Nikon Z shooters, do want a 300 or 500 prime

[RichF]

If so, what should the aperture be?

Personally I don't have a need for 300 F/2.8 either w/ or w/o a TC. With a TC, it would get me to 420 F4 which is very similar to the 400 F/4.5. And a 300 F/2.8 is only 1 stop faster than a 70-200 F/2.8 w/ TC. Granted it will be sharper but probably considerably heavier. Plus there is a 180-400 F/4 which is marvelous lens but a stop slower and possibly heavier with the FTZ than the mythical 300 F/2.8

For years I shot a 500 F/4 and it was my bread and butter lens. 600 F/4 have slimmed down now (even the 600 TC) so the possible weight savings would not be THAT large. If Nikon made a 500 F/4 without a TC, I think that most people would shun it. So I don't see much of market niche for this lens.

I don't see Z 300 or 500 PF though I guess Nikon could complete the set. I hope that Nikon will make a 600 PF F/5.6. Even then it might be a hard choice between 600 F/5.6 PF and 400 F/4.5 + TC (F/6.3).

So much more rambling - any thoughts?

 

[fcotterill]

An interview with the designers of the new 400 f4.5S, the Nikon engineers stated why they chose 400 not 300. Widespread reliance on TC14 is the reason, which is likely derived from their marketing researchers mining exif data of published images.

So any 300 prime has to be a f2.8. the excellent 120-300 f2.8E SR was released in 2020 with the D6. Do you think Nikon will update this to Z mount?

Nikon may well have considered a 500 f4 TC14, but how does it relate to the 2.9kg 400 f2.8S TC14, which is already an excellent 560 f4? Previously, lighter weight was a key factor that favours choosing 500 f4E among the E FL primes, as it's 800g lighter than the 400 and 600 siblings. A tricky choice, which I agonized over as a single purchaser.

The singular difference of a 500 f4 is it'll be a 700 f5.6 and 1000 f8 with the ZTCs. So a 500 f4S TC14 is likely to be attractive, although the price will be 'interesting'!

But I would prefer the versatility of a 300-600 f4.8 TC14, or 300-700 f4/5.6 TC14. These will extend to 840 f6.7 or 980 f8, respectively. As a huge fan owning a 180-400 TC14, either zoom will be the ideal "African Telephoto", and it should be extremely versatile in many other landscapes, obviously. Film makers might also like one

 

[fcotterill]

Nikon must surely have considered scaling the design of the 800 f6.3 PF to a 600 f5.6S PF. With a 108mm window, this is entirely achievable. In fact, it's possible to design a 600 f4.8S PF, with a 127mm window.

A 600 PF could possibly share key parts from the 800 : the VR mechanism, AF motor, E aperture mechanism, External Controls, Tripod collar etc

The ideal timing to launch a 600 f5.6S PF is probably late 2024. It's almost guaranteed Nikon will refill its order books with such a handy, 'relatively' affordable telephoto prime.

A 600 f5.6S PF should weigh <2 kg thus significantly lighter than the 600 f4S TC14 as well as more affordable. Nikon will be wise to get their PhaseFresnel Machine mass producing PF elements some months in advance...

 

[abc123brian]

I was considering a similar post but not Nikon specific as I see a lot of posts from people who shoot other brands hoping for PF lenses as well.

Having the Z400 4.5 now along with the 500mm PF, I’m now wondering what would make most sense. I don’t see them making a small 300 or 500 as it’s too close to the 400mm 4.5. Assign a 1.4x TC to the makes the 400mm a 560mm 6.3 which isn’t bad and is pretty comparable to the 500mm PF. It also makes me wonder if a 600mm PF at 5.6 would make sense. it would then be an F8 with a 1.4x TC. I personally think the lens they need to make that would be the perfect lens can be found if you look at what they did with the 800mm PF. If they applied that same formula to the 600mm focal length, you would get a 600mm F/4.5 PF that would be priced around $5k. It would probably kill the sales of the new 600mm but they would sell a lot of the new one. Maybe they could apply the formula to the 500mm F/4 for a 500mm F/4.5 at a reasonable price point and that would protect the sales of the 600mm.

