the 800 f6.3S VR PF for Z system....

[GrandNagus50]

I missed the hand holding part in Nikons statement.

Nikon used the word "portable." If you make a lens and expect that people will need to use it on a tripod (or monopod), this eliminates much of the advantage of a "compact" PF lens over the current 800mm f5.6. I am confident that Nikon is thinking in terms of people taking these lenses out in the field and shooting them hand-held, just as they tend to use the current "portable" lenses like the 200-500mm or the 500mm PF. As I think I said, the 200-500mm is about at the limit of what many of us are willing (or able) to hand hold in the field for any length of time. So I am guessing that this new lens will not weigh more (or not much more) than the 200-500mm, which is a little over five pounds. If it weighs as much as the Sigma Sport 150-600mm I, for one, will think twice about buying it.

 

[arbitrage]

see below for the rough estimates to get at 140 x 315, and note similar estimates for the 400 PF - a f4.3 or f4.5. The outline of the 100-400 S shows the rear corner, which gives away the perspective in this photo - assuming it's not been photoshopped.

View attachment 28761

If your estimate is correct that means the 400/2.8 is just slightly longer and puts it significantly shorter than the current 400E which is 358mm. That would be a great acheivement as it is adding a TC and mirrorless flange distance. Also that means the 200-600 is significantly shorter than the 317mm Sony 200-600. So maybe that 200-600 isn't internal zoom as we all thought?

 

[fcotterill]

Yah, this estimate assumes the ratio correctly accounts for perspective in relative "stepped" heights of the rows.

[EDIT] Please see update below - Fixing posts above and this - 800 f6.3S PF = 143 x 377 mm. Apologies

So the 400 f2.8 estimate = 162 x 390 mm which is indeed slightly longer than the 400 f2.8E FL - about the same length as the 500 f4E FL - so approx 24mm longer than 400 f2.8E

Returning to the question about diameter of the PhaseFresnel element and speculation over its position in the optical formula..... the 400mm f4.5 PF gives us a clue. Nikon engineers have decided to cap its window < 100mm , and the PF element might also be even narrower in this prime, if it's further back in the lens barrel.

So the Hypothesis endures that Nikon has yet to succeed in manufacturing Blazed PhaseFresnel elements wider than 90mm. Presumably such elements of approx 127mm are still too challenging, and/or such thin wide elements are too vulnerable in the wild. Basically, each is a precision instrument in its own right: resin composite including the microscopic diffraction layer.

All in all, it sure is most impressive Nikon have shortened the fast 400 prime, even more so considering it has an internal TC14.

If your estimate is correct that means the 400/2.8 is just slightly longer and puts it significantly shorter than the current 400E which is 358mm. That would be a great acheivement as it is adding a TC and mirrorless flange distance. Also that means the 200-600 is significantly shorter than the 317mm Sony 200-600. So maybe that 200-600 isn't internal zoom as we all thought?

 

[RoyC]

All in all, it sure is most impressive Nikon have shortened the fast 400 prime, even more so considering it has an internal TC14.

When Nikon updated the 200-400 f4 to a 180-400 f4 with TC they shortened the new lens by 0.2 inches/2.5mm. As I remember the back of old 200-400 the last piece of glass was a good distance from the mount. Same construction on the 400 f2.8. The addition of a TC appears to not require any added length.

 

[fcotterill]

When Nikon updated the 200-400 f4 to a 180-400 f4 with TC they shortened the new lens by 0.2 inches/2.5mm. As I remember the back of old 200-400 the last piece of glass was a good distance from the mount. Same construction on the 400 f2.8. The addition of a TC appears to not require any added length.

Good point
Well..... Please see update added to this morning's post above. I rechecked ratios to estimate the 400 f2.8 = 162 x 390 mm which is actually longer than the 400 f2.8E FL - about the same length as the 500 f4E FL - so approx 24mm longer than the 400 f2.8E.

