The latest Nikon patents: 400mm, 500mm and 600mm f/5.6 Phase Fresnel (PF) lenses.
Phase Fresnel or Diffractive Optics in Canon speak.
Canon's 400/5.6 has been the poor mans wildlife tele for ages but it's dated and has no IS. It needs an update. Nikon doesn't even have a 400/5.6 prime. The D500 is an excellent wildlife camera and some decent f/5.6 tele primes will give it another boost over the Canon 7d2 (and eventual 7d3).
If these lenses are priced reasonably they will be huge winners. The Nikkor 200-500 f/5.6 zoom is only $1400. Very decent lens, regardless of price, but slow AF and less weather resistant as compared to the exotic teles. I don't see a $5000+ 500/5.6PF or $7000+ 600/5.6PF (even with FAST AF and weather sealing) selling when optically* they won't be that much better than the 200-500.
Nikon should be aggressive and price these lenses at $2000/3200/4500.
Knowing Nikon the price will be astronomical ($3500/5000/7000) and the advanced amateurs will be left out in the cold.
*the edge/corner regions will be a lot sharper than the zoom but the center will be really close and that's the really important part for the advanced amateur wildlife shooter.
The newer Canon lenses like the 400/4 II DO place the DO group further in the lens, so it is of a smaller diameter. Of course that means less weight savings in the front groups, but still providing some size/length savings from the low telephoto ratio.
Certainly the 500 & 600mm f/5.6 PF lenses will be cheaper than the ($10,300 & $12,300) f/4 super-telephoto Nikkors. And what will be the price premium of the 400mm f/5.6 PF over the current ($2000) 300mm f/4 PF tele?
Wishful thinking but I stand by these aggressive prices. Nikon would probably sell three to four $4500 600/5.6 PF lenses for every $12,300 600/4 lens.Nikon should be aggressive and price these lenses at $2000/3200/4500.
I was only comparing the f/5.6 PF (DO) teles to the f/4 PF lenses as a counter to you saying they won't be cheap. The f/5.6 teles won't be as expensive as the f/4 teles. Maybe not "cheap" but certainly less expensive.It makes zero sense to compare a little f/5.6 lens to an f/4 unit. It's like saying that the new Ford family car is going to be cheaper than a Kenworth prime mover. Well duh.
The Nikkor 300mm f/4 PF is a compact lens with good IQ. A 400 f/5.6 PF lens would be a just a bit bigger. I think the slightly smaller size of a PF lens (compared to conventional lens) + "marketing bonus" of the PF/DO buzzwords = a few extra sales. ASSUMING Nikon doesn't go overboard with the price.And what is the point of a 400/5.6 DO anyway? It's not as if you can't hold a 400/5.6 comfortably in one hand already. I don't mind having extra choices - who ever does? - but it seems like a very strange product to bring to market when there are so many much more useful alternatives.
Certainly a 600mm prime lens would have higher IQ than any zoom from Sigma, Tamrom, Nikon, and even Canon. Nikon (or Canon for that matter) certainly can't price a 600mm lens cheap no matter the quality. If a 600mm f/5.6 PF lens has nearly the same IQ as the f/4 big-boy lens then $4500 would be a fair price. $4500 is about 36.5% of the f/4's $12,300 price. How much is one stop of light worth?Frankly, you'd have to be a bit dim to pay $4500 US for a 600/5.6. Then again, people often are a bit dim - look at all those fools lining up to pay pretty good money for bulky, heavy, clumsy, under-performers like the Sigma and Tamron "600"mm f/6.3 zooms when for about the same money they could have a superb little 100-400 Mark II which outperforms the big black uglies even after cropping to equivalent focal length, or for a bit more money they could get a huge power and quality quantum leap with a second-hand pro lens like a 500/4 IS? (Yes, I've used a Sigma 150-600, and been impressed mainly by how incredibly awkward and bulky it is.)
I don't think there will much effort on better DX wide lenses since the market has gone to FX, but they should update the 16-35/4. Whether they make a 16-35/2.8 IDK./rant
Nikon needs to update their wide/ultra-wide zooms ASAP. Especially now that the 45mp D850 is available and selling like crazy.
Nikon's 14-24 f/2.8 is 10+ years old.
Nikon's 17-35 f/2.8 is 17+ years old.
Nikon's 16-35 f/4 is 7+ years old and sux compared to Canon 16-35 f/4. Personally I regret not spending the extra $800 for the 14-24 vs the 16-35 I bought.
Nikon's 24-70 and 70-200 f/2.8 pro-zooms have been updated to "E" versions. 8-15 (fisheye), 19 (TSE), 28, 105, 180-400, 200-500, 300 PF, 400, 500, 600, 800mm lens also have "E" versions. The pro-level 200 f/2 and 300 f/2.8 have patents and are already/probably being designed right now. So what's missing?
Sigma's 12-24 f/4 exist.
Sigma's 14-24 f/2.8 <--- new lens.
Tamron's 15-30 f/2.8 exist.
Canon 11-24 f/4 exist.
Canon 16-35 f/2.8 exist.
Canon 16-35 f/4 exist.
No doubt that the Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8 has aged well but when the above six lenses exist AND the new 45mp D850 exist Nikon really needs to come out with budget and pro level wide/ultra-wide zooms that have amazing IQ. Nikon needs to regain the ultra wide zoom/landscape crown. <hint> 10-24mm f/4, 12-24mm f/2.8, and 16-35mm f/4 <hint>
Agree about DX being dead. Nikon should put out pro quality 16, 24, 35, 56mm f/1.4 DX lenses. And 8-16, 16-50, 50-150mm f/2.8 zooms for DX to revitalize the market as Thom has been talking about for a while now.I don't think there will much effort on better DX wide lenses since the market has gone to FX, but they should update the 16-35/4. Whether they make a 16-35/2.8 IDK.