 

[John Navitsky]

i would really like a 300 2.8 TC. although i’d probably go for whatever their z interpretation of the 120-300 2.8 would be

 

[fcotterill]

i would really like a 300 2.8 TC. although i’d probably go for whatever their z interpretation of the 120-300 2.8 would be

Hopefully it's distinctly lighter
But by all accounts, the quality of the 120-300 f2.8E SR is exquisite.

It's interesting reading back through this PF thread. Note the Nikon's recent patents for Zoom PhaseFresnel telephotos

More Nikon PF Lenses?

I certainly do not doubt the usefulness of 400mm lenses, nor that there are many photographers who swear by them. This is all a matter of relative popularity. That Fred Miranda poll showed the proposed 600mm f5.6 PF to be three times more popular than the 400mm f4. People want long and light. I...

bcgforums.com

 

[NorthernFocus]

A 600mm f5.6 PF would round out the light weight "prosumer" lineup. Then a 500mm f4 w/out built in TC would keep both weight and cost down for the same market segment that has traditionally bought that lens. I'd be all over a 500 f4 in the same weight range as the 800PF(i.e. less than 5.5lb). I'd go for either of those options.

 

[BLev65]

I was considering a similar post but not Nikon specific as I see a lot of posts from people who shoot other brands hoping for PF lenses as well.

Having the Z400 4.5 now along with the 500mm PF, I’m now wondering what would make most sense. I don’t see them making a small 300 or 500 as it’s too close to the 400mm 4.5. Assign a 1.4x TC to the makes the 400mm a 560mm 6.3 which isn’t bad and is pretty comparable to the 500mm PF. It also makes me wonder if a 600mm PF at 5.6 would make sense. it would then be an F8 with a 1.4x TC. I personally think the lens they need to make that would be the perfect lens can be found if you look at what they did with the 800mm PF. If they applied that same formula to the 600mm focal length, you would get a 600mm F/4.5 PF that would be priced around $5k. It would probably kill the sales of the new 600mm but they would sell a lot of the new one. Maybe they could apply the formula to the 500mm F/4 for a 500mm F/4.5 at a reasonable price point and that would protect the sales of the 600mm.

Once I got the 400mm f4.5, I just could not see how the 500 f5.6PF would fit. I'm not a lens collector, and don't want to hold onto optics that will only see occasional use. The loose in AF acquisition with the 400 f4.5 w/ or without converter made this my go to lens. As a result, I sold the 500PF.
I currently have only 3 lenses... the 24-120, 400mm f4.5 and 800PF. My gaps are huge, but if I toggle between FX and DX, I have a 24(FX) to 180mm (DX), a 400mm (FX) / 600 (DX), and a 800 (FX) / 1200 (DX). While not as elegant has having zooms throughout the tele range, I do have the excellent optical quality typical of prime lenses.

bruce

 

[Tibor Hrnko]

300 is too short for me, even 400 is. 600 F4 TC is too expensive. 500 or 600 F4 for less money with less bells and whistles would be nice.
But it seems to me that Nikon is more into either "excellence" or "features that nobody offers".
We may see 500 F4 from 3rd party sooner than from Nikon IMO.

 

[NorthernFocus]

Once I got the 400mm f4.5, I just could see how the 500 f5.6PF would fit. I'm not a lens collector, and don't want to hold onto optics that will only see occasional use. The loose in AF acquisition with the 400 f4.5 w/ or without converter made this my go to lens. As a result, I sold the 500PF.
I currently have only 3 lenses... the 24-120, 400mm f4.5 and 800PF. My gaps are huge, but if I toggle between FX and DX, I have a 24(FX) to 180mm (DX), a 400mm (FX) / 600 (DX), and a 800 (FX) / 1200 (DX). While not as elegant has having zooms throughout the tele range, I do have the excellent optical quality typical of prime lenses.

I'm working on the same lineup. The Z9 offers the same advantage as the D850 in that the pixel count effectively allows digital zoom in the form of DX mode. I'm surprise that aspect isn't discussed more than it is. Thus far my only Z lenses are the 400 4.5 and 800 PF. My ultimate plan is 24-120(currently F), 70-200 2.8(currently f4 in F mount), 400 4.5, and 800 PF. If Nikon releases a 600mm 5.6 I'll likely get it.

