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

[Andrew Garrard]

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

 

Bear in mind that "wide open" is f/5.6. Not many primes aren't pretty darned good by f/5.6. The 800mm is a little better (and many times the price), at least on the high frequency sagittal measurements. That may beat the wide-open performance of, say, the 400 f/2.8 E prime, but I suspect the 400mm has caught up by f/5.6. The 500mm f/4 FL is better at f/4!

 

Still, interesting lens, especially at the price, and it certainly seems to have an edge over the zoom. If I ever make enough to pay off my other Nikon gear I'll certainly consider it, depending on other optical behaviour. But, while it might gain me a stop from having to stop my 200-500 down to f/8 for sharpness, I don't think it'll distract me from my 400mm f/2.8 lust. (Which I note is currently listed as less in $ in B&H than in £ at Park. Sigh.) The UK is too dark, and I need the aperture. Unless something extraordinary happens to my finances, I'll stick to plans to hire the 800mm, though.

[Albins images]

With Fresnel technology, you trade size, weight and cost for unusual bokeh and flare issues. [snip] We'll see how this lens fares.

"We'll see how this one flares" ;-)

[mike_halliwell]

If used on DX for it's wildlife reach, I guess an extra-long hood will keep out all but the worst flare.

 

Bokeh doesn't bother me.

 

This talk of flares reminds me of 70's trousers.....:(

[ilkka_nissila]

The 800mm is a little better (and many times the price), at least on the high frequency sagittal measurements. That may beat the wide-open performance of, say, the 400 f/2.8 E prime, but I suspect the 400mm has caught up by f/5.6.

 

I don't know about that; in this review

 

Nikon 400mm f/2.8E FL ED VR Review - Photography Life

 

Imatest graphs can be found for both the 400 FL and 800 FL and the 800 seems to edge out at f/5.6 (compared to the 400 stopped down to f/5.6), but in the end perhaps the difference can be accounted for by sample variation.

[Andrew Garrard]

Fair cop, Ilkka. I remembered the comparison with the TC20, which unsurprisingly made the 400mm look bad, but I'd failed to compare the raw f/5.6 figures. Of course the 800mm is even more expensive, and I tend to assume the longer the lens, the easier it is to preserve constant performance across the frame.

 

Given UK lighting I'm standing by lust after a 400mm f/2.8. The 200-500 is clearly worse than the new f/5.6 prime, but I don't judge it to be by enough to get my cash (at least until the price drops), and I like zooms at this length, if only to help find the subject. If I walked farther when birding I might well think differently, but the 200-500 isn't that big. It would definitely be a budget option to hire as an alternative to, or alongside, a bigger telephoto though.

 

Maybe my NAS is coming under control?

[mike_halliwell]

NAS under control? The words of a crazy man.....

 

I think the 500mm PF with supplimentary sight should make acquisition and tracking much easier. It works a treat on my 200-500mm.

 

Now if the AF would keep up, it will make dragonfly chasing easier with the D500.

[Andrew Garrard]

I'd meant to ask about the supplementary sight (if you mean the dot finder). I wasn't quite clear what it was: does it project a spot into the scene (effectively a laser pointer mounted on the hot shoe), or is the dot only visible when looking through it (like an astronomy dot finder)? I'm not sure which is better - the former might spook animals, the latter wouldn't help when I'm shooting from the hip.

[mike_halliwell]

The latter! The important measurement is the eye relief distance.

My sight sits on the tripod foot set in the up position. So pistol sights work better than those designed for rifles. Optically it is x1, so zero mag. They also allow the use of both eyes, so all of the peripheral view is visible too.

[mike_halliwell]

If you pop 30mm or 40mm dot sight into Amazon, you should find one for well under £20. Looks more like a very small telescope than a telrad... Edited September 7, 2018 by mike_halliwell

[Andrew Garrard]

If you pop 30mm or 40mm dot sight into Amazon, you should find one for well under £20. Looks more like a very small telescope than a telrad...