I edited posts above to correct the estimate of 800 f6.3S PF to read 143 x 377 mm. Apologies! This is still a fair amount shorter than the F-Mount version (160 x 461mm). Trying to extrapolate off these roadmap silhouettes is trickly, particularly as Nikon obscured the lower portions of these telephotos, which is probably not an accident. Anyways, no harm in speculating and we should see more of the 400 f2.8S by the Winter Olympics in 6 weeks.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[ChrisM]

You could change to Sony, but apparently they are suffering more than nikon is due to the semiconductor situation. Testing times for a generation that has grown up in an age of instant gratification.

You misinterpreted my words. Sony does not have a 600mm f5.6 lens, let alone a DO or PF lens. With waiting forever I mean that some lenses that would be ideal for me (or anyone else) are never made because of various reasons, e.g. they cut into the professional territory too much or they are not accessible enough for the amateur photographers, or they simply won't generate enough revenue for the camera companies. The lenses that áre made, are not always the best possible solution persé, we are all forced to adjust to what they design and develop in Japan

 

[arbitrage]

Good point
Well..... Please see update added to this morning's post above. I rechecked ratios to estimate the 400 f2.8 = 162 x 390 mm which is actually longer than the 400 f2.8E FL - about the same length as the 500 f4E FL - so approx 24mm longer than the 400 f2.8E.

I edited posts above to correct the estimate of 800 f6.3S PF to read 143 x 377 mm. Apologies! This is still a fair amount shorter than the F-Mount version (160 x 461mm). Trying to extrapolate off these roadmap silhouettes is trickly, particularly as Nikon obscured the lower portions of these telephotos, which is probably not an accident. Anyways, no harm in speculating and we should see more of the 400 f2.8S by the Winter Olympics in 6 weeks.

View attachment 28837

Thanks for doing this. This makes a lot more sense now to what I would expect. Bayou Josh did a measurement off of a slightly angled Z800 photo just based on the ratio of the rear of the lens to the length and came out with only 11". I thought that was impossible and was guessing more like 14-15". My guess seems to be fairly accurate to your measurements.

PS. Would you object to me sharing your diagram on a certain other forum that shall remain nameless?....you know the one you recently abandoned Let me know.

 

[fcotterill]

Thanks, it's important to try and constrain these stats as much as is possible, even if they are informed guesswork. It's most unlikely that Nikon have raised these telephotos on a ledge, because this would mean they are shorter. So as already said, the 800 is most unlikely to change shape i.e 143 x 377mm, which is large but the narrower window makes it that much easier compared the 160+ wide exotics to fit in a pack/case with other gear.
Incidentally, I also measured the 600 S off the silhouette: 164 x 420mm which is slightly shorter than the 600 f4E FL (160 x 432).
All the more intriguing how much the final 800 PF will weigh
This image is public domain, so no problem to share it

Thanks for doing this. This makes a lot more sense now to what I would expect. Bayou Josh did a measurement off of a slightly angled Z800 photo just based on the ratio of the rear of the lens to the length and came out with only 11". I thought that was impossible and was guessing more like 14-15". My guess seems to be fairly accurate to your measurements.

PS. Would you object to me sharing your diagram on a certain other forum that shall remain nameless?....you know the one you recently abandoned Let me know.

 

[MartyD]

When I look at the lens roadmap photo that is being used to calculate lens dimensions I wonder how the photo was made. While I do believe that the image represents the relative sizes is it accurate enough to calculate dimensions to the nearest mm?

 

[lwan]

When I look at the lens roadmap photo that is being used to calculate lens dimensions I wonder how the photo was made. While I do believe that the image represents the relative sizes is it accurate enough to calculate dimensions to the nearest mm?

Well those who guessed f6.3 for the 800 based on measurement of the silhouettes got it right, even having to guess the barrel thickness. So I guess it's accurate enough!