 

[joe43]

Rich, your question is an excellent one. I wish I had an definitive answer that is well thought out.

My only F mount glaas for my Z9 right now is the 100-400mm S and the 24-120mm f4 S and the Z 1.4x tc. That seems to rule out a 300mm f4 pf S and a 300mm f2.8 S lens.

Attached to my Z9 for backyard birds at my feeders is my f mount 500mmm f5.6 pf and a TC E III 1.4x tc and the FTZ adapter. That tells me that 500mm is too short on a full frame Z body.

If I did not already own F mount 300mm and 500mm lenses, I would buy the Z mount 400mm f4.5 and use the 1.4x tc with it.

Something longer ? Yes, if I could afford it. I would love to buy the Z 600mm f4 but its price is to high. A Z 600 mm "f5.6 pf " would make more sense assuming the price is "reasonable."

One of my biggest regrets is that I never bought a 600mm lens. My "longest" has been a Nikon DX body and a 500mm f4 or a 500mm f5.6 pf and tcs.

I have used my F mount 300mm f4 pf and my 300mm f2.8 VRII on my Z9 with excellent results.

 

[Griffym]

The 300 F2.8 VRII with a 1.4TC mounted on a DX body is a great combination. Now that I have moved to the Z series I find I have the lenses but not the body to complete this set up. (I have the Z6ii but it is not in the same league as the D500 was).
Eventually Nikon will probably add a 300 prime to the Z system. It makes even more sense if there is a mirrorless replacement for the D500.
If you think about it adding a great DX body as a second body opens up lots of flexibility for most photographers. It’s the reason I added the D500 to my system even though I had a full frame DSLR.

 

[abc123brian]

Once I got the 400mm f4.5, I just could not see how the 500 f5.6PF would fit. I'm not a lens collector, and don't want to hold onto optics that will only see occasional use. The loose in AF acquisition with the 400 f4.5 w/ or without converter made this my go to lens. As a result, I sold the 500PF.
I currently have only 3 lenses... the 24-120, 400mm f4.5 and 800PF. My gaps are huge, but if I toggle between FX and DX, I have a 24(FX) to 180mm (DX), a 400mm (FX) / 600 (DX), and a 800 (FX) / 1200 (DX). While not as elegant has having zooms throughout the tele range, I do have the excellent optical quality typical of prime lenses.

bruce

I don’t plan to keep the 500mm PF, but as I just got the 400mm I want to spend a little time with it first. I might end up holding onto the 500 for a while anyway as I can use it as a 700mm F/8 with the 1.4XTC and I have been shooting some birds over the last couple winters. The 800mm PF isn’t readily available so unfortunately that option is out for now. I’m not sure that I can work with 400mm being my longest lens. I have the 1.4x TC, not the 2X and I don’t know I’d be satisfied with it anyway. I’ve been weighing some different options, but haven’t made any decisions on what approach to take.

 

[JoelKlein]

I’m not selling the 500pf for another reason. Because I don’t feel I’m getting paid enough for it.
The market is flooded with 500pf’s.

After all, its 500mm bare, VS. 400+TC which brings all TC limitations of a TC into the equation. A TC is not a free lunch.
With a TC, you have to fill the frame, cropping is limited, it gets soft quicker, and it’s always a guessing game

Edit:
Unless the TC is matched to the lens. I wonder if I send my lens to Nikon if they can “match” a TC to it…

 

[abc123brian]

I’m not selling the 500pf for another reason. Because I don’t feel I’m getting paid enough for it.
The market is flooded with 500pf’s.

After all, its 500mm bare, VS. 400+TC which brings all TC limitations of a TC into the equation. A TC is not a free lunch.
With a TC, you have to fill the frame, cropping is limited, it gets soft quicker, and it’s always a guessing game

Edit:
Unless the TC is matched to the lens. I wonder if I send my lens to Nikon if they can “match” a TC to it…

That is a valid point. The value of used 500mm PFs is quite low right now. One of the things I was considering was trading it in for an F mount 600mm as the value of them has also plummeted.

