roland_vink

With an aperture of f/6.3 at 300mm, the entrance pupil is just 48mm. Having a 67mm filter thread is really oversize for this lens. It's nice that they keep a consistent filter size across their lenses, but if they are going to make a 70-300mm zoom - especially one without VR - then it would be nice if it were 1/3 stop faster than f/5.6 and not 1/3 stop slower.

I would prefer to see an FTZ adapter which supports AI metering. When using AI lenses it would be nice to see the actual aperture used in the viewfinder and exif data. That is one of the friction points which has so far stopped my buying into the Z system. Yeah, I know that I am old school, and I'm not sure how much demand there would be for an AI FTZ, but Nikon did keep the AI-S line going for a long time - the last ones only discontinued in 2020 - so there is still a lot of love for these older lenses. It is a shame they couldn't provide just a little more support for them in the Z system :)

I have often wondered about this, I don't see why it couldn't be possible. It would be very useful especially for FX and larger sensors where the depth of field is often insufficient using a single frame with an un-tilted sensor. Stopping down further to increase the depth of focus is not always practical. Beyond a certain point diffraction starts to rob the image of sharpness and it may require longer shutter speeds which increases the problems of subject movement. It may require higher ISOs which reduces image quality and the DoF may still be insufficient. Currently the only way around this is to use focus stacking, but that does not work well if the subject is moving, eg a landscape on a windy day, a flowing river, waves on the sea, people and wildlife. Tilting the sensor will run into the same problems as tilting the lens - uneven illumination or color shifts due to light not striking the sensor optimally. If the amount of tilt is restricted to relatively small angles this shouldn't be a problem with most lenses. In most cases the amount of tilt required is not great anyway. The advantages are that tilt-only (no shift) does not require a larger image circle so it would work with any lens, and it would eliminate the bulky tilt mechanism needed on tilt lenses. If we are going to have a sensor where one or other edge can tilt back, why not go the next step and allow the entire sensor to move forward and back? That would allow limited AF even with manual lenses :)

That is an interesting suggestion. Back in the very early days (pre 1960s) many of their lenses has serial numbers based on the date. Many of the early F-mount lenses had serial numbers based on physical characteristics such as the focal length, max aperture, or in the case of one fisheye the diameter of the image circle. But since the mid 1980s the start serial numbers have always been based on a round number, usually starting at 200001 (with variations on the number of zeros) with subsequent series starting at the next significant number.

That is assuming the serial numbers for this lens starts at 20000001. So far I have seen three "pre-production" lenses reviewed on youtube: at 0:10 shows 20001526 at 0:45, SN 20001519 at 3:00 SN 20001545 They all fall in a narrow range of serial numbers. Maybe there is a pre-production series starting at 20001501? These lenses appear to be a finished product physically (unless the coatings have not been finalized), so they may be "pre-production" only because the firmware has not been completed. The product shot shows SN 20002001 (I think I have also seen this one on youtube) so does production actually start at 20002001? The Z 58mm Noct also starts at this number based on numbers I have seen so far. I don't remember seeing any pre-production Nocts previewed on youtube. Actually, looking at the numbers I have for other Z lenses, all have start numbers above 20002001 except for: 24-70/4 (no 20000661 on Ken Rockwell's review on guarantee sheet) 24-120/4 (20000058 on ) 24-70/2.8 (20000159, private buyer) 100-400 (20000012, ) 16-50 (20000453, private buyer) 50-250 (20001517, private buyer) Some of these may be pre-production also, especially the 100-400, so maybe most Z mount lenses actually start at 20002001?

Serial numbers collected so far suggest that Nikon have made nearly 3500 units of the F-mount AF-S 800 5.6 FL in the 9 yeas it has been in production. That is a lot for such a specialised optic. By comparison, the older AI-S 800 5.6 IF-ED sold a shade over 3000 units in the 20 years it was in production, between 1986 and 2005. Matt Irwin's youtube clips of the 800 6.3 PF shows a serial number 20002001 and another clip shows number 20001519, so it appears Nikon have already made at least 2000 units, assuming the numbers start at 20000001. The promo shots at the top were taken at the gannet colony at Muriwai near Auckland, New Zealand. That's quite a far-flung location for a lens like this, maybe a subtle demonstration of how easy it is to travel with this lens :)

You could still use your 105/1.4, just stop down a bit more so the background is less blurred. I wouldn't use the Z 50/1.8 S for tight head-shots as you would need to get too close, which could be be uncomfortable for the subject and would cause some distortion (eg make the nose look big relative to the rest of the face). Your 105 would be better for this. For head and shoulder shots and further back, the Z 50/1.8 should be fine.