 

Oh yes. And as a bonus (via a trip to Wikipedia) I now know what a reflector sight is. The Amazon retailers seem to charge about 100% premium for a small lump of metal that'll fit in a hot shoe and attach to the rail, I notice. Interesting, anyway. I'll bear them in mind if I find myself doing enough of the right kind of shooting, though my slightly screwed dominant eye (same reason I can no longer use a rangefinder) probably rules out such a thing for me unless it's actually a finder scope with a diopter adjustment.

[mike_halliwell]

Just read the review on Lenstip, they like it lots.

 

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

 

Without a new firmware update (to the J5), should I be able to use this on my J5 with an FT-1?

 

Contrast against the light is it's only flaw. Maybe they should make a specific longer D500 (DX) hood for it?

Edited September 13, 2018 by mike_halliwell

[Andrew Garrard]

Does the FT-1 support E-aperture lenses? I don't see why not, otherwise.

 

It does seem to have a significant optical benefit over the 200-500 - a bit more than I expected. Whether that makes me save up for it (given that I've already established that f/2.8 would make a big difference in UK lighting conditions and that 500mm is too short for Yellowstone) is another matter. Unless I win a lottery any time soon, I'm not in the market.

[mike_halliwell]

I was referring to the internal lens list of 'shan't use' lenses Nikon added to the J5 firmware so the 200-500mm can't be used.

 

Allegedly it was seen as too much strain on the body mount by the Nikon engineers/lawyers.

[ilkka_nissila]

Does the FT-1 support E-aperture lenses? I don't see why not, otherwise.

 

There could be some specific limitations for this camera - some users have reported that the J5 is not compatible with all the long lenses that the FT-1 adapter is.

 

It does seem to have a significant optical benefit over the 200-500 - a bit more than I expected. Whether that makes me save up for it (given that I've already established that f/2.8 would make a big difference in UK lighting conditions and that 500mm is too short for Yellowstone) is another matter.

 

f/5.6 can be pretty limiting in wintertime in Finland, but an f/5.6 lens that is sharpest at f/5.6 is less limiting than an f/5.6 lens that requires stopping down to f/8 for the best quality. I think from this perspective the lens is quite promising. <1.5kg weight should also be great from a handling and transportation perspective. AF speed appears to be not quite at the level of the fastest lenses. I suppose for distant subjects the use of the focus limiter would be advisable. Then invariably one forgets to reset it. ;-)

 

I would also benefit from a larger maximum aperture due to the lighting conditions through the darker part of the year in my country. A 500/4G VR can be had for about 5000-6000€ but is 3.9kg in weight and in practice would necessitate carrying a heavy tripod and gimbal head. The 500mm PF is from a weight and size perspective hand holdable but of course, pointing a 500mm steadily is a bit challenging and I wouldn't expect tripod-like results either in compositional precision or sharpness, when hand holding such a lens. I think I would use the 500 PF a lot more often than a 500/4G VR, because of the "fun" factor of a lightweight, hand holdable lens that one can walk around with without feeling strained or making noise while dragging it through the forests. However, I often make my best nature photographs in lighting conditions with subdued light and sometimes the weather can be extreme as well, in the wintertime. In cold weather, having less weight to carry would definitely be a help, but for subdued, dim lighting conditions I don't think a PF f/5.6 lens would be the best choice. All things considered, I will probably purchase the 500 PF when my financial situation permits. I have really appreciated the fun brought into my photography by the 300mm PF.

Edited September 13, 2018 by ilkka_nissila

[mike_halliwell]

"some users have reported that the J5 is not compatible with all the long lenses that the FT-1 adapter is"

 

Yup, that's the firmware lens list Nikon made to cripple the J5.. AFAIK, the V3 can use 'all' the long lenses via the FT-1.

 

The new 500mm PF can't be on the forbidden list as it wasn't even thought about when the J5 was made.... probably!

 

If you look here..

 

Nikon | Imaging Products | Compatible Lens List - Mount Adapter FT1

 

You'll see it's only the J5 that's crippled, the J4 is just fine! Mind you the J5 sensor is much better than the J4!

