More Nikon PF Lenses?

[GrandNagus50]

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 have been surprised at the popularity of what I consider to be a kind of absurd optic, the Canon 800mm f11. I guess it is sharp and cheap and IF you have enough light it can come in handy. It's something I would never buy, but Canon apparently cannot crank them out fast enough. I do think that if Nikon released a compact 600mm f6.3 or 800mm f7.1 or even f8 PF I would consider them (assuming the latter stabilized really well). I routinely use the 500 pf with the TC14eiii, which makes for a 700mm f8. It works really well. With better high ISO performance these days, slower lenses seem more acceptable for some uses. Apparently not everyone misses the wide aperture separation between subject and background.

 

[fcotterill]

Actually, the popularity of the 500 PF in N America and probably Europe also reflects the wonderful growth in birding and bird photography ie popularity. As a parochial exmple, my 500 PF has secured me many keepers of birds and also mammals at longer subject distances. I often found its framing too tight on large mammals at shorter distances, where the 400 is more versatile and a 300 or even less (200) works best.

It would be interesting to see more comprehensive data that samples other important cohorts - namely safari goers photographing large mammals. These needs are probably one important reason for the popularity of the the 200-400 f4 which is much maligned these days (at least on forums) for its relative softness at the longer end and toward infinity (as @BLev65 has pointed out repeatedly, and he tends to shoot mammals relying on stealth - also see more examples on his FM thread on Z cameras for wildlife).

In reality, quite often one needs a range from < 200m to 800mm and even more for a FX system.

The other solution for deep pockets is the 180-400 f4E TC14 Nikkor and/or 120-300 f2.8E SR (also with TCs) for what Brad Hill terms Aperture-Independent-Sharpness as well as flexibility in reach. This likely explains why sales of the 180-400 surprised a prominent Nikon retailer in the London (Grays).

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 have been surprised at the popularity of what I consider to be a kind of absurd optic, the Canon 800mm f11. I guess it is sharp and cheap and IF you have enough light it can come in handy. It's something I would never buy, but Canon apparently cannot crank them out fast enough. I do think that if Nikon released a compact 600mm f6.3 or 800mm f7.1 or even f8 PF I would consider them (assuming the latter stabilized really well). I routinely use the 500 pf with the TC14eiii, which makes for a 700mm f8. It works really well. With better high ISO performance these days, slower lenses seem more acceptable for some uses. Apparently not everyone misses the wide aperture separation between subject and background.

 

[BLev65]

Actually, the popularity of the 500 PF in N America and probably Europe also reflects the wonderful growth in birding and bird photography ie popularity. As a parochial exmple, my 500 PF has secured me many keepers of birds and also mammals at longer subject distances. I often found its framing too tight on large mammals at shorter distances, where the 400 is more versatile and a 300 or even less (200) works best.

It would be interesting to see more comprehensive data that samples other important cohorts - namely safari goers photographing large mammals. These needs are probably one important reason for the popularity of the the 200-400 f4 which is much maligned these days (at least on forums) for its relative softness at the longer end and toward infinity (as @BLev65 has points out repeatedly, and he tends to shoot mammals relying on stealth - also see more examples on his FM thread on Z cameras for wildlife).

In reality, quite often one needs a range from < 200m to 800mm and even more for a FX system.

The other solution for deep pockets is the 180-400 f4E TC14 Nikkor and/or 120-300 f2.8E SR (also with TCs) for what Brad Hill terms Aperture-Independent-Sharpness as well as flxibility in reach. This likely explains why sales of the 180-400 surprised a prominent Nikon retailer in the London (Grays).

I am a big fan of the 200-400mm VR when using a Z6ii (or even a Z6). Many of the focusing shortcomings are moderated by the on sensor AF in those bodies. I would say the 200-400 is sharper than my 300mm f/4PF at 300mm f/4, but not as sharp as my 300mm f/2.8 AFSii at f/2.8. When a 1.4xii converter is added to the latter, the 200-400mm is sharper at 400mm f/4. I love to pair the zoom on the Z6ii and my 500pf on a D500. This combination allows me to shoot large mammals that are less wary in their environment. The D500 + 500pf is great for smaller animals or those that are at a distance.
The drawback of the 200-400 is its size. I tend to leave it at home when traveling locally by plane or internationally. It's weight and length make the lens challenge to pack in a way that meets plane baggage restrictions (assuming I want to take more than a 200-400 lens and body).
Like many other wildlife shooters, I am impatiently waiting to see the performance, build, and tech in Nikon's forthcoming 100-400 and 200-600 lenses.
regards,
bruce

 

[fcotterill]

If prices are not limiting, there are the 180-400 f4E TC14 and 120-300 f2.8E SR, which is reported to pair with TCs very well. Too short in reach for the smaller birds, but ideal for mammal subjects. They also work rather well for animalscapes too.