Many of the old Nikon hoods are a little too short so if they were fitted over a filter they would not cause vignetting. For example, the HN-1 is recommended for the AIS 24/2.8, but the deeper HN-2 (for 28/2.8) will work provided is is NOT fitted over a filter. Similarly, the deeper HN-3 (for 35/2) can be used on the 28/2.8 when not fitted over a filter. If you do use a filter, best to stick to the recommended hood. I had a similar problem with swapping hoods and filters in and out. In the end I gave up using hoods. The HN-1/2/3 for wide-angle AIS lenses are too shallow to provide useful shade from the sun and other bright sources of light, although they are useful for protecting the front element from knocks. If I notice the lens is flaring from bright light sources I use my hand to shade the front lens, or change position slightly so the shadow of a branch (etc) falls across the front lens.

I couldn't help wondering if a 700/5.6 would be a better balance between focal length and speed. 800mm and f/6.3 seems rather long and slow to me (but it is nearly two stops faster than the Canon 800/11). A 700/5.6 would have a front element would be about the same size as the 800/6.3 so overall the lens would be about the same size, a little shorter which would be easier to hand-hold. Adding a 1.4x TC would also give a useful 1000/8 lens. However, I have no doubt the 800/6.3 will be popular with birders where every mm of reach is useful.

I think the 24-120 belongs to a different category. Photographers who want the extended zoom range (in both directions) will choose the new 24-120, assuming they can afford it. I think the 28-75 competes more with the 24-70/4 S, as a relatively compact and affordable standard zoom. The choice is between the wider angle of view or a zoom range shifted slightly towards the telephoto range and a faster aperture. The MTF suggests the Nikon 24mm zooms are sharper wide open, but the 28-75 might be comparable at f/4. I expect the 28-75 is sold as at kit lens with the Z5. There are now plenty of mid-range zooms for the Z mount. I am a little surprised Nikon did not make a telephoto zoom a higher priority. Something like 70-200/4 or 75-300/4-5.6 would fill a big hole in their current lineup.

Correction: the 200/4 micro is screw-drive AF not AF-S. I suspect the low sales for this lens was due initially to its very high cost, and more recently to its old AF technology. However, I noticed that when old (special-purpose, expensive) lenses with low sales are replaced (also with high price), the new lens often sells very well. Consider the AF 105/2 DC, introduced around the same time as the AF 200/4 micro, and and sold in similar quantities. It was replaced by the AF-S 105/1.4 in 2016. In 6 years it has already sold nearly as many copies as the 105DC did in over 20 years. I think a modern 200/4 micro from Nikon would sell very well.

Regarding the 28-300mm zoom, have a look here: AF-S NIKKOR 28-300MM F/3.5-5.6G ED VR (field experience and more) The lens might be more challenged on a high resolution camera, but it should be fine on the 16MP Df. If you really want a light hiking kit, consider an m4/3 body with the Lumix 14-140/3.5-5.6 II zoom, which covers essentially the same zoom range as the Nikon 28-300. This version has some weather sealing, I have the original version without weather sealing and have used it for hiking. It is amazingly compact and surprisingly good. It's decently sharp, does well when shooting into the sun, and has nice background rendition (it's never going to be a lens which blows out the background but you will get some background blurring even with this small format and relatively slow aperture)

Another option is to combine a 70-200mm f/4 zoom with a couple of faster primes, such as an 85/1.8 (or 85/1.4), 135/2 and/or 180/2.8. The zoom gives you flexibility in a relatively lightweight package. The primes give you a faster aperture (even faster than 70-200/2.8 zooms) for low light and greater DoF control while still being lighter and more compact than the fast zooms. The only thing you give up is the ability to zoom with the faster aperture, but if you can plan ahead and choose the appropriate prime, with a bit of "foot zooming" and some cropping you should still be able to frame the subject as required. This sort of combination was popular in the days when pro telephoto zooms had a max aperture of f/4.5 or f/4.

Why is a 400/5.6 PF too slow and 500/5.6 is not? A 400/4.5 has the same size front element as the 500/5.6 so wouldn't be any cheaper or lighter, only a bit shorter. I think there is a useful spot for a 400/5.6 PF lens. Such a lens would be significantly lighter and more compact than the 80-400 zoom, and probably cheaper. It should have better optical quality - zooms tend to have higher vignetting and distortion, and are usually weak at the tele end. It would give more reach than the 300/4 PF and better quality than the 300PF + TC, in a lens which is only a little longer and heavier. Plus it would be much smaller and more affordable than the 500PF, so would be within the reach of many more photographers. Combined with a 1.4x TC it would give a 560/8 lens, which seem more attractive to me than the Canon 600/11 STM lens. If it had decent close focus ability, it would be a very useful lens.

The "landscape mode" I mentioned is really a self-aligning sensor. Whether the image plane is tilted or perpendicular, it can eliminate problems where the lens/adaptor/TC/camera/sensor mount is out of alignment due to manufacturing tolerances or knocks, which is increasingly a problem as camera resolution gets higher. It will ensure the sensor is always properly aligned to the image plane when the picture is taken.