 

[JoelKlein]

Good idea, if you plan on gluing a tripod to the 600/4
Its a heavy weight lens

 

[NorthernFocus]

I don’t plan to keep the 500mm PF, but as I just got the 400mm I want to spend a little time with it first. I might end up holding onto the 500 for a while anyway as I can use it as a 700mm F/8 with the 1.4XTC and I have been shooting some birds over the last couple winters. The 800mm PF isn’t readily available so unfortunately that option is out for now. I’m not sure that I can work with 400mm being my longest lens. I have the 1.4x TC, not the 2X and I don’t know I’d be satisfied with it anyway. I’ve been weighing some different options, but haven’t made any decisions on what approach to take.

Exactly where I'm at regarding the 500PF. I just relocated to winter quarters for three months and left the 500PF at home to see what life is like w/out it. Will see how it goes. You should do a little testing to compare 500PF vs 400/1.4x TC. The limited comparisons that I've done show them to be much of a muchness for all practical purposes. I've never been a fan of using TCs but with the Z system it's a whole new world.

After all, its 500mm bare, VS. 400+TC which brings all TC limitations of a TC into the equation. A TC is not a free lunch.
With a TC, you have to fill the frame, cropping is limited, it gets soft quicker, and it’s always a guessing game...

You're living in the past. I've never been a TC user other than (extremely)rarely with 500 f4 and 300 2.8. The theory still holds that they degrade IQ but with both Z and F mount 1.4x TCs on Z9 my limited experience thus far is that the loss of IQ is immaterial for real world results.

 

[Erik N]

Interesting to read peoples thoughts as I'm in the business of getting a longer tele. I think for my use the 500 PF is still the most interesting lens also for a Z camera, simply because it is 500mm. 400mm is most often just a tad to short. And my 300 PF covers the 300-420mm beautifully, and also doubles as a pseudo macro. After looking at hundreds of photos from the 500 PF and the 400 4.5, the IQ to me looks pretty much identical, also bokeh wise, which is interesting as I often read that the 500 pf has a harsh bokeh, while the 400 4.5 a smooth bokeh. They can both look pretty harsh at times, and pleasing at times IMO. Perhaps Steve is working on a video about the 400, testing it with TC's. We'll see.

 

[BLev65]

I don’t plan to keep the 500mm PF, but as I just got the 400mm I want to spend a little time with it first. I might end up holding onto the 500 for a while anyway as I can use it as a 700mm F/8 with the 1.4XTC and I have been shooting some birds over the last couple winters. The 800mm PF isn’t readily available so unfortunately that option is out for now. I’m not sure that I can work with 400mm being my longest lens. I have the 1.4x TC, not the 2X and I don’t know I’d be satisfied with it anyway. I’ve been weighing some different options, but haven’t made any decisions on what approach to take.

I was fortunate that my dealer wanted a 500PF for their rental department. They gave me almost $3000 (US) for the trade. Given that rebates and the used markets have chipped away at the used value, I felt like it was a fair price. I shot my lens since about October 2018 and it's been everywhere from the Khutzeymateen to Iceland and Costa Rica. The money lost in the sale was more than made up by my photo sales and publications.
Regarding those wanting to hold onto or buy a 500PF... you will never hear me dissuade this decision. In fact, when I consider the telephotos available for the Z-system, I consider the following to be fully compatible with the Z-line: 70-200 E or S, 120-300E, 180-400E, 100-400S, 300PF, 400 2.8S or E, 400 f4.5, 500PF or E, 600 f4S or E, 800PF or E. If you are willing to use the FTZ, the last generation of E telephotos perform better on the Z9 than the D5/D850/D500. If you shoot a hybrid of F and Z cameras, it makes sense to hold on to the E-series lenses.
I moved to the 400 f4.5 because I pre-ordered the 800PF. Furthermore, I become paralytic when I have lenses that have similar or overlapping focal lengths. I don't like to wonder if I made the wrong lens choice when I've gone on a hike or are sitting behind the camera. Finally, I am in a place where I know I will not be able to buy new gear in the future. I am retiring in June, and this is the one time when I've got the disposable income to make the full transition.

regards,
bruce

 

[NorthernFocus]

...I become paralytic when I have lenses that have similar or overlapping focal lengths. I don't like to wonder if I made the wrong lens choice when I've gone on a hike or are sitting behind the camera. ...

