Are More Phase Fresnel Tele Lenses Coming?

SolarPaul

I am planning on upgrading my system for improved bird photography. Light weight is important to me and I'm impressed with the Nikon 300mm f/4E PF ED VR telephoto lens. I gather it makes a fantastic combination with a D500. But the reach is limited to 630 mm FF equiv with the 1.4 teleconverter, and I'm interested to know what the upgrade path would be if I want more reach. So far I can see that:
* Using the 1.7 teleconverter slows the lens down to f/6.8 and that will be too slow for dim light
* 3rd party zooms offer 150 - 600 mm (225 - 900 FF equiv) but are heavy and may suffer a little in IQ
* the current Nikon 500mm primes (750 FF equiv or 1,050 with 1.4 converter) are way too expensive and heavy for me

I'm particularly interested to know if Nikon are planning for (or likely to come out with) longer tele lenses, either zooms or primes, based on the light weight Phase Fresnel technology that seems to be doing such a good job in the 300mm f/4E PF lens. Is anyone aware of anything in the pipeline? I'm salivating at the thought of a D500 with a lightweight PF lens and which gets to around 800mm FF equiv and f/5.6

Thanks in advance
Paul

BVS

I don't think there have been any rumors. A number of people have said they want a 400 5.6, but then you're still stuck at 600mm.

Also, don't forget about the Nikon 200-500 f/5.6. Kinda heavy and not the best for BIF I hear, but seems good otherwise, and is a good bit cheaper than the 300 4 + 1.4TC.

heartyfisher

If there are any more PF lenses they need to release them withing the next year or so. cos the new Flat lense tech lenses should be out in 3 to 5 years and that would be a huge revolution. coupled with the expected mirror-less and computational imaging thats in the works in 5 years we may have a whole new set of thin cameras and lenses...

snakebunk

@SolarPaul: I am also interested in this. I really like the 300 pf and would be interested if Nikon made a 600 or 800 pf lense. I know there has been rumour of a Canon 600/4 DO lense. We can hope that it is a sign. There is a risk though that Nikon doesn't want to compete with their own lenses, so maybe it will have to be different, like a 600/5.6.

SolarPaul

I meant to include the 200 - 500 in my original post. My concern with that lens is its weight and it hasn't got great reviews

I was hoping for something like a 400 mm f/4 which would become a 560/5.6 (840/5.6 FF eq) with a 1.4 converter. Would seem to have more flexibility than just a super long lens.

Ah well, I can always hope

pictureted

SolarPaul said:

I meant to include the 200 - 500 in my original post. My concern with that lens is its weight and it hasn't got great reviews

I was hoping for something like a 400 mm f/4 which would become a 560/5.6 (840/5.6 FF eq) with a 1.4 converter. Would seem to have more flexibility than just a super long lens.

Ah well, I can always hope

Other than comparing the 200-500 with the prime 400, 500 & 600mm's, it's a fantastic lens with terrific reviews.

Planning on using a lens with a TC most of the time makes no sense to me. Even the best TC's slow AF performance and rob IQ to some extent. The old 300/4 AF has better optical performance than the new 300 PF. Using it with the TC 1.4 was always problematical - 420/5.6 wide open, but f8 was needed for better resolution. The 200-500 is sharper at f5.6 (throughout the range).

PF elements also have inherent optical compromises that can limit their usefulness in some situations. Certainly no free lunches available.

Ironheart

So far, Nikon only has patents for a 24-70 f/2.8 zoom with a PF element, and a 70-300 for the CX mount. The longer FL primes (500/600) have patents filed with FL or fluorite elements. They will produce the FL versions first, and then PF versions when those age out. I'm guessing FL versions for the 2020 Olympics in Tokyo, and then a 5-7 year wait after that for PF. The big guns are on a pretty long update cycle, and the price goes up when they add new tech.

What to buy now @SolarPaul ? If you buy used or refurb it will pretty much hold its value. Even when the new tech shows up. The only way to get more reach and keep it light is a smaller sensor. That's why I'm waiting for a new Nikon 1 sensor. 300mm is 810mm in that system. The current 70-300 CX lens is $1000 and 550g light. Size and weight of a beer can. I know I can hold those all day

BVS

SolarPaul said:

I was hoping for something like a 400 mm f/4 which would become a 560/5.6 (840/5.6 FF eq) with a 1.4 converter. Would seem to have more flexibility than just a super long lens.

Canon makes a 400 f/4 DO (Canon equivalent of PF). It weighs more than 4 1/2lbs and costs around $7,000. Maybe Nikon could go with a slightly lesser build to make it a bit cheaper, but it'd still be pretty expensive I think.

kanuck

I am sure that cost will play a factor in the release of upcoming Fresnel lenses. Sadly, they are very costly to make and this would likely be reflected in the price especially for any 2.8 glass. This Amazing technology would really help cut back on some awful weight issues that plagues many famous Nikkors. Just imagine if it was used in the upcoming 70-200 VR III reducing weight 300-400g? My goodness....

