there are a lot of cheaper and older Sony bodies available. Nikon will need to fill out their body line as well as cameras - however well the D850 sells, Nikon wouldn't have much market share if that was their only camera.

 

It's true that Sony have taken a long time to try to fix their UI issues, although they're slowly getting there. So it's not currently an insurmountable target, but nor is it a first generation body held together by tape. If I didn't already have F-mount glass to push me one way or the other, would I choose Nikon because of the brand or Sony because they have a complete system, several generations of cameras, and might be cheaper? I hope Nikon have enough innovation in the product to answer that question in their favour, and don't assume they'll get market share because of brand name recognition.

 

A good number of Nikon users will get pissed off because it doesn't take F mount lenses natively but Nikon knew that. These people actually will eventually accept it if they like the camera otherwise.

 

I suspect those Nikon users are mad, unless they want a pointlessly larger camera. The big question for the lenses is what the mount adaptor does or doesn't support. But there are enough people on this forum who've stuck with F3-style bodies that I wouldn't count on everyone being converted!

[BeBu Lamar]

When you say "out of the question", because it'll be popular with lots of people, or it won't be popular with anyone at all? :) If it's a good product, it deserves to do fine, especially with the weight of Nikon behind it. But rumours indicate it might also have the price of Nikon behind it. Nikon are not averse to thinking that their brand name gives them the right to slap a premium on their products, and that they're inherently better than the alternatives. While it's a matter of opinion, I'd say that's not definitively true in all cases (e.g. the 85mm f/1.4 or 24-70 lenses), and I do think it might have hurt the 1 series. Sure, they have to price things to make profit, but Nikon HQ seems to be a little self-obsessed, and what they see people around their head office buying is not necessarily representative of elsewhere. It may be that nobody in Nikon would dream of buying a Sony camera, but there are an awful lot of people who will.

 

Full frame (at least if you ignore the medium format options) is really only up against Sony, unless you count Leica, as you say. Nikon will likely produce a DX equivalent, at which point Fuji may reasonably ask how many lenses suited to the DX format Nikon really has (since even the dSLR line is a little sparse, at least if you want minimal size). Micro 4/3 might compete with that (I don't know if it's losing share to the 1" compacts), but probably not FX. But the rumoured price is way into the stratosphere of the A7RIII and A9, and there are a lot of cheaper and older Sony bodies available. Nikon will need to fill out their body line as well as cameras - however well the D850 sells, Nikon wouldn't have much market share if that was their only camera.

 

It's true that Sony have taken a long time to try to fix their UI issues, although they're slowly getting there. So it's not currently an insurmountable target, but nor is it a first generation body held together by tape. If I didn't already have F-mount glass to push me one way or the other, would I choose Nikon because of the brand or Sony because they have a complete system, several generations of cameras, and might be cheaper? I hope Nikon have enough innovation in the product to answer that question in their favour, and don't assume they'll get market share because of brand name recognition.

 

 

 

I suspect those Nikon users are mad, unless they want a pointlessly larger camera. The big question for the lenses is what the mount adaptor does or doesn't support. But there are enough people on this forum who've stuck with F3-style bodies that I wouldn't count on everyone being converted!

 

When I said out of the questions meant that Nikon doesn't aim at a small audience. They want a large audience but whether or not the can do it is still a question. I can't really see that they can take away any of the Fuji users by making APS-C cameras. They certainly do not aim at Leica as Leica actually aim at a small audience. The Leica M's don't have EVF although many do have live view.

As far as pricing in my opinion that if they want to success they must make the cameras better than the Sony and sell them for higher price. Making similar cameras to Sony and try to get customers by selling a low price wouldn't work. The 1 series failed not because of price but because they are simply bad.

I personally don't care much about the adapter. If I buy into the mirrorless I would buy new lenses and also I don't need that many lenses so whatever Nikon has at introduction is sufficient for me for quite a while. In fact a single 24-85mm at start is OK for me.

[ilkka_nissila]

Nikon's probably most important area of success is in the enthusiast/semi-pro market, i.e. D8x0/D7x0/D500D7x00 level. All of them are very competitively priced. I believe the new mirrorless cameras aim at this level of a product and will follow similar pricing strategy.

 

Interesting that you'd single out the 24-70 and 85/1.4 Nikkors. Those are lenses which I consider irreplaceable and are among the most balanced, practical and high quality lenses that I've ever used.