Edited September 13, 2018 by mike_halliwell

[heimbrandt]

It got to try it out yesterday on my camera.

 

When looking at photos of it, it does look like a baby version of the 500-600 mm super telephoto lenses. When I picked it up, I used too much muscle strength to lift it up. It really is that lightweight. Once mounted on the camera and ready for shooting handheld, I noted the downside of its design. It is meant for handholding (or at least its weight encourages you to do so, even though its F5.6 may not), but its shape does not work that well in its smaller package. The tripod foot can rest in your palm but given the narrow field of view, it is a bit too close to the camera for optimum stabilization. You can hold the lens by the hood/front of the lens and have your pinky by on of the four buttons on the lens barrel. Being used to so with the heavier 300/2.8, that is what I ended up doing. However, the G and E super teles have carbon fiber lens hoods with metal locks on them, so you dare hold it by the lens hood. This has a very short and plastic lens hood, with a spring lock made out of metal, just like on the 70-200/2.8 or 300 PF. I really do believe one shoAside from the hood, built quality felt excellent, on par with the 500/4E. The tripod foot looked like the one from 70-200/2.8E and its low weight made me think about balancing the lens on a gimbal. I fear you would end up very close to the camera, especially with a gripped camera/full sized camera.

 

Focus response was good, but I would still say my 300/2.8 VR with the TC-20EIII is a tad faster. The penalty when using the TC-14EIII was not as evident as I expected on the D850. I only tried to track pedestrians, cyclists and cars, but it felt usable. Initial lock to a bit longer time than without, but that is expected.

 

Sharpness is really good, as is contrast. You do not need to stop down to increase it. It sure makes the argument for the 500E much weaker. The PF element did show its ugly face once pointed even near the sun. Ghosting was a real concern, even when the sun was not in the frame. Depending on the angle, the same distance to the sun could result in normal photos or nearly completely washed out photos due to ghosting. The case for the 500E is not that much weaker, in fact ghosting may definitely be a dealbreaker for some. I have not really tried the 300PF, so I cannot compare the two in this regard. But, given that ghosting was such a problem well before the sun entered the frame I would really like to re-test the 500PF with a longer lens hood. I do think third parties will look into this and hopefully make a better lens hood that shades more.

 

Looking at build and image quality, It is reasonably priced in relation to the 200-500 and the 500E.

[ilkka_nissila]

Thanks for the report.

 

The 500 PF is also a 500E so maybe it is best to avoid the use of a term which is correct for multiple lenses if you want to speak of a specific one. :)

 

Flare is usually not an issue with the 300 PF unless the sun illuminates the front element directly, in which case there can be prolific flare.

Edited September 14, 2018 by ilkka_nissila

[ShunCheung]

Heimbrandt, thanks for the post. My main concern for the 500mm f5.6 PF is AF speed and accuracy. I never like AF speed on max f5.6 lenses, especially when it is not under bright sunlight. The 200-500 is especially poor due to the weak AF motor inside, which is understandable given its consumer price. Nikon is pricing the 500mm PF lower than I had expected; hopefully quality doesn’t suffer.

 

Which bodies did you try the 500 PF on?

[ilkka_nissila]

There is another report by Lance B at

 

"Official" Nikon 500 f/5.6E PF Discussion and Image Thread

 

The sharpness certainly looks impressive. Lance reports "AF speed is fast, not 400 f2.8E FL VR fast, but I managed to track Peregrine Falcons with it and get some great shots. If the 400 f2.8 is a 9/10 for AF speed, then the 500 PF is a good 7.5/10, the 200-500 is a 5/10." He uses the D850.

 

What would be interesting to me is to hear how the AF functions at marginally usable light levels, for example, f/5.6, ISO 12800, 1/500s and similar.

[heimbrandt]

I think most people will call this new lens 500PF and the F4 version 500E and the previous F4 model 500G, but all three of them are G type lenses too...