Nikoniser

You really, really need to stop making equivalence judgements based on sensor size and field of view and aperture.

What is important are 3 factors in order of importance :

1. The ability of the lens to resolve to the pixel level and the contrast.
2. The ISO performance of the sensor.
3. The number of pixels under the image area.

Lets take a D810 for example and a D7100 and a Nikon 1 series. ( I own all three )

According to the "equivalent" argument, if I put the 200-500 on the various cameras, you would have a :

D810 : 500mm f5.6
D500 : 750mm f5.6
Nikon 1: 1350mm f5.6

The reality is the only thing that is equivalent is the field of the view. The systems ability to resolve real detail is limited by the 3 factors I list above.

The reality is that all 3 camera will take a very similar picture ( one you crop the larger sensor ) as the glass and the iso are the limiting factors, not the pixel density.

The reality is that adding teleconverters gains you almost nothing unless you are using a camera with a large pixel pitch like the D4.

The only lenses that are capable of truly bringing reach to small sensors are the exotic telephotos, 400mm f2.8, 500mm f4 and 600mm f4. They are very expensive, true, but as the saying goes, buy once, cry once.

You can waste your time and money trying to find shortcuts and dreaming about massive equiv values - but if you want reach, bite the bullet and save up for an exotic telephoto.

PF is not going to solve the problem. It costs sharpness and contrast and has less resolving power.

Nikoniser

I always use this as a real world example. These are both 100% crops, taken at the same equiv value of 600mm, from two guys shooting the same bird. One is D810 with 600mm F4 and one is D7100 with 80-400mm


" alt="" />



" alt="" />


Can you tell which one is which ?

snakebunk

Nikoniser said:

PF is not going to solve the problem. It costs sharpness and contrast and has less resolving power.

I agree with everything you say until the last sentence. PF is about refraction, and I think Nikon has proved that it can be very sharp. The 300/4 PF resolves my D800 perfectly, at least at 5.6. PF is not about pretending that a lense is longer than it is because of a small sensor, or blowing up an image using converters.

retread

I have no experience with PF or fluorite but some of the comparisons I have seen have the IQ better with fluorite than the PF. Fluorite is lighter than glass but still heaver than PF.

I think the background blur of the fluorite was said to be better. It was along time ago and I do not recall where I read this. I dream of a 400mm but with the price dream is all I can do.

BVS

Nikoniser said:

I always use this as a real world example. These are both 100% crops, taken at the same equiv value of 600mm, from two guys shooting the same bird. One is D810 with 600mm F4 and one is D7100 with 80-400mm

Can you tell which one is which ?

I don't think there's any question that the first is the D810 and the second is the D7100. Not really a fair fight though. Of course using a lesser sensor with a lesser lens at it's weakest focal length and significantly fewer pixels on target is going to result in a lesser image.

Ironheart

In a fair fight, the D7200 beats the D810:
https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-d7200/2
But that's because there are more pixels on the birdie, and the resolving power of the 800mm is amazing

snakebunk

@Ironheart: And in other fair fights the D810 beats the D7200. Sometimes you need high pixel density and sometimes you need a large sensor. I think Nikoniser wanted to point out that a small sensor doesn't make a lense longer.

Edit: Actually, I tend to think about it as "a large sensor allows me to use a longer lense". So in a way a large sensor means longer lenses. This is mostly applicable when you photograph birds at close distance with long prime lenses (which I do when I can).

Nikoniser

If I have a totally static subject, and a decent tripod with me, and cannot physically move closer to my subject, and I am using an exotic prime, then I do swap cameras to the D7100 as it does give a very slight improvement. However, the D810 has a better viewfinder, better AF, better 3d tracking, better ISO performance, better dynamic range and better ergonomics, so its the camera I use 90% of the time.

pictureted

Nikoniser said:

If I have a totally static subject, and a decent tripod with me, and cannot physically move closer to my subject, and I am using an exotic prime, then I do swap cameras to the D7100 as it does give a very slight improvement. However, the D810 has a better viewfinder, better AF, better 3d tracking, better ISO performance, better dynamic range and better ergonomics, so its the camera I use 90% of the time.

The D500 makes getting DX sensor size less of a compromise. The AF is better than the D810 and the viewfinder and ergonomics are equal. ISO performance feels similar, but no other camera has quite the D810's DR. I still use my D810 most of the time, but when AF performance is the limiting factor the D500 is a clear winner.

WestEndFoto

I am sure that the D810's successor will incorporate all of the latest AF improvements and maybe include some of its own.