New 400 and 600 mm prime lenses

snakebunk

There are 400 and 600 mm prime S lenses on the roadmap. What apertures do you expect? And do you think they will have pf lens elements?

Personally I hope (and think) that they are 400/2.8 and 600/4 and that they don't weigh more than the Canon and Sony lenses. I also hope for a built in arca swiss foot.

photobunny

The arca swiss foot is a pipe dream and really not everyone uses that system, though it sure often feels that way. I think these will be the big boy primes, 400/2.8 and 600/4. PF elements do have downsides and are really to help make 'tiny' lenses, not slightly smaller big fatties and we have seen in the S line that Nikon haven't been trying anything exotic.

Canon's upcoming line may be entirely DO, then have for years showed of a short and fat 600mm f/4. But I think Nikon will go for a traditional lens that is likely going to be the sharpest on the market and weigh less than the Sony but more than the Canon.

mhedges

Can't really comment on aperture etc. but to me these lenses being Z mount are further evidence that (despite what they say) Nikon is pretty much done with F mount.

photobunny

Nikon really should drop F mount and focus on Z. It might not be what people want to hear, but it is good for business to just move all your focus onto one thing. The only F lens I am buying is the 500mm f/5.6 but that is begrudgingly. Lots of people like me that are moving to Nikon Z, not Nikon and want to buy lenses that are good for the next 30 years, not the last.

I can not justify paying £13,000 for a F mount 600mm f/4, but I will on a Z mount or RF mount lens. Then I know this thing isn't 'obsolete' when I buy it.

tc88

My expectation is 400 f/2.8 and 600 f/4 because those are the ones in F mount, and most common in other mounts too. And I don't think Nikon has energy right now to put out multiple versions.

Whether they are pf, difficult to tell, but probably not. On one side of me, I think those already cost 10k+ and pf can likely push them to 20k. On the other side of me, I think whoever buy those are more performance conscious than price conscious, so maybe they don't worry about even a 20k price tag.

tc88

photobunny said:

Nikon really should drop F mount and focus on Z.

I think that's given and Nikon is only concentrating on designing lens on Z mount. But I think those F mount lens are still being made. The development cost has been paid for, and it doesn't cost them that much to make compared to the price tag, and if they still sell, certainly they can make a lot of incremental profit out of each copy. So Nikon will keep on making them till no one wants to buy those.

snakebunk

Thanks for the comments, I agree with all. This will probably be the big classic 400/2.8 and 600/4, without pf. And I am sure they will be both great and expensive.

@photobunny: The Tamron SP 150-600 mm version 2 has an arca swiss foot, so it is not impossible to make . Thoughful things like that makes you like a lens and a company.

photobunny

snakebunk said:

@photobunny: The Tamron SP 150-600 mm version 2 has an arca swiss foot, so it is not impossible to make . Thoughful things like that makes you like a lens and a company.

The real counter to arca swiss foot comes down to if there is a cost involved and what about all the tripods and monopods that don't use it. I don't own a tripod that uses it and even some gimbal heads use their own with the expectation that you screw the lens onto their own plate then use that.

I am not saying it is a bad idea, just it seems to me maybe Nikon and even Canon(since they don't use it) have figures that suggest this is something a minority want.

PB_PM

photobunny said:

Nikon really should drop F mount and focus on Z.

Nikon's going to make'm if they can sell them, profit is profit. I doubt there are any new F-mount lenses coming, but to halt production of some of the F-mount lenses now might mean taking huge losses against the R&D costs, particularly of some of the recent E lenses.

photobunny

PB_PM said:

photobunny said:

Nikon really should drop F mount and focus on Z.

Nikon's going to make'm if they can sell them, profit is profit. I doubt there are any new F-mount lenses coming, but to halt production of some of the F-mount lenses now might mean taking huge losses against the R&D costs, particularly of some of the recent E lenses.

Oh I am not suggesting just cutting production. I am suggesting dropping R&D on the F mount and go all in on Z mount, especially on a processor that can outmatch a Dual Expeed 6 on its own. Z lenses are best in class and the Z bodies are solid performers, they just need to get magic levels of eye finding out of a single processor that can filter down into DX bodies.

mhedges

I think they basically have stopped R&D on F mount. They just haven't formally said they have. D850 successor will be the last one.

photobunny

The thing with Z is they can sell people a native 50mm something when they have had one for 20 years. Same with a 24-70 and 70-200. All the 70-200's are great so not much point upgrading, but the need to have a native one that is great with a 2X converter... that all pushes sales up. Then you have DX Z lenses, a market where FTZ is less relevant and Nikon can sell people a two lens starter kit.

tc88

@photobunny, I think your perception is biased by the fact that you really want a long lens on your Z camera, and also don't have native F lens.