Yes, both are heavy, shorter zoom at 3.25kg. However, each folds several primes into one telephoto. Holding out hope Nikon will extend their prowess in telephoto zooms and phase-fresnel primes into a lighter versatile telephoto zoom!

 

[BLev65]

If prices are not limiting, there are the 180-400 f4E TC14 and 120-300 f2.8E SR, which is reported to pair with TCs very well. Too short in reach for the smaller birds, but ideal for mammal subjects. They also work rather well for animalscapes too.

Yes, both are heavy, shorter zoom at 3.25kg. However, each folds several primes into one telephoto. Holding out hope Nikon will extend their prowess in telephoto zooms and phase-fresnel primes into a lighter versatile telephoto zoom!

Price is a real barrier to ownership of either lens. Given an unlimited budget, I would shoot the 180-400 and call it a day... maybe a retirement gift to myself in a few years ;-p

 

[fcotterill]

Price is a real barrier to ownership of either lens. Given an unlimited budget, I would shoot the 180-400 and call it a day... maybe a retirement gift to myself in a few years ;-p

Yes - damned money! The 180-400 was on an attractive Nikon special last year, with the 500 PF I was tempted to trade in my 400 f2.8E but held back as too often I need 800 f5.6.

 

[fcotterill]

Just saw there Nikon has a recent patent for three PF zooms : WO2021124804
~200-500 f/5.6 VR PF
~300-600 f/6.3 VR PF
~400-800 f/8 VR PF


EDIT: this link https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2021124804&tab=PCTBIBLIO

If prices are not limiting, there are the 180-400 f4E TC14 and 120-300 f2.8E SR, which is reported to pair with TCs very well. Too short in reach for the smaller birds, but ideal for mammal subjects. They also work rather well for animalscapes too.

Yes, both are heavy, shorter zoom at 3.25kg. However, each folds several primes into one telephoto. Holding out hope Nikon will extend their prowess in telephoto zooms and phase-fresnel primes into a lighter versatile telephoto zoom!

 

[BillW]

If prices are not limiting, there are the 180-400 f4E TC14 and 120-300 f2.8E SR, which is reported to pair with TCs very well. Too short in reach for the smaller birds, but ideal for mammal subjects. They also work rather well for animalscapes too.

Yes, both are heavy, shorter zoom at 3.25kg. However, each folds several primes into one telephoto. Holding out hope Nikon will extend their prowess in telephoto zooms and phase-fresnel primes into a lighter versatile telephoto zoom!

I would have bought the 180-400 a while back but for the weight. I’m 63 and retired. I like to shoot walking around and from a kayak/canoe. I like to do wildlife photo-travel. So size and weight matter a lot to me. PF zooms would be great, if lighter. I would also be interested in a 600 mm f4, if Nikon could make it as light and small as the current Sony. And of course, I am impatiently waiting for the 100-400 in Z mount.

Nikon’s ability to actually deliver product concerns me. Given how slow things have been going, it was ironic to see Nikon suggest we get ready for “rapid expansion” — I’m ready and waiting. Perhaps things are not that much better for Sony or Canon now, if supply issues are primarily supplier-related and covid-affected. I’m not close enough to those brands to know.

I’m glad to have the 500 and 300 mm PFs which work well on my DSLRs and Z bodies (and in the latter case, they work pretty well with TCs). On the PF front, non-zoom, I’d love to see a 400 mm f4 and a 600 mm f5.6. Thom Hogan suggested recently that NIkon might do a 600 mm f8 in Z mount — not as interesting to me as a 600 mm f5.6. My 500 mm PF + 1.4x TCIII is a pretty good 700 mm f8 on a Z body.

 

[fcotterill]

Some details of these Zoom-Tele PF patents
Well.... a 300-600 f6.3 PF on a capable Z MILC will be useful, very useful indeed

WIPO - Search International and National Patent Collections

Scrolling down to the Figs outlines 4 different designs; each including a diffraction element. Each design reduces the total length of the zoom to different respective length(s). Both versions of a 200-500 f5.6 are variable length and rather long TL

It appears the Third Example invoking a ~300-600 f6.4 reduces TL of the lens the most in a fixed length zoom approx 94 x 330mm (600 f4E FL is 160 x 432mm weighing a breathtaking 3.8kg). The 4th example of a 400-800 f8 is also of fixed length at approx 100 x 435mm (800 f5.6E FL is 160 x 461mm and 4.59kg).

WIPO - Search International and National Patent Collections

excerpts
[0002]
　Conventionally, it is known that providing a diffractive surface in an optical system has an achromatic effect (see, for example, Patent Document 1). In particular, in a telephoto lens, by arranging the diffraction surface as far forward (object side) as possible in the lens group, a larger achromatic effect can be exhibited, which makes it possible to shorten the overall length and reduce the weight of the optical system. However, on the other hand, when strong light is incident on the diffractive surface from outside the imaging screen, the diffracted light may flare and reduce the contrast of the entire screen. Therefore, it is required that the diffraction surface be arranged at an appropriate position where the contrast decrease due to flare can be reduced while sufficiently exerting the achromatic effect.

[0086]
(Table 1) First Example
[Overall specifications]
　　　　　　　　　Wide-angle end state Intermediate focal length state Telephoto end state
f = 205.000 to 300.000 to 400.000 to 486.800
FNO = 5.80 to 5.80 to 5.80 to 5.80
2ω (°) = 12.20 to 8.10 to 6.10 ~ 5.00
Ymax = 21.700 ~ 21.700 ~ 21.700 ~ 21.700
TL (length in air) = 309.985 ~ 346.860 ~ 371.010 ~ 386.088
Bf (air conversion length) = 46.220 to 46.220 ~ 46.220 to 46.220


[0099]
(Table 4) Second Example
[Overall specifications]
　　　　　　　　　Wide-angle end state Intermediate focal length state Telephoto end state
f = 205.000 to 300.000 to 400.000 to 486.800
FNO = 5.80 to 5.80 to 5.80 to 5.80
2ω (°) = 12.20 to 8.10 to 6.10 ~ 5.00
Ymax = 21.700 ~ 21.700 ~ 21.700 ~ 21.700
TL (length in air) = 309.991 ~ 348.121 ~ 376.459 ~ 395.024
Bf (air conversion length) = 53.850 to 53.850 ~ 53.850 to 53.850

[0112]
(Table 7) Third Example
[Overall specifications]
　　　　　　　　　Wide-angle end state Intermediate focal length state Telephoto end state
f = 306.000 to 375.000 to 450.000 to 588.000
FNO = 6.40 to 6.40 to 6.40 to 6.40
2ω (°) = 8.10 to 6.40 to 5.30 ~ 4.10
Ymax = 21.700 ~ 21.700 ~ 21.700 ~ 21.700
TL (length in air) = 329.948 ~ 329.948 ~ 329.948 ~ 329.948
Bf (air conversion length) = 52.139 to 52.139 ~ 52.139 to 52.139

[0125]
(Table 10) Fourth Example
[Overall specifications]
　　　　　　　　　Wide-angle end state Intermediate focal length state Telephoto end state
f = 407.999 to 499.999 to 599.999 to 783.998
FNO = 8.10 to 8.10 to 8.10 to 8.10
2ω (°) = 6.10 to 5.00 ~ 4.10 ~ 3.10
Ymax = 21.700 ~ 21.700 ~ 21.700 ~ 21.700
TL (length in air) = 435.067 ~ 435.067 ~ 435.067 ~ 435.067
Bf (air conversion length) = 73.106 to 73.106 ~ 73.106 to 73.106

 

[GrandNagus50]

For bird photographers, 180-400mm is simply too short in focal length range. The ideal range is something like 300-800mm, like the now-outdated (apparently) Sigma "Sigmonster." But that lens is really huge and unwieldy, lacks IS/VR, etc. This is why many bird photographers settle on one long lens of 500, 600, or even 800mm, along with TC's, and then also a zoom to cover 100-400 or 200-500mm, more or less. Of course, the 180-400 would be terrific as this "second lens," but bringing two great big lenses into the field at the same time is a bit much.