[Ed_Ingold]

The success of a mirrorless Nikon may depend more on compatibility with Sony, Leica and Zeiss lenses than with F-mount Nikon lenses. In order to expand their market, Nikon must compete with Sony, not their own DSLRs, which is net zero. In the past, Nikon has shown little interest in cultivating the cross-use market. While mount adapters are common, only one or two vendors allow a Sony to use AF-S lenses, and even then, diaphragm control is only rudimentary,

 

Give the right set of attributes, I might be tempted to buy a mirrorless Nikon body, but only if I could make effective use of my existing E-mount lenses. I have several Nikon lenses, but their performance is well below what I have come to expect, even ignoring the inconvenience of manual operation.

[ilkka_nissila]

Ed, if you're not interested in Nikon lenses, surely there is nothing of value in a Nikon camera for you. I consider Nikon cameras primarily vessels for those of us who like and prefer Nikon lenses. (I've used 10 modern Zeiss lenses and they ended up basically collecting dust since I realized I usually prefer the images from my Nikon lenses). I know there are people who like Zeiss in which case I would simply use a camera that takes them natively. I have learned my lesson regarding the aesthetics I prefer in my images and wish the learning experience had been cheaper.

[Andrew Garrard]

Ed, if you're not interested in Nikon lenses, surely there is nothing of value in a Nikon camera for you.

 

That's an interesting perspective. Nikon make some lenses whose rendering I like, but also some I don't. I may not appreciate some subtleties that others see in glass - but we each have our preferences. I switched to Nikon partly due to the reported quality of the 135mm DC (which for me was a disappointment) and the 14-24 (which isn't, but likely nor is the Canon 12-24 or Sigma 14-24 - or the ultrawide primes that appeared since). But I also switched because I preferred the handling and other features (autofocus, low light performance) of the D700 to the 5D series. The gap widened for the D8x0 range against the newer 5D series bodies.

 

This is why I rail so much against any design quirks Nikon introduces, and why I push for the ergonomics to improve still further. I happen not to like Canon's design philosophy (while I don't say those who like it are wrong), and, while Sony are improving, their bodies also currently have limitations for me.

 

Will Nikon get the mirrorless series as right as the dSLRs? Maybe. But I sometimes wonder if they know what they've got. For example, the number one design difference between Canon and Nikon for me is that Nikon let you turn both dials while keeping an index finger on the shutter. The vertical front dial on Canon bodies moves the shutter to the middle finger (or makes the index finger hop). But Nikon still haven't quite worked out that ISO and exposure compensation - while belatedly moved to the right hand - should be on equal footing to aperture and shutter. Currently, the index finger is moved off the shutter release to change these (except with quick exposure compensation/easy ISO, the latter of which Nikon removed when they moved the ISO button to the right).

 

Even so, currently I'd rather shoot Nikon than the alternatives. But lenses? I have ten Nikkors (well, nine, one's an E Nikon). Five Sigmas, two Tamrons. Horses for courses.

[BeBu Lamar]

I am sure there will be lenses for the Nikon from other manufacturer but I am sure also that Nikon do not do anything to encourage that. They may not as great an optical company as they were but I am sure they are proud of themselves.

[Dieter Schaefer]

only one or two vendors allow a Sony to use AF-S lenses, and even then, diaphragm control is only rudimentary

To the best of my knowledge there's currently three adapters for Nikon G and E lenses to be mounted on Sony E-mount cameras while providing AF, VR and full aperture control: Commlite, Vello, and Fotodiox - they all appear to be produced by Commlite and may differ in their firmware only. Rudimentary aperture control is provided in the non-AF adapters for G lenses.

 

The success of a mirrorless Nikon may depend more on compatibility with Sony, Leica and Zeiss lenses than with F-mount Nikon lenses

Maybe Nikon will not make the mistake that Sony made with a thick sensor cover glass that rendered the adaption of many wide-angle M-mount lenses useless.

 

The Nikon Z-mount flange-to-sensor distance is rumored to be 16mm; for Sony's E-mount the distance is 18mm; hence making an 2mm-thick adapter to mount Sony E-mount lenses onto a Z-mount Nikon mirrorless appears to be quite a challenge (usefulness aside - there are thin m4/3 to Sony E-mount adapters (1.25mm flange-to-sensor difference) available (due to the difference in mount diameter, the outside thickness of the adapter is actually much thicker than the flange-to-sensor distance)).