Both funny and admirable. In my experience people are rarely this self aware much less admit it in public. Zoom lenses are my nemesis. I prefer prime lenses because zooms are heavier and do me little good. I simply can not change focal length once I press the shutter button. Birds flying straight at me end up with clipped wings when they get close in spite of me having plenty of focal length to zoom out. Just can't do it :(

 

[fcotterill]

I was fortunate that my dealer wanted a 500PF for their rental department. They gave me almost $3000 (US) for the trade. Given that rebates and the used markets have chipped away at the used value, I felt like it was a fair price. I shot my lens since about October 2018 and it's been everywhere from the Khutzeymateen to Iceland and Costa Rica. The money lost in the sale was more than made up by my photo sales and publications.
Regarding those wanting to hold onto or buy a 500PF... you will never hear me dissuade this decision. In fact, when I consider the telephotos available for the Z-system, I consider the following to be fully compatible with the Z-line: 70-200 E or S, 120-300E, 180-400E, 100-400S, 300PF, 400 2.8S or E, 400 f4.5, 500PF or E, 600 f4S or E, 800PF or E. If you are willing to use the FTZ, the last generation of E telephotos perform better on the Z9 than the D5/D850/D500.

Well said. And there're too many choices!

If you shoot a hybrid of F and Z cameras, it makes sense to hold on to the E-series lenses.

100%

I moved to the 400 f4.5 because I pre-ordered the 800PF. Furthermore, I become paralytic when I have lenses that have similar or overlapping focal lengths.

I don't like to wonder if I made the wrong lens choice when I've gone on a hike or are sitting behind the camera. Finally, I am in a place where I know I will not be able to buy new gear in the future. I am retiring in June, and this is the one time when I've got the disposable income to make the full transition.

regards,
bruce

I value redundancy in the case of lost or damaged gear - within reason. Repairs often take weeks / even months down here. Invariably Nikon SA has to import 1 or more parts from Singapore, and/or the part(s) is out of stock etc etc

Exactly where I'm at regarding the 500PF. I just relocated to winter quarters for three months and left the 500PF at home to see what life is like w/out it. Will see how it goes. You should do a little testing to compare 500PF vs 400/1.4x TC. The limited comparisons that I've done show them to be much of a muchness for all practical purposes. I've never been a fan of using TCs but with the Z system it's a whole new world.


You're living in the past. I've never been a TC user other than (extremely)rarely with 500 f4 and 300 2.8. The theory still holds that they degrade IQ but with both Z and F mount 1.4x TCs on Z9 my limited experience thus far is that the loss of IQ is immaterial for real world results.

A few examples among many shared here, many ask after the IQ of the 500 PF and TC14. I think only the new 400 f4.5S+TC2 is lighter than the net mass of 1.8kg @700 f8. A Z camera avoids the AFFT challenges and AF is decent at f8

500PF 1.4x or 800PF?

I currently alternate between the 100-400z and the 500 PF on my z9. I am using the 500pf with the 1.4 teleconverter, 90% of the time. I also use the 1.4z on the 100-400 on occasion. After months of use, l still prefer the images produced by the 500pf, when compared to the 100-400, even with the...

bcgforums.com

Spotted Pardalotes

Spring in Australia and the birds are out and about. One of my favourite birds, the Spotted Pardalote was tending to his nest with his female. This guy is only about the size of a man's thumb! Z9 + 500 f5.6 PF + 1.4x TCIII, 1/800s f/8.0 at 700.0mm iso1400 Z9 + 500 f5.6 PF + 1.4x TCIII...

bcgforums.com

If a TC14 III is paired with AFFT with an exotic supertele the results will be excellent, especially with the E primes Bruce listed above.