That said, the micro four-thirds format has something to recommend it here. The new (and impossible to get) Olympus 150-400mm f4.5 zoom with its built-in 1.25 TC and its excellent performance with 1.4x and 2.0 TC's is an (almost) all in one that performs brilliantly (or so I'm told, since I don't own one). Yes, there are no free lunches and there are some compromises in using M43 format. Of course. But in most circumstances these are acceptable compromises for many of us, and the ergonomic advantages outweigh the disadvantages, easily. At least for now.

 

[RichF]

The combination of 180-400 and 600 F5.6 PF would be awesome. Especially if the upped the focusing motor so it would work well with a 1.4 converter.

Or for those going lighter, 200-500 and 600 F5.6 PF. I would like to see newer version of the PF lenses in Z mount.

 

[anthonyrobinson]

I am clueless about lens technology, to me PF means smaller and lighter, would it be possible to make a 300 or 400mm f2.0 PF lens at the same size/bulk as the 2.8 offerings?

 

[DRwyoming]

I am clueless about lens technology, to me PF means smaller and lighter, would it be possible to make a 300 or 400mm f2.0 PF lens at the same size/bulk as the 2.8 offerings?

PF technology reduces the weight of the PF elements but does nothing about the diameter of the elements. The diameter of the largest element is set by physics with the minimum diameter defined by focal length divided by wide open aperture but real world lenses are usually a bit bigger than this.

IOW, a 300mm f/2.0 lens requires a front element at least 150mm in diameter where a 300mm f/2.8 lens requires a front element at least 107mm in diameter. Designing those as PF elements makes them thinner and lighter but it doesn't change the required diameter. So the PF technology doesn't really make them more compact, though it does reduce weight.

 

[fcotterill]

To add to the question about where PF technology might go, we have a couple of lines of evidence from: (1) both designs of 300 f4 PF < 77mm and 500 PF <95mm - and notably all patents I've seen - do not have an aperture < 95mm. One outlier is 108mm - the window of the much hoped for 600 f5.6 PF.

(2) shortages of the 500 f5.6E PF, for which admitted technology constraints in production of the Phase-fresnel element, < 95mm diameter.

Previously before the surprising release of the 300 f4E PF, Nikon had utilized the PF technology in its microscopes and also a MF telephoto that was never launched (links above pg 1). It is interesting to read the translated interview with the engineers who also faced technical hurdles with the 300 PF.

As the situation stands, perhaps Nikon has built prototypes of faster telephotos but the admittedly pieces of evidence suggest mass production of phase-fresnel elements faces technical challenges - possibly quality and sufficient yields at larger diameters. Hopefully, they do conquer these constraints and Japanese engineers have a track record of succeeding in breaking new ground especially in efficient QC in factory lines. So we may one day shoot with a 400 f4 and 600 f5.6 PF, or even faster PF telephotos of reduced weights (such that they don't also enrich physiotherapists!).

PF technology reduces the weight of the PF elements but does nothing about the diameter of the elements. The diameter of the largest element is set by physics with the minimum diameter defined by focal length divided by wide open aperture but real world lenses are usually a bit bigger than this.

IOW, a 300mm f/2.0 lens requires a front element at least 150mm in diameter where a 300mm f/2.8 lens requires a front element at least 107mm in diameter. Designing those as PF elements makes them thinner and lighter but it doesn't change the required diameter. So the PF technology doesn't really make them more compact, though it does reduce weight.

 

[Abinoone]

A 600 5.6 PF, I would order it today

Maybe you'd order it today, but you'd be lucky if you got it in 18 months!!

 

[Abinoone]

I would guess if they do it will be in a Z (technically S) mount. With Canon doing the crazy new f11 lenses I think Nikon would be wise to do PF versions and dominate everyone!

A friend of mine bought the Canon 800 f11, and likes it! Too slow for my tastes, however.

 

[RichF]

Dumb questions - what does PF stand for?

 

[DRwyoming]

Dumb questions - what does PF stand for?

Phase Fresnel

Fresnel lenses were invented a bit more than 200 years ago(by Augustin Fresnel) and used in light houses as a way to dramatically reduce the weight of large glass lenses. Phase Fresnel is a variation on that basic theme and a branding opportunity for Nikon much like Canon branded 'Diffraction Optics' or DO lenses which also build on Fresnel's concepts.