[ilkka_nissila]

I do sometimes shoot with a mixed brand lens setup, but I generally am not happy with that approach. For example, the 21mm Zeiss Milvus is a sharp lens but when I was shooting in the Nauthusagil ravine, I got a result like this:

 

Untitled

 

when I used my Nikon lenses the shadows didn't go to pitch blackness so quickly and the transition from highlight to shadow was more gradual. If I carry multiple lenses I generally want them to have similar characteristics and this is why I haven't been happy with a mixed Nikon / Zeiss setup. I guess what I would call Nikon lenses is that they have a "graceful" rendering of the scene whereas Zeiss can sometimes be harsh and abrupt. However, in different lighting conditions, for example, in overcast conditions with soft light, I find the Zeiss Apo Sonnar (135mm f/2) to work very nicely, bringing out the colour of the subject's clothes. However, when that same lens is used for close-ups (it has 1:4 capability), I found double line bokeh (which is something that can lead to me to never use a lens again). In portraits in uncontrolled available light, I found the Zeiss lenses to make often pitch black eyes whereas again I felt Nikon lenses are more forgiving in that sense, maintaining shadow areas in a part of the tone curve where there isn't so much noise. So in the end I've come to prefer and trust my Nikon lenses more. I don't like all Nikkors, for sure I've had my disappointments (e.g. 80-400, 200-500, 28/2.8 AF in the old days etc.). But even with their little imperfections I still find the results at the overall image level to be pleasing with most Nikon primes and latest f/2.8 zooms.

 

Sigma make nice lenses, I have friends who use e.g. the 35/1.4 and 85/1.4, and the results are fine. But their 50mm, 85mm and 105mm are much heavier and larger than the corresponding Nikkors, even though the Sigmas may be sharper, I don't want to give up the smaller size and lower weight of the Nikkors. I also find that in images posted online there seem to be a warm tint to the Sigmas, I don't know if that's something of a characteristic of the optics or the result of user adjustments. In any case for the 135mm I'm hoping Nikon will make a lighter weight version than Sigma, maybe using fluorite if that works. I use the 300 PF a lot (that one is not for pleasing rendering but convenience and handling) but I would prefer an FL rather than a PF solution.

 

Anyway I completely understand those who prefer e.g. Zeiss, Sigma, Canon etc. To my eye, modern nano-coated Nikkors generally produce the most pleasing results, and I would like to go towards greater consistency rather than more differences between focal lengths, thus I don't plan on expanding my selection of third party lenses (except perhaps for macro, where Laowa 25mm is on my radar).

 

If someone already have a selection of native lenses for Sony E mount, surely there is no point in switching to a Nikon body since the lenses likely wouldn't fit and if they could be made to fit, the autofocus capability (if any) would likely be difficult to transfer using an adapter. Manual focus lenses might be possible to adapt though 2mm x - 2.9mm is pretty thin space to fit an adapter. Therefore I feel it makes more sense to use the lenses on their native platforms. I guess I was never one who wanted to play and see if some things not designed to work together could be used together. I understand there can be a certain pleasure in hacking things together, but I guess I get enough of that at work and in my photography, I just want things to work.

 

One aspect of Nikon that I like is their new flash system. I've used Elinchroms in the studio and for outdoor portraits, and reliability is good outdoors but in the studio some of the flashes sometimes do not fire (due to the metal in concrete walls perhaps, or the effect of people between the trigger and receiver). I have not seen misfiring to happen with the Nikon SB-5000's. They were indeed a bit of a late arrival to radio controlled flash but I find the implementation to be very reliable. But ironically I don't know anyone else who uses the new Nikon flashes. So, in conclusion, the stuff that I like about Nikon seems to be largely unknown to the broader user base and the stuff that I don't like can be wildly popular ... so at least I can say this, whether I like something is not a predictor of commercial success. :)

Edited August 3, 2018 by ilkka_nissila

[mike_halliwell]

BeBu,

"meant that Nikon doesn't aim at a small audience"

I'm not sure the D810A was exactly mainstream.........;)

[mike_halliwell]

" Like a desaturate tool wasn't available in every image editor worth using?"

 

RJ, Maybe I should email the Leica M Monochrome owners group and tell them, I'm sure they'd love to know?....:D

 

As Andrew said, you've only got to see how popular Full Spectrum and IR conversions are to see that not everyone wants a colour sensor.

 

There's even a bunch of modders who have figured out how to remove the Bayer layer manually.....:cool:

 

......and there's readily available software that bypasses the 'colour' creation part of RAW conversion.

[BeBu Lamar]

BeBu,

"meant that Nikon doesn't aim at a small audience"

I'm not sure the D810A was exactly mainstream.........;)

The first mirrorless won't be one that aim at small audience. But later one they might.

[mike_halliwell]

4 mounting screws and a lens lock pin. No AF screwdrive. Not surprised. They firmware dis-allowed the 200-500mm on the J5 'cos the lens mount couldn't take the weight. Hopefully they won't be so stupid with the new F-Mount adapter.

