NIKKOR 500mm f/5.6E PF ED VR lens

Mike.P

Mike.P

Suspended / Banned
Messages
6,141
Edit My Images
No
Apparently there was a press release today announcing this lens, could be a cracking bit of kit.

Expecting it to be in the 3-4K range I would imagine .... ?

Nikon Announces Development of AF-S NIKKOR 500mm F/5.6E PF ED VR, a Portable Super-Telephoto FX-Format Lens
The AF-S NIKKOR 500mm f/5.6E PF ED VR Will Deliver Exceptional Agility and Optical Performance in an Incredibly Compact and Lightweight Package

MELVILLE, NY – Today, Nikon Inc. announces the development of the AF-S NIKKOR 500mm f/5.6E PF ED VR, an FX-format fixed focal length super-telephoto lens, which will offer a compelling combination of portability and performance. The AF-S NIKKOR 500mm f/5.6E PF ED VR will be a high-performance super-telephoto lens that is significantly smaller and lighter than comparable predecessors due to the adoption of the same type of Phase Fresnel (PF) lens element found in the AF-S NIKKOR 300mm f/4E PF ED VR lens, introduced in January 2015. Despite its 500mm focal length, the lens is small and light enough to use hand-held in a wide variety of situations where a photographer must capture unpredictable and fast-moving subjects, including sporting events and wildlife photography.

Phase Fresnel Lens Elements

The Phase Fresnel (PF) lens element developed by Nikon effectively compensates for chromatic aberration utilizing the photo diffraction phenomenon*. Compared to many general camera lenses that employ an optical system using the photorefractive phenomenon, a remarkably compact and lightweight body can be attained with fewer lens elements.

Price and Availability

Information regarding the release of the AF-S NIKKOR 500mm f/5.6E PF ED VR lens, including final specifications and pricing, will be announced later this year. For more information on the latest Nikon products, please visit www.nikonusa.com.
 
Very interesting indeed! Only 237mm long and only 1460g - it will be *easily* hand holdable.
 
StewartR said:
Very interesting indeed! Only 237mm long and only 1460g - it will be *easily* hand holdable.
Click to expand...
Impressive. Now where to find £3699 :lol:
 
Mike.P said:
Not a bad guess ... WEX pre-order price £3699.

More details HERE

Must say it looks a very interesting lens.
Click to expand...

Yep, looks very interesting, same price at Grays too.

Much more practical and useful to my work than the "mirror, mirror on the wall" things ;)

GC
 
Same weight pretty much as the 70-200. Can see them selling a load of these.
 
My 7D MKI is in need of an upgrade as I'm getting a bit fed up with the high ISO handling and I have been waiting for Photokina to see if Canon announce anything interesting. I have meanwhile been looking to buy a used 400mm DO MKII (or if Canon do their usual 10% off on black Friday then maybe even a new one) but have to say that for what I would pay for just the lens I could get one of these, a 1.4x and a D500 body.

Never used a Nikon before but that's quite a saving for what I imagine would be quite a killer combo.
 
Last edited:
StewartR said:
At £3699? Maybe we have different ideas as to how many a "load" is...
Click to expand...

I don’t see that as particularly expensive given prices on lenses these days. If it’s as good as the 300 version what else is out there at a comparable price for that focal length.
 
Gaz J said:
If it’s as good as the 300 version what else is out there at a comparable price for that focal length.
Click to expand...
Oh, nothing comparable, sure.

But it's still £3000+. You don't think that's much money. I know lots of people for whom £300 would be a lot of money. Sure it will sell, and it might seem to be very popular in the highly atypical atmosphere of an Internet forum (like the D750 and D850 are, for example), but it will never sell in big numbers and it will never be mainstream.
 
Mike.P said:
My 7D MKI is in need of an upgrade as I'm getting a bit fed up with the high ISO handling and I have been waiting for Photokina to see if Canon announce anything interesting. I have meanwhile been looking to buy a used 400mm DO MKII (or if Canon do their usual 10% off on black Friday then maybe even a new one) but have to say that for what I would pay for just the lens I could get one of these, a 1.4x and a D500 body.

Never used a Nikon before but that's quite a saving for what I imagine would be quite a killer combo.
Click to expand...
Seems like a pointless exercise and waste of money to me just to end up with a f5.6/f8 combo.
 