Before I reached the promised land to won a 800 prime, I took many keepers with the TC2 III and the 400 f2.8E. Obviously this combo's IQ is inferior to that taken with a 800 PF or especially the 800 E, but I've no complaints IMHO

 

[abc123brian]

Good idea, if you plan on gluing a tripod to the 600/4
Its a heavy weight lens

I haven’t decided anything yet, but the way I am looking at it is the 400mm 4.5 and 1.4x gives me a 400 and 560mm lens which is lightweight and easy to carry. It I want to get to 800 and maintain a relatively fast aperture my choice is 600mm F/4 or 800mm PF. Both are relatively large to carry and heavier so using either for me would be more limited to being closer to the vehicle.

Exactly where I'm at regarding the 500PF. I just relocated to winter quarters for three months and left the 500PF at home to see what life is like w/out it. Will see how it goes. You should do a little testing to compare 500PF vs 400/1.4x TC. The limited comparisons that I've done show them to be much of a muchness for all practical purposes. I've never been a fan of using TCs but with the Z system it's a whole new world.

So far I am finding mainly the same thing. I think I’ll keep the 500mm for at least the next month before getting rid of it.

Interesting to read peoples thoughts as I'm in the business of getting a longer tele. I think for my use the 500 PF is still the most interesting lens also for a Z camera, simply because it is 500mm. 400mm is most often just a tad to short. And my 300 PF covers the 300-420mm beautifully, and also doubles as a pseudo macro. After looking at hundreds of photos from the 500 PF and the 400 4.5, the IQ to me looks pretty much identical, also bokeh wise, which is interesting as I often read that the 500 pf has a harsh bokeh, while the 400 4.5 a smooth bokeh. They can both look pretty harsh at times, and pleasing at times IMO. Perhaps Steve is working on a video about the 400, testing it with TC's. We'll see.

The 500mm PF works really well on the Z cameras but the 400mm works really well with the 1.4x TC so you could have 400mm and 560mm covered in one lens and get rid of the 300mm. It just depends on what focal lengths you would prefer to have covered and if you want one or two lens to do it. Steve just got his 400mm so I’m sure we will hear more about it soon.

I was fortunate that my dealer wanted a 500PF for their rental department. They gave me almost $3000 (US) for the trade. Given that rebates and the used markets have chipped away at the used value, I felt like it was a fair price. I shot my lens since about October 2018 and it's been everywhere from the Khutzeymateen to Iceland and Costa Rica. The money lost in the sale was more than made up by my photo sales and publications.
Regarding those wanting to hold onto or buy a 500PF... you will never hear me dissuade this decision. In fact, when I consider the telephotos available for the Z-system, I consider the following to be fully compatible with the Z-line: 70-200 E or S, 120-300E, 180-400E, 100-400S, 300PF, 400 2.8S or E, 400 f4.5, 500PF or E, 600 f4S or E, 800PF or E. If you are willing to use the FTZ, the last generation of E telephotos perform better on the Z9 than the D5/D850/D500. If you shoot a hybrid of F and Z cameras, it makes sense to hold on to the E-series lenses.
I moved to the 400 f4.5 because I pre-ordered the 800PF. Furthermore, I become paralytic when I have lenses that have similar or overlapping focal lengths. I don't like to wonder if I made the wrong lens choice when I've gone on a hike or are sitting behind the camera. Finally, I am in a place where I know I will not be able to buy new gear in the future. I am retiring in June, and this is the one time when I've got the disposable income to make the full transition.

regards,
bruce

You got a lot for it in trade. The local camera store is selling a used one for $2099 so I would expect to be offered a couple hundred less than that. If the value is around $1700 it may be worthwhile holding onto for a backup lens.

 

[Darrellhar]

A 120-300 F/2.8 with TC would be fantastic for field sports. I would certainly be interested if that became an option (Or just a 300 f/2.8 with TC for that matter)

 

[Alistair]

A lightweight 600mm or 500mm would struggle against the 400/4.5 plus 1.4x unless it was usefully faster. At least 2/3 stop, preferably 1 stop.

 

[John Navitsky]

So much more rambling - any thoughts?

the big thing on the 300 is what kind of subject matter you shoot. wildlife folks will probably have little use for a 300, where us sport types it looks very attractive, especially with the big gap between 200 and 400