 

[fcotterill]

Last night, I attended an online Nikon Owners Club online Q&A seminar with Nikon UK Ricci Chera and Neil Freeman. They answered questions about some details of the Z9 but more about the new Z lenses. The major portion of the 1 hour was dedicated to these lenses. Nothing new about the 800 PF except Ricci confirmed "...this is lens I'm most excited about right now...there could be a couple of lenses that change that, But when I see this in terms of its size and weight, I'm really excited about being able to casually walk around with a 800 mil, because that hasn't been the case until recently....."
Both this 800 and 400 f2.8S TC have internal rear filters. Ricci emphasized the the "2nd 400" is a really interesting prospect, but without giving away anything more Ricci hinted he's really interested in the 200-600; "can it be as good and as gamechanging as the 200-500 f5.6E? ...I think Nikon changed everything with this lens when it came to wildlife photography, especially for entry level and intermediate wildlife photography...it did some real wonders especially on something like a D500 or D850.."

Again, he confirmed the 100-400 S is excellent - close in image quality to the 180-400 f4E TC14

The UK situation is the 24-120 f4S and 100-400 S should start shipping next week, and apparently next week in S Africa also.

 

[fcotterill]

Okay, we are right on lottery on size estimates, by my scaling ratio off the Roadmap image. I slightly overestimated the size of this 400 f2.8S. This pushes up potential of the 800 f6.3S PF.
We can look forward to a 800 well under 2.9kg, likely around 2.5kg and approx 133 x 370mm

see below for the rough estimates to get at 140 x 315 143 x 377 [EDIT] , and note similar estimates for the 400 PF - a f4.3 or f4.5. The outline of the 100-400 S shows the rear corner, which gives away the perspective in this photo - assuming it's not been photoshopped.
[EDIT] Note I have rechecked measurements and to add 400 f2.8S TC14, which showed up an error I had made. Fixing posts above and 400 f2.8 estimate = 162 x 390 mm which is indeed slightly longer than the 400 f2.8E FL - about the same length as the 500 f4E FL - so approx 24mm longer than 400 f2.8E

View attachment 28835

 

[thelordofthelight]

Going by the 400 2.8 S announcement, few things are clear. The newer tele lenses are going to be significantly lighter than the F mount counterparts, have much faster/quieter AF motors and are going to be expensive! Some of us were hoping the 800 PF to be priced at around USD 7500 and that's going to be highly unlikely. I think it will be priced at around 10-11K USD and the 600 S will also be priced very similar to 400 S maybe +/- USD 500.

 

[RichF]

Going by the 400 2.8 S announcement, few things are clear. The newer tele lenses are going to be significantly lighter than the F mount counterparts, have much faster/quieter AF motors and are going to be expensive! Some of us were hoping the 800 PF to be priced at around USD 7500 and that's going to be highly unlikely. I think it will be priced at around 10-11K USD and the 600 S will also be priced very similar to 400 S maybe +/- USD 500.

If the 600 F/4 is priced similar to the 400 F/2.8 I hope it has a TC built in.

The weight of the new supertele lenses are similar between Canon, Nikon and Sony. Canon had lens of this weight before they introduced the RF versions. I believe they did this my move most of the optics to the center of the lens.

 

[thelordofthelight]

IDK, regardless of whether the 600S has an in-built TC or not, i think Nikon will demand a premium for this lens. Let alone the Z lens pricing, If we look at the way they priced their latest F mount teles like 180-400/120-300, all those lenses are priced much higher than the previous generation teles. BTW, In India, historically the 400 2.8 versions of the G/E were priced higher than the 600 F4 G/E. I believe this varies by region and in the US it is vice versa so thats something to consider as well. In India, the 400 2.8S is priced at an equivalent of USD 16800!!!

Of course, the weight of the new generation lenses between the brands are all very similar now but what surprised me about the 400S is the fact that they made it light weight including the 1.4TC.

If the 600 F/4 is priced similar to the 400 F/2.8 I hope it has a TC built in.

The weight of the new supertele lenses are similar between Canon, Nikon and Sony. Canon had lens of this weight before they introduced the RF versions. I believe they did this my move most of the optics to the center of the lens.