I'm using a 300 F4 PF with 1.4 x for wildlife currently so 420mm at F5.6. I'd have been interested if they'd announced the rumoured 600 F5.6 PF, but this just isn't enough of an increase in focal length over what I've currently got and at a significantly higher price too

That said, I'd have been looking to pick a used one up in a year or so anyway... recent prices for new kit generally and Nikon in particular seem ridiculous to me
 
Last edited:
Son_of_Thor said:
I'm using a 300 F4 PF with 1.4 x for wildlife currently so 420mm at F5.6. I'd have been interested if they'd announced the rumoured 600 F5.6 PF, but this just isn't enough of an increase in focal length over what I've currently got and at a significantly higher price too

That said, I'd have been looking to pick a used one up in a year or so anyway... recent prices for new kit generally and Nikon in particular seem ridiculous to me
Click to expand...
Is the 200-500mm f5.6 not good enough?
 
geejgee said:
Is the 200-500mm f5.6 not good enough?
Click to expand...

That's a good question.
When I first saw this new lens I didn't take note of the fact that it was f5.6 ... I thought about my 300 f4 PF and my brain just translated that to a 500mm but that f5.6 does make a significant difference.
No doubt the new prime lens will be better than the 200-500 zoom but at f5.6 I wonder if it will be £2.5k better.
 
gramps said:
That's a good question.
When I first saw this new lens I didn't take note of the fact that it was f5.6 ... I thought about my 300 f4 PF and my brain just translated that to a 500mm but that f5.6 does make a significant difference.
No doubt the new prime lens will be better than the 200-500 zoom but at f5.6 I wonder if it will be £2.5k better.
Click to expand...

If it was £2.5k better than the 200-500 then it would be into 500/600f4 territory of quality and it wont be as good as either even with the new technology unless Nikon have decided to discontinue the 500/600f4 lenses. I can see it being slightly better but easier to use and lighter. If a 600f5.6 comes out and is handholdable over long periods of time then i would sell my 600f4
 
StewartR said:
Oh, nothing comparable, sure.

But it's still £3000+. You don't think that's much money. I know lots of people for whom £300 would be a lot of money. Sure it will sell, and it might seem to be very popular in the highly atypical atmosphere of an Internet forum (like the D750 and D850 are, for example), but it will never sell in big numbers and it will never be mainstream.
Click to expand...

I know people as well for whom £300 is a lot of money and I know people for whom £5000 is pocket money. That’s reality. I didn’t say it wasn’t a lot of money, I said I didn’t see it as particularly expensive given lens prices. OK, ‘loads’ is pushing it a bit but compared to 8k for a f4 and the loss of one stop then I can see it coming within the price range of more photographers. With more and more people I talk to saying that they’re fed up lugging big primes around I can see perhaps people trading in f4s for it also.
 
gramps said:
That's a good question.
When I first saw this new lens I didn't take note of the fact that it was f5.6 ... I thought about my 300 f4 PF and my brain just translated that to a 500mm but that f5.6 does make a significant difference.
No doubt the new prime lens will be better than the 200-500 zoom but at f5.6 I wonder if it will be £2.5k better.
Click to expand...
My thoughts exactly.
 
Gaz J said:
200-500 needs stopping down for best resolution. 300 is virtually at its best right from max aperture.
Click to expand...

All lenses need stopping down to be at their best, the 200-500 or even my 600f4 included but thats just reality. Both my lenses are very good wide open and i stop down most times when i can. I just wouldnt keep any lens unless it gave good results wide open( note i didnt say its best results from wide open)
 
markyboy.1967 said:
All lenses need stopping down to be at their best, the 200-500 or even my 600f4 included but thats just reality. Both my lenses are very good wide open and i stop down most times when i can. I just wouldnt keep any lens unless it gave good results wide open( note i didnt say its best results from wide open)
Click to expand...
Agree, I can't fault my 200-500 wide open.
 
markyboy.1967 said:
All lenses need stopping down to be at their best, the 200-500 or even my 600f4 included but thats just reality. Both my lenses are very good wide open and i stop down most times when i can. I just wouldnt keep any lens unless it gave good results wide open( note i didnt say its best results from wide open)
Click to expand...