In reality, the current population of Z users who want native long lens is very small compared to other focal ranges. Also your argument against 24-70/70-200 applies equally to the long lens and converters, if not more appropriate.

tc88

photobunny said:

especially on a processor that can outmatch a Dual Expeed 6 on its own.

You should see expeed 7 in Z8/Z9.

photobunny said:

Z lenses are best in class

Please, that's biased opinion. Besides, if it's already best in class, they should spend more effort some where else.

photobunny

tc88 said:

@photobunny, I think your perception is biased by the fact that you really want a long lens on your Z camera.

In reality, the current population of Z users who want native long lens is very small compared to other focal ranges. Also your argument against 24-70/70-200 applies equally to the long lens and converters, if not more appropriate.

My point with the 24-70, 70-200 and even the long lenses was more that if you have a F version you are less likely to buy a newer F version. But if you buy a Z camera you are far more likely to 'rebuy' all your F lenses now in Z mount. Even if the changes aren't all that drastic, I know I'll want a 500mm f/5.6 PF Z even when I get the F mount.
I'll want that F mount one shot off ASAP because it is for a dying mount even if it could live of the adaptor. It is even more compelling if we loose the adaptor from the length as it suddenly opens up more shoulder bags.

photobunny

tc88 said:

Please, that's biased opinion. Besides, if it's already best in class, they should spend more effort some where else.

It seems not to be bias as reviewers are putting the f/1.8 S line, 24-70, and 70-200 as the best tested. Now there are all kinds of foot notes on that, like the 70-200S isn't a little fatty RF 70-200 but it can take teleconverters and they trade blows on sharpness. But ether way you are not going to be disappointed with any S lens or RF L lens.

And Nikon seem to be continuing to put their effort in, they just put out two new cameras addressing every grip and with much faster AF even on the pre production firmware and can now use that to develop the FW for the Z9. It looks to me like they have caught on that this is a more software driven world than hardware now when it comes of AF in these things.

tc88

photobunny said:

My point with the 24-70, 70-200 and even the long lenses was more that if you have a F version you are less likely to buy a newer F version. But if you buy a Z camera you are far more likely to 'rebuy' all your F lenses now in Z mount. Even if the changes aren't all that drastic, I know I'll want a 500mm f/5.6 PF Z even when I get the F mount.

Multiple people have told you that there is unlikely any more development activity on the F mount lens. So I don't understand why you discard those and insist still beating this moot point.

photobunny said:

It looks to me like they have caught on that this is a more software driven world than hardware now when it comes of AF in these things.

Software has never been the strength of Nikon. You haven't been to Nikon's world long enough to realize that.

Knowing it's important and being able to deliver are two separate things. Where is my CFe firmware for D850?

photobunny

tc88 said:

Multiple people have told you that there is unlikely any more development activity on the F mount lens. So I don't understand why you discard those and insist still beating this moot point.

From my point of view your reply to me suggested you though I believed opposite of what I wrote so I clarified.

tc88 said:

Knowing it's important and being able to deliver are two separate things. Where is my CFe firmware for D850?

I would have bought the D500 or D850 if that CF Express update was out myself, but FW3 on the Z6 pushed it ahead and it was cheeper(£1399 vs £1599 and that Z6 had a XQD in the box) than the D500 with better results.

I am giving Nikon a pass just now on being late with stuff, it looks to me like they put a lot of effort to fix supply chains and the like and then the apocalypse happened. They have big time upped their game on the marketing though, them Z bodies and S lenses are much nicer looking than the F and with a sensible naming structure. On Canon it was L, version number, aperture, and mm. Looking at Nikon lenses they had so many affixes and a rather unflattering design reminiscent of a 80s VCR.

Unfair judgements for sure, but hey I am a photographer of 10 years and nice looking gear is part of being a hobby rather than a pro. Like when I pay for the black finish on my fishing reel rather than the silver. I don't know if the hobbyist or pro gives Nikon the most money, but I do know the new Z6 and S lenses seem to be the fist time I and a few others found Nikon attractive.