 

So what exactly is the finely knurled knob to the right of the VF bump, ie to the left in the pic? That cannot be the eyepiece diopter +/- knob!

 

Maybe the 'new dimension' is full spectrum, and the knob is for flick in filters?;)

[Andrew Garrard]

Aim at a small audience, no, I'm sure it won't. I don't think the 1 series was aimed at a small audience. A small audience may have been what it hit, however. (The Df probably was knowingly aimed at a small audience, but I think it possibly contracted the market smaller than intended with the implementation. To be fair, I suspect the development effort in both the Df and, especially, the D810A weren't terribly great.) I'm not particularly pessimistic about what Nikon produce, but I'm not going to assume it sets the world on fire until it lives on its own merits, either.

 

I notice that the latest estimates of the size of the camera in the video makes it not much smaller than the D750, which may be a little disappointing if that's supposed to be a selling point of mirrorless. I'm not really clear why there's a viewfinder hump; I'm certainly not clear why there's a viewfinder hump in the centre of the camera, meaning you have the dSLR problem of pressing your nose on the rear LCD. Many mirrorless (and some mirrored) systems have managed to put the viewfinder on the left so the camera sits flat against the cheek; if there's anything to query at this point, that would be where I'd start. That and the large knurled dial to the left of the viewfinder (as you look through it, right in the pic), which is a Nikon staple but isn't where I can put my right hand on it.

 

Ilkka: I may not have registered that you don't like the 200-500, although it's certainly not perfect. I can see the merits of consistency, but I'm basically not a lens fan boy - I'll use whatever seems to work best to me. I would like it if some of the faster lenses didn't have the mechanical "cat's eye" vignetting (shared by the fast Sigmas), which is something I might have hoped was being worked around with the extra size. I'm sure the Nikkor 105mm has merits over the Sigma, but to me they're probably not worth the price difference - if I go with a 105mm anyway. My greatest hope for the missing refresh of the 135mm is that Nikon "do a DC" and stick in a (possibly optional) apodisation element - although to be honest on a telephoto lens a front inverse centre filter ought to be a good start, if they were easier to find. (Hmm. I wonder if I can find a 55mm one for my 200 f/2?) I certainly don't like double-line bokeh, and the Zeiss workarounds to LoCA (which I also hate) sometimes look a bit ugly up close, but software can fix up a lot of small-scale effects. On the other hand, sharpening a soft lens does horrible things to bokeh, and rough bokeh is hard to fix properly.

 

I still have vague hopes that Nikon will get around to refreshing the 14-24, 135/2, 70-180 macro and 200mm macro (and maybe the 180mm f/2.8). Currently they're effectively pushing us to Sigma et al. on these lenses, and the solutions aren't perfect. But I suspect they'll be busy making mirrorless glass for a while, so we may have to manage our expectations in dSLR land.

[ilkka_nissila]

 

I'm not sure the D810A was exactly mainstream.........;)

 

Right, Nikon sometimes make low-volume products for specialists to satisfy their needs. However, here we're talking about a major system where there will be multiple cameras and lenses and most likely they will try to make it so that it does well in the broader photography market.

[Dieter Schaefer]

I notice that the latest estimates of the size of the camera in the video makes it not much smaller than the D750, which may be a little disappointing if that's supposed to be a selling point of mirrorless.

Seems to be about the size of the Leica SL which certainly broke with the notion of mirrorless being small. One can only hope that the new Nikon mirrorless doesn't weigh as much - the SL is ever so slightly heavier than the D750.

 

I'm not really clear why there's a viewfinder hump; I'm certainly not clear why there's a viewfinder hump in the centre of the camera, meaning you have the dSLR problem of pressing your nose on the rear LCD. Many mirrorless (and some mirrored) systems have managed to put the viewfinder on the left so the camera sits flat against the cheek; if there's anything to query at this point, that would be where I'd start.

As a left-eye shooter, a mirrorless with the viewfinder placed on the left side is a non-starter for me. It's already hard enough to get my thumb in between my right eye and the camera to operate a camera with a centrally placed finder; having to me in even closer to my nose isn't appealing to me in the least. And even with a viewfinder on the left, a left-eye shooter will still press the nose against the LCD:(

 

I've used some cameras with a viewfinder entry on the left side - but only with small lenses. I'd expect some imbalance in that kind of setup with larger, longer, and heavier lenses.

[BeBu Lamar]

Andrew!

The Df as we know was intended for a small audience and I think it does as least as well as Nikon expectation.

The 1 series was aim at a much larger audience namely the M4/3 people and it missed badly because simply I wouldn't even care about the specs of the camera after just seeing the camera. I can make the same case for the Samsung failure. Samsung was very excited about mirrorless but they failed badly because they didn't make the camera good looking.