 

I only tried the lens on a D850 with MB-D12, powered by an EN-EL18. My guess is that most 500 PFs will be used on the D500, D5 and the D850. Nikon did bring the Z6 and 7 and the adapter too, but I did not test other combinations. I did not get the impression that AF accuracy would be an issue. AF speed is something you should try to make sure it fits your needs. I would definitely try it for tracking birds and Lance B's post shows that it can keep up with the faster predators.

 

The 500PF has an optical lens at the front, like most lenses. As it takes 95 mm filters, it is not really a negative, but I have come to like the idea of a meniscus front element on Nikon's super teles.

[ilkka_nissila]

No lens is both G and E in the lens name. There are a few lenses that are both E and D. Anyway, for me it is confusing to read about 500 E in the context of comparing two 500 E lenses that are different models, for clarity it would be best to call them e.g. 500 PF and and 500 FL, or 500/5.6 PF and 500/4 FL to make sure there is no confusion. When you said first "It sure makes the argument for the 500E much weaker." and then followed "The case for the 500E is not that much weaker" then I was totally lost in which lens you were talking about in the different sentences that appear somewhat contradictory if interpreted to refer to the same lens.

 

When talking about flare performance when shooting with the sun just outside of the frame, I find of my teles the 70-200/2.8E FL to be the best, with almost no flare, the G II version has a tendency to show a thin veil of flare across the image area, the 300 PF shows a strong flare (that is in the lower part of the frame if I recall correctly) if not shielded by the hood, and the 200/2 II also shows quite a bit of flare in this situation. The 70-200 FL is quite remarkable in this respect, and it also autofocuses better in backlit situations, probably because the absence of flare also helps the AF system.

Edited September 14, 2018 by ilkka_nissila

[mike_halliwell]

Sounds like a DX hood for the 500mm PF is a must.

 

... is it 1.4x as long?

[ShunCheung]

To avoid any confusion, at this point I think it is best to specify 500mm/f5.6 PF vs. 500mm/f4 E FL vs. 500mm/f4 G AF-S VR, as they are all AF-S VR. Their earlier AF-S versions 1 and 2 didn't have VR and were not G lenses. Once you specify the maximum aperture being f5.6 and has PF, it is very unique, until there is a version 2 some years down the road.

 

Earlier I saw Lance B from Sydney has another thread on DPReview:

500 pf samples from me: Nikon SLR Lens Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

 

He posted the same images as on the Fred Miranda thread. Looks very good so far.

 

Apparently the initial shipment is not small, as I have read that a number of people are getting this lens within the next few days.

[heimbrandt]

Illka, the PF's excellent image quality makes the case for the E FL weaker in terms of bang for your buck, whereas the PF's poor resistance to flare may be a dealbreaker that makes the case for the much more expensive E FL stronger (or at least less weak), since the E FL has no problems shooting against the sun.

 

mike_halliwell, all of Nikon's 500 mm primes are FX lenses. Thus, their angle of view should be the same, therefore they could all use equally deep lens hoods. I pointed out that the lens hood on the 500 F4 lenses are about twice as deep as the one on the new 5.6 PF lens. I would not go about making a DX hood for the PF, but look into a hood that is as deep as this lens's bigger siblings' as that would still allow for FX coverage. Naturally, you may make a hood that shields so much that it even shields part of the FX image area, but that may be overdoing it unless it will only be used on a DX body.

 

Shun, NPS users here have already taken first delivery of the PF.

[mike_halliwell]

I hadn't really thought about it, but I guess either the 300mm pf or 500mm pf mounted on a Z6 or Z7 makes for a good compact hide camera without the need for any sound proofing or blimp.

 

Assuming Camranger or somesuch works OK, remote silent shooting of very nervous wildlife should be good.

 

Heimbrandt, I'm guessing many people will be using the 500mm PF on the D500, so a dedicated long hood would avoid any flare issues more than an FX hood. I haven't seen any reports about how much longer the hood could be on the 500mm PF and still avoid vignetting on FX.

 

" I pointed out that the lens hood on the 500 F4 lenses are about twice as deep as the one on the new 5.6 PF lens."

 

if Nikon had problems with flare, why did they make the 500mm PF hood so short??

Edited September 14, 2018 by mike_halliwell