MrFotoFool

If the aperture is larger than f/11 they already have Canon beat! (I still can't get over that one).

As for Arca Swiss, having just switched to that system it is annoying to have to buy replacement tripod feet for my 70-200 f2.8E and 500 f5.6PF. The new feet still have screw holes to mount a different style plate if needed, so even if you are not Arca-Swiss using one of their plates is no different than using the stock Nikon plate. Tamron and Sigma both have Arca-Swiss compatible plates and it is absurd in my opinion that Nikon and Canon do not do the same.

I realize not everyone uses tripods with Arca-Swiss mounts, but it is the closest thing to a universal standard there is. If you go on a photo-specialist safari in East Africa, some of the vehicles (and river boats) have built-in poles with Arca-Swiss heads for every seat.

photobunny

MrFotoFool said:

If the aperture is larger than f/11 they already have Canon beat! (I still can't get over that one).

Mind those aren't L lenses or S quality. They are lenses that cost bugger all and let a bird watchers get a shot on a $999 RP. For $1800 you get a FF body and 800mm lens. Yes you get better IQ from a 100-400II with a 2x converter, but the 800mm f/11 cost is closer to a teleconverter than a lens.

snakebunk

@MrFotoFool: I agree 100% on Arca-Swiss. It is pretty stupid that the first thing you need to do is to buy a replacement foot or a plate.

Canon also has 400 and 600 lenses coming out (and others) so it will be interesting to see how they compare to the Nikon ones. I am pretty sure the differences will be small though.

photobunny

@snakebunk Canon seem to be putting out 5 L super-telefocals including a 1200 f/8. I think we might see all five Canon's as DO lenses and Nikon and Sony with traditional ones. Canon have been showing off a 600mm f/4.0 DO for years now and that would be the wow lens after already cutting down the weight.

MrFotoFool

I always wondered why Canon never did more with D.O. after producing the 400 f/4 DO. My Nikon 500PF is awesome (and the main reason I moved over from Canon). If Canon is able to make some good DO lenses for R mount (and Nikon good PF lenses for Z mount) I think there would be a strong market for them.

photobunny

MrFotoFool said:

I always wondered why Canon never did more with D.O. after producing the 400 f/4 DO. My Nikon 500PF is awesome (and the main reason I moved over from Canon). If Canon is able to make some good DO lenses for R mount (and Nikon good PF lenses for Z mount) I think there would be a strong market for them.

The first 400 DO is really a bit rubbish, it is washed out looking. The 400 DO II is a cracker though and now very popular with Canon wildlife shooters. I think it took a while to get it right, the mark II lens has non of the drawbacks of the mark I suggesting they needed time to crack the formula now and have it. Those new 600 and 800 f/11 are DO lenses too.

The 500mm f/5.6 PF from Nikon had me worried, but it seems Nikon held of releasing that tech until it was cracked.

PF and DO are going to be things in lens design that Nikon and Canon are way ahead off. If that 600 f/4.0 DO gets out on RF it is going to be quite different to the existing on and the Sony. Same if the Nikon 600 f/4.0 is a PF lens. There are drawbacks, but you have a little fat lens you can hand hold, or as it seems, Canon is rumoured to push out a 1200mm f/8 L DO so we are using DO/PF to get out lenses what would be impossible before.

snakebunk

I have the 300/4 pf and it is a fantastically handy complement to my Sigma 500/4. With the converter I cover 300, 500 and 700 mm, wich is perfect for most bird hides.

But, unfortunatley I don't think the 300/4 delivers the same image quality as the 500/4. Especially I don't get sharp images when shooting though the mirror glass that is used on many professional bird hides (at least in Europe).

So I want to like pf and do, but to my experience it doesn't deliver the same image quality as a classic prime lens. What is your experience?

The 1200/8 from Canon is indeed interesting. You can get to 1200/8 with a 600/4 and a converter, but the question is how you get the best image resolution.

photobunny

snakebunk said:

The 1200/8 from Canon is indeed interesting. You can get to 1200/8 with a 600/4 and a converter, but the question is how you get the best image resolution.

It is also a 1600mm f/11 and 2400 f/16 that can AF now. I can't imagine that'll be super sharp but the 800mm f/11 with the 2x converter produces results that hold up better than a phone camera.