 

[arbitrage]

My guess is the 600S doesn't have the TC and will be priced at the same price as the 400STC. The weight will also probably be the same as the 400STC.

 

[fcotterill]

The final dimensions of the 400 f2.8S TC = 156 x 380 mm, revealing last month's estimate to be slightly over, but the 800 PF has now expanded in size since its emerged from its chrysalis. And it now sports a Gold Ring, which will probably push up the price !

My latest revised dimensions of this 800 f6.3S PF = 147 x 392mm. With a minimum window of 127mm, a supertelephoto of this length and magnification demands a rigid chassis so the shell walls are ~10mm thick. It should need less elements than the 400 f2.8S TC so (hopefully) it will weigh less, but one can only guess - 2.8kg, 2.5 kg or perhaps less ?!?

latest Z Nikkor line up just updated for mid-January 2022:

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[GrandNagus50]

I would be willing to bet something substantial (not really) that the 600mm f4 will NOT have a built-in TC. But I am confident that its performance with the Z 1.4x teleconverter will be excellent, just as the current 600mm f4 model(s) are quite sharp when coupled with the TC14eiii. The price for the new 600mm with be at least $13,000, probably higher. This is the world we live in nowadays. I also now believe, sadly, that the 800mm f6.3 will be considerably more expensive than some of us originally thought. I bet at least $9000, probably $10,000. Sigh. Those of us who have used an 800mm lens know (I think) that for general bird photography this focal length presents challenges in terms of depth of field (shallow!) and actually being "overkill" for some situations, such as at feeders/blinds. Really, a 600mm f4 with the option of a 1.4x teleconverter is more versatile and with the 840mm f5.6 combo setup, optically just fine, thank you.

The reality is that in this world of increasing polarization between rich and poor (NOT trying to be political here, just stating the fact) there are LOTS of 'serious amateur' wildlife photographers who can and will shell out for these very, very expensive lenses. Wealthy, retirement phase baby boomers abound, with a "YOLO" mindset, i.e., you live once, so you want to take advantage of those golden years in which you (finally) have enough money to travel and take photos and yet you are still healthy and mobile enough to get around, travel, and walk and hike a bit. As someone in that demographic who recently developed an annoying (and possibly serious) arthritic condition in my left ankle that unpredictably makes long hikes quite painful, I have come to realize that there is a certain "get it while you can" aspect to all of this. Not to mention the realities of Covid-related travel issues.

I don't plan to buy any of these superduper expensive new long teles, but I understand that there are lots of people out there who will scrape up the money and make the investment(s).

 

[arbitrage]

That 800PF looks huge now...well relatively huge....not huge compared to the 800E.

So that tells us the silouhettes aren't necessarily accurate....meaning the 600 may grow in size also and get the internal TC....

 

[fcotterill]

Well.... I'm grimacing already at the possible RRP of the 800 PF! One ray of hope is the price history of these Exotic Nikkors, well at least in the UK. 3 examples... Since it went on sale in April 2018, the RRP of the 180-400 f4E TC14 has stayed above £10350. But at least once a year, there have been major discounts by over 40% off the RRP, to as low as £7000.

There have been similar Specials on the 500 f4E FL and 400 f2.8E FL

Obviously it is strategic to save for these Specials. This is how I bought my 70-200 f2.8E FL, which Nikon SA reduces significantly at least once a year - they have done similar specials for the 500 PF as well as the 180-400 f4E TC here in S Africa (no only UK).

 

[ChrisM]

The 800PF is still smaller in length and diameter than the 600mm f4, and it won't need a TC to get to 800mm, and won't need the ftz adapter (extra weight as well as length) either, so still the best way to get to 800mm. But the cost may be higher than most expect. Possibly it shares innovations with the Z400S, like coatings and AF motor? That would drive the price up further.
This does not look like an economic way to get to 800mm like the 500PF is to get to 500mm.