 

[RichF]

Phase Fresnel

Fresnel lenses were invented a bit more than 200 years ago(by Augustin Fresnel) and used in light houses as a way to dramatically reduce the weight of large glass lenses. Phase Fresnel is a variation on that basic theme and a branding opportunity for Nikon much like Canon branded 'Diffraction Optics' or DO lenses which also build on Fresnel's concepts.

Thanks. "I see" said the blind carpenter as she picked up the hammer and saw.

 

[thelordofthelight]

Very interesting post by Thom today:

Followup on Upcoming Z Products | Thom Hogan

A short followup on upcoming Nikon Z System products

www.zsystemuser.com

Excerpt from his post:

The next Nikkor Z's won't be so predictable. I keep hearing about some less expected and different specs for the next round of lenses that are moving from the design to ready-for-production stage. In particular, it appears that Nikon won't repeat the same PF specs in the Z mount (e.g. no 300mm f/4), creating entirely new Z PF lenses (as I had hoped). Could it be that we'll have a full line of PF from 200 to 800mm, only some will be F-mount and some will be Z-mount? Only time will tell, but so far the whispers I've heard are "yes." Personally, 400mm f/4 S PF is what I want, and an 800mm f/8 S PF might prove interesting, too.

 

[joe43]

I used to own and use a Nikon 400mm f3.5 AiS manual focus lens that I purchased used.. Its was very sharp; very front heavy; and too short for most bird photography. I ended up buying the Nikon 500mm f4 P lens, also AiS and used it for nature long with a 1.4x tc and a 2x tc. The 400mm f3.5 became my long "macro" lens that I used mostly with extension tubes.

I seriously doubt that I will ever see a 400mm f4 pf lens from Nikon. A 600mm f5.6 pf would be a better lens to make and sell I would think.

 

[Abinoone]

Price is a real barrier to ownership of either lens. Given an unlimited budget, I would shoot the 180-400 and call it a day... maybe a retirement gift to myself in a few years ;-p

I completely agree - the 180-400 is a dream lens for me, but that damn price!! I plan to rent one for Katmai.

 

[RichF]

I completely agree - the 180-400 is a dream lens for me, but that damn price!! I plan to rent one for Katmai.

Rental is not cheap, either. a 10 day rental plus the cost (and time to ship the lens back) is around $800-1000 (depending upon the discount you find). Do that once a year for 5 years you have nearly paid for half the lens. If 5 years you could sell the lens for say 75-80% of the new price plus you could have used it for the 5 long trip and numerous other 1 day outings. Add this to the fact that you AF tune the lens once (if needed) versus being on a trip and suddenly finding your images are not tack sharp. So if you have extra cash (which earns nothing today and probably will not earn anything for the next 3-5 years), plan on need the lens at least one a year for a trip, plus use it on day events, .. buying it may be a better option. Of course YMMV.

 

[Abinoone]

Rental is not cheap, either. a 10 day rental plus the cost (and time to ship the lens back) is around $800-1000 (depending upon the discount you find). Do that once a year for 5 years you have nearly paid for half the lens. If 5 years you could sell the lens for say 75-80% of the new price plus you could have used it for the 5 long trip and numerous other 1 day outings. Add this to the fact that you AF tune the lens once (if needed) versus being on a trip and suddenly finding your images are not tack sharp. So if you have extra cash (which earns nothing today and probably will not earn anything for the next 3-5 years), plan on need the lens at least one a year for a trip, plus use it on day events, .. buying it may be a better option. Of course YMMV.

Rich, are you trying to talk me into buying this lens, or yourself? Either way, it seems to be working!

 

[ChrisM]

I used to own and use a Nikon 400mm f3.5 AiS manual focus lens that I purchased used.. Its was very sharp; very front heavy; and too short for most bird photography. I ended up buying the Nikon 500mm f4 P lens, also AiS and used it for nature long with a 1.4x tc and a 2x tc. The 400mm f3.5 became my long "macro" lens that I used mostly with extension tubes.

I seriously doubt that I will ever see a 400mm f4 pf lens from Nikon. A 600mm f5.6 pf would be a better lens to make and sell I would think.

The lens I have been waiting for for ever since I started bird and wildlife photography is a portable and high end 600mm f5.6. I can only hope that Nikon sees sense in a Z600mm f5.6S lens and makes a Z90 to put it on.