I don't think the size of the mirrorless is the big selling point for them any more. It's all about the EVF now and so at least the Nikon offering has a prominent EVF. It does extend further to the back of the camera to somewhat preventing the nose problem but since I don't have the nose problem perhaps Nikon designers also have small noses.

That big knob is something I dislike about Nikon design.

[ilkka_nissila]

I'll use whatever seems to work best to me.

 

I do too, but my past experiences have lead to certain preferences and I'm trying to learn from these experiences. I don't have the money to sample every brand and so I try to stick with what I have gotten good results with. I'm more interested in the broad characteristics of the image (color, contrast, transition between in and out of focus, transition between highlight and shadow) that are seen at all display scales instead of looking at the pixel-level details (this is simply because I'm realistic about where the images are viewed, typically and I don't make so many large prints). Today lens resale value can be poor compared to what it used to be, this could be because Nikon mount is less popular now than it was five or ten years ago. So this is why I cannot easily go on a wild search for the best lenses by any manufacturer, unless I go with a second hand lens which of course reduces the losses of resale. But I try to avoid doing a search and go with what I think is most likely to fit into my work.

 

I generally liked the 200-500's optics but its zoom stiffness (perhaps it was affected by the Finnish winter) made its usage unacceptable to me, and the 300 PF was much better in autofocus at close distances. In architectural images the outer areas of the frame were visibly softer (in A4 size print) and at 500mm there was a noticeable loss of sharpness compared to 200-400mm. When I shot the cross of an orthodox church against the sky there was visible CA. Whenever shooting objects against the sky, there was a blue overall tint to the image. There were positives; at 200-400mm the overall image quality was good, the bokeh was nice (better than 300 PF IMO) etc. on cloudy days (where the color temperature of the light was uniform) the results were vivid and pleasing (but ISO needed to be raised to get shutter speed up). For me to keep it I would have wanted (1) preferably internal zoom where the zoom action is light and easy to adjust quickly so that when the subject approaches, I would not have trouble adjusting the framing and keep shooting, (2) nano coating to make the color consistent with other modern Nikkors, (3) faster AF so that even at close distances it can track the subject's approach. (4) Similar optical correction at 500mm as at shorter focal lengths. If these changes could be accommodated then I would happily buy such a lens, but I cannot pay 12k€. I know the 200-500 is well liked, but I'm still looking at something else for my long lens needs. Currently satisfied with 300 PF and happy to take it just about everywhere because of its size and weight.

 

I would like it if some of the faster lenses didn't have the mechanical "cat's eye" vignetting (shared by the fast Sigmas), which is something I might have hoped was being worked around with the extra size. I'm sure the Nikkor 105mm has merits over the Sigma, but to me they're probably not worth the price difference - if I go with a 105mm anyway.

 

This is also something I don't like. The Nikon 105/1.4 would be close to perfect otherwise but its tendency to sometimes create visible cat's eyes and swirly bokeh. I've shot with it now for two years and I basically think that if the swirly bokeh appears, the subject needs to be moved or the lens stopped down a bit. But it really depends a lot on the background and geometry of the situation, whether this effect shows up. I never saw it with the 105 DC and this is one of the reasons I am keeping the older lens and missing the 135 DC which I sold. Wouldn't it be nice if they could just improve the lens without any drawbacks. The 85/1.4 AF-S Nikkor doesn't produce this effect to such a degree as the 105 does and generally I don't notice swirliness in the images from the 85.

 

I think the wider mount of the new mirrorless system may help avoid or alleviate cat's eyes and swirly bokeh.

 

I still have vague hopes that Nikon will get around to refreshing the 14-24, 135/2, 70-180 macro and 200mm macro (and maybe the 180mm f/2.8).

 

I think Nikon will keep updating DSLR lenses but they have sometimes odd priorities. I am hoping for a new 135/2 myself, if they asked me this would be a high priority lens, but they don't ask me. ;-) The 70-180 would be am interesting lens to have as when working on close-ups, moving the tripod legs can cause havoc in the surroundings and it can be difficult to position the camera precisely in relationship with the subject. The zoom micro would help work in such circumstances, but in the European market the prices have been pretty high.

Edited August 3, 2018 by ilkka_nissila

[ilkka_nissila]

Just to add, I think the 200-500 has some advantages also over the 300 PF; if you use a TC with the latter to get to longer focal lengths then the 200-500 will give better autofocus, and maybe better image quality as well. I think the 200-500 is more optimized towards mid and longer distances whereas the 300 PF works best at short to mid distances.