It would be even better if a camera was designed so the sensor can tilt, so it would work with every lens not just expensive tilt/shift lenses. Sensors already vibrate to shake off dust and move to stabilise the image, why not add tilting to the mix? By tilting the sensor only there is no need to re-center the image, the framing stays the same, only the plane of focus is tilted so it fits best over the subject. The camera could have a landscape mode where the sensor tilts to maximise sharpness across the entire field. And while they are at it, add forward/backward movement of the sensor also. This would allow limited AF with manual lenses - the user focuses approximately and the camera moves the sensor forward or back to refine the focus, for example in portraiture to ensure the eyes are in perfect focus. It would be useful for focus stacking also. Just a couple of mm would be enough to cover most cases, especially for wide-standard lenses.

You can read Richard's blog about this lens here: Repair: “alleged” Ai AF Zoom Nikkor ED 28-80mm f/2.8D (IF)

The older AI 300/4.5 IF-ED has a narrower collar, similar width as the AI-S 300/4.5, but I'm not sure if the diameter is the same or different.

Note that the tripod collar for the AIS 300/4.5 and AIS 300/4.5 IF-ED are different. Both are removable "clamshell" tripod collars, but the one for the IF-ED version is wider and possibly has a different diameter, I don't think they are interchangeable. Make sure you get the right one for your lens.

The "Japan" 50/1.8 is a nice lens. It looks similar to the later "chrome-ring" series-E version but has all-metal build, better coatings and focuses closer - 0.45m vs 0.6m. The optics are the same, and also the same as the later "pancake" AI-S version and the AF and AF-D versions. Personally I prefer the AI 50/1.8 "long nose" version. It has a regular size barrel which greatly improves handling, the pancake lenses have very narrow focus and aperture rings which can be fiddly to use. The AI 50/1.8 has different optics which I think are slightly better, a little sharper and with nicer background rendition. It also has a longer focus throw so focusing is slower and more accurate, especially at far distances. The Voigtlander 40mm ultron is also a very good lens, especially the SL IIS version as it focuses much closer than the previous versions without use of closeup attachments. However, getting perfect focus using manual lenses on the D850 is a challenge unless you usually shoot at smaller apertures, or shoot static subjects where you have time to carefully adjust focus, or you can use magnified live view. My recommendation would be the AF-S 50/1.8. Optically it should as sharp or better than the other lenses mentioned, and being an AF lens you are much less likely to lose shots due to focusing errors. It's not a pancake lens but it is still small compared to the size of the D850 body, or the 24-70 and 105mm lenses you have been using.

They are the same optically and I think the coatings are the same so the image quality should be the same. The newer version focuses marginally closer and is significantly lighter due to different materials used in the lens barrel. You can compare the specifications here: Nikon Lens Specifications

I have the late pre-AI (K) 24/2.8, which is the same optically as the Nikkor-N.C version (same coatings too). It's not particularly good with strong lights in the frame, with green reflections through the image. Apart from that it is a fine lens - good sharpness and contrast. I used it almost exclusively for landscape type shots when stopped well down so I couldn't say how well it does wide open. This was the first lens with floating elements (close range correction), so I should expect it to perform well even though it is an older design. On the other hand, when Nikon refreshed the lens line up in the 1970s, the new versions are generally better and more compact than the older 1960s versions. However I am happy enough with my lens so haven't felt the need to try the newer AI version.

This must be a prototype. The styling matches mid-late 1990s lenses like the AF 80-200/2.8 D ED (new version with tripod mount). It is a screw-drive AF lens, no built-in AF-S motor, so obviously precedes the AF-S 28-70/2.8 which appeared in 1999. Obviously, Nikon was trying to improve on the old AF 35-70/2.8 D by expanding the zoom range in both directions, going to a more useful 28mm wide-angle and increasing the long end to 80mm to bridge the gap to the 80-200/2.8 zooms. This lens is a highly developed prototype, it looks like a finished production lens. So why was it never produced? Maybe the 28-80 zoom range was pushing things too far and the optical quality was not good enough. Or maybe it was judged to be too expensive for the market. Or they decided to introduce the new AF-S motor, and for various technical or economic reasons they had to reduce the zoom range. Interestingly, the zoom ratio of the 28-80 is 2.8x which is about the same as current 24-70 and 70-200 zooms. Hopefully the new owner can clean the lens and restore it to good working condition, it would be interesting to know how it performs.

I was aware of the discussion but haven't looked at it in detail. You best bet might be to sign up with NikonGear and PM Ron V who started the thread.

You might find this discussion interesting: Nikon F3 Serial Numbers / Production Dates