There are plenty of options in fast Nikkors now and also Sigma or Zeiss for a few particular purposes. What exactly are you doing that is limited by lens choices for Nikon?Agree about DX being dead. Nikon should put out pro quality 16, 24, 35, 56mm f/1.4 DX lenses. And 8-16, 16-50, 50-150mm f/2.8 zooms for DX to revitalize the market as Thom has been talking about for a while now.
Now referring to my post above yours: All the Nikkor lenses I listed are FX. The other listed OEM lenses are FX. Nikon needs new wide zooms for FX pronto. ASAP. NOW. Yesterday. Wide/Ultra-wide zooms NOW Nikon. Thank You. All those new D850 owners are waiting.
Plenty of fast and NEW options from third party OEMs but nothing new from Nikon in 10+ years. With the D850 and it's 45 MP well suited for landscape work Nikon really needs to capitalize on its runaway success (of D850) and put out some new/high-IQ wide/ultra-wide zooms. Recapture its landscape supremacy.There are plenty of options in fast Nikkors now and also Sigma or Zeiss for a few particular purposes. What exactly are you doing that is limited by lens choices for Nikon?
New or old lens?My aperture is stuck open.
Fortunately the 105/1.4 will be available in Sony E-mount, because the Sony a7 series cameras are so great for small/lightweight uses. :rofl:
There is quite a bit of difference, but -20 is not good to use if you need -25. Do your other lens backfocus that much and have you tested the lens at a bit longer distances?I'm trying to adjusting the AF Fine Tuning with my 200-500mm lens. Lens zoomed in to 500mm with focus set near the minimum focus distance of just under 8 feet. This is where I want to use the lens most to capture hummingbirds.
Exposure 1/200 @ f/5.6 @ ISO 1600. I'm using the test chart from this blog. I'm using single AF point mode with the AF box centered around the "ch" on the chart so all my pics would be the same.
First pic is default AF-FT adjustment of (0). Second is set at extreme value of (-20).
I'm seeing some back-focus, but a -20 correction get things pretty close. I wonder if I'm doing something wrong as there doesn't seem like a lot of change going from from 0 to -20.
I haven't tested my other lenses yet, as only the 200-500 has given my less than stellar results. Pics just seemed a bit soft. I just thought that going from 0 to -20 would see a bigger swing in focus. But perhaps not. I'll try re-shooting the test tomorrow in bright daylight so I can get the ISO down and use a faster shutter speed. I'll also double check alignment to make sure everything is squared up.There is quite a bit of difference, but -20 is not good to use if you need -25. Do your other lens backfocus that much and have you tested the lens at a bit longer distances?
I'm not seeing that you are focusing on a perpendicular target, so there may be AF errors from the angle.
A line of sight perpendicular system is a better option, i.e., LensAlign II.
I have the older, nicer version which was a rather expensive and somewhat hand built device. The II is a bit finicky to use, but as accurate as you can get since the line of sight ensures a truly perpendicular axis.
I don't recall of they are additive or exclusive. If only that lens is way off and similar at longer distances I'd suggest sending it in for service.I haven't tested my other lenses yet, as only the 200-500 has given my less than stellar results. Pics just seemed a bit soft. I just thought that going from 0 to -20 would see a bigger swing in focus. But perhaps not. I'll try re-shooting the test tomorrow in bright daylight so I can get the ISO down and use a faster shutter speed. I'll also double check alignment to make sure everything is squared up.
For Nikons the "default" value is an AF-Fine Tune adjustment added to all lenses, while the "saved" value is for a particular lens. Will a default value of -5 be added to a saved value of -20 to yield a final correction of -25? Or will just the "saved" value of -20 be used?
A quick Google says they are exclusive but still not certain. The camera only stores one correction per lens so I would think you'd want to Fine Tune the lens at the setting you'll be using. For me that would be 500mm near the minimum focus distance. I should check 400mm as well as the lens is sharper at 400mm vs 500mm. Might be worth it to just shoot at 400mm and crop.I don't recall of they are additive or exclusive. If only that lens is way off and similar at longer distances I'd suggest sending it in for service.
The 200-500 is not very sharp at 500mm from the test charts and your copy may be worse than some.
Don't you need to set the AF MFT at both ends of the zoom range?
That's what she said.You are really stuck on the size, eh?
Nikkor 105mm f/1.4 = 82mm filter diameter.I think it is for the wide open users and probably optimizes the design performance vs. cost.
I'd take the Nikkor any day of the month.
If the lens axis is perpendicular to the target it shouldn't matter. The most important part is to confirm that the calibration works under conditions of use.I redid all my lens AF Manual Fine Tune tests. I used a piece of string to align the central axis of the lens to the center of the chart and confirm axis was perpendicular to the center of the test chart.
Good news is that -20 is way off so my lens/camera are not totally out of adjustment. Looks like -8 is the correct value.
Of course now I'm wondering if my central AF point is just not truly in the center of the frame. I need to test that too I guess.
I will test the calibration results to confirm "calibration" matches "reality."If the lens axis is perpendicular to the target it shouldn't matter. The most important part is to confirm that the calibration works under conditions of use.
It probably won't matter much on an f/5.6 lens, but many lenses suffer to some degree from focus shift from wide open to stopped down. That may be different throughout the zoom range or even change with focusing distance.