Some need more stopping down than others. The 200-500 is ok wide open but nothing special. Certainly not as good as my 100-400 MkII.
 
StewartR said:
Oh, nothing comparable, sure.

But it's still £3000+. You don't think that's much money. I know lots of people for whom £300 would be a lot of money. Sure it will sell, and it might seem to be very popular in the highly atypical atmosphere of an Internet forum (like the D750 and D850 are, for example), but it will never sell in big numbers and it will never be mainstream.
Click to expand...
Are you planning on getting any Stewart, and do you think they would be a popular rental?
 
geejgee said:
Is the 200-500mm f5.6 not good enough?
Click to expand...

Funnily enough, I've just sold my 200-500 having replaced it with the 300 F4 and TC's. I'd say the answer is that it depends on what your priorities are..

300 F4 AF speed is better than the 200-500 even with a 1.7x TC on the 300. Bare or with the 1.4x (which makes no noticeable difference to AF speed) it is a LOT quicker to focus than the 200-500. I now get a lot of shots I'd have missed before, even using the focus limiter on the 200-500.

The 300 is very sharp wide open, with and without the 1.4x TC. IQ drops off markedly with the 1.7x/2x TC's attached. The 200-500 was pretty good wide open and improved when stopped down between 1/3 and 1/2 a stop. I get similar results with the 300/1.4x combo @ 420mm and cropping in to those I got with the 200-500 @ 500mm un-cropped. That said I was pretty happy with the 200-500 overall, except in poor light where I found there was a drop in IQ which could be frustrating. The one major plus with the 200-500 over the 300 is the flexibility of a zoom, but I don't really find using a prime for wildlife that much of a limiting factor, certainly not as much as I thought I would.

A major factor for me though is the weight difference. I don't tend to do a lot of sitting in hides and most of my shooting is out and about on foot. I can cover a good few miles out on a walk. The camera/body is always on a sling strap and the ~1.5KG drop in weight has made the biggest difference for me. It also means I'll take it out on dog walks and on family trips out whereas the 200-500 would have stayed at home. YMMV
 
Son_of_Thor said:
A major factor for me though is the weight difference.
Click to expand...
Me too. I'll happily carry a Canon 100-400 (1.5kg) all day. Fortunately the Canon designers used the contours of my hand to design their DSLR grips - or so it feels - and the camera + lens can just hang from my hand without me having to hold it. But once the weight starts to get above 2kg, I'm not so happy. This lens would be absolugreat for carrying all day. It's just a shame that Nikon's designers have consistently invested so much effort into making every aspect of their cameras unsuited to me.
 
Son_of_Thor said:
Funnily enough, I've just sold my 200-500 having replaced it with the 300 F4 and TC's. I'd say the answer is that it depends on what your priorities are..

300 F4 AF speed is better than the 200-500 even with a 1.7x TC on the 300. Bare or with the 1.4x (which makes no noticeable difference to AF speed) it is a LOT quicker to focus than the 200-500. I now get a lot of shots I'd have missed before, even using the focus limiter on the 200-500.

The 300 is very sharp wide open, with and without the 1.4x TC. IQ drops off markedly with the 1.7x/2x TC's attached. The 200-500 was pretty good wide open and improved when stopped down between 1/3 and 1/2 a stop. I get similar results with the 300/1.4x combo @ 420mm and cropping in to those I got with the 200-500 @ 500mm un-cropped. That said I was pretty happy with the 200-500 overall, except in poor light where I found there was a drop in IQ which could be frustrating. The one major plus with the 200-500 over the 300 is the flexibility of a zoom, but I don't really find using a prime for wildlife that much of a limiting factor, certainly not as much as I thought I would.

A major factor for me though is the weight difference. I don't tend to do a lot of sitting in hides and most of my shooting is out and about on foot. I can cover a good few miles out on a walk. The camera/body is always on a sling strap and the ~1.5KG drop in weight has made the biggest difference for me. It also means I'll take it out on dog walks and on family trips out whereas the 200-500 would have stayed at home. YMMV
Click to expand...
that was my favourite combo when I was with nikon ,d300s ,300mm f4 and 1.4 and 1.7 Tc's . flick of the switch and you went from 500mm long range to a super sharp close up pseudo macro . and nice and light to
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top