Nikon to announce a 600mm f/5.6 PF lens soon

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by rick_reno, Apr 16, 2018.

  1. rick_reno

    rick_reno

    Dec 3, 2012
    N Idaho
  2. "significantly cheaper", how relative things are these days. Looks like my old and moldy 600 f4 AFS VR is going to have to make do for a VERY long time the ways things are going now.
     
  3. drr1531

    drr1531

    Jan 2, 2009
    Alaska
    Aside from the 300mm a series of long glass one stop below the big primes has always been sadly lacking from the Nikkor line. Maybe they'll follow the precedent of the 300 f4 PF being roughly half the cost 300 2.8 :) 
     
  4. Butlerkid

    Butlerkid Cafe Ambassador Moderator

    Apr 8, 2008
    Rutledge, Tennessee
    Karen
    I'll be sticking to my 500/f4. However, a few thoughts. I presume the optics, VR, etc will be a bit better than the current 600/f4. But still.......I wouldn't want to trade an f4 for an f5.6 to save weight.
     
  5. RoyC01

    RoyC01

    Jan 6, 2011
    SE USA
    Time will tell, however if we look at the comparison of the 300 f4 PF verses the 300 f2.8 G II an assumption that the resolving power of the f5.6 lens will be equal to or better than the f4 may not actually come to pass. I have only found one site that compares both 300 PF and 300 G II and that is LenScore. The f2.8 has a rating of 1320 where the PF has only 924.

    A 600mm f5.6 lens is intriguing and would deserve a look at when/if it appears, but I would not recommend anyone become an early adopter.
     
  6. I sure would. Comparing the 300/2.8 and 300/4 PF - the PF is less than 40% of the cost and less than 30% of the weight. That sure works for me.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. I would agree with Roy here, not sure if the new coming lens would be sharper than the 600mm F4 models. I have a Canon 400mm DO II (Canons name for Frensel is Diffractive Optics) and it is a very sharp lens but it is not sharper than the 600mm F4 IS II. The biggest issue I have seen is that the Fresnel component can add somewhat odd bokeh effects when you have for example branches in the foreground, not a big issue but I have seen it and try to avoid it when shooting.

    For me F5.6 would be a little limiting here in the dark Northwest, since it means we really cant use a TC14 on it up here in the dark Pacific North West, but it is still an exiting lens, but we haven't seen the price yet though, cheaper could still be very expensive....

     
  8. I'm down for a try...
    Made bank for years with the Canon 400 f5.6L shootin' BIF
    With the great Nikon sensors/AF 600mm in such a compact pkg
    has me lickin' my lips. If it's reasonably sharp wide open (200-500)
    this could be a game changer. Bring it! (y)
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. rick_reno

    rick_reno

    Dec 3, 2012
    N Idaho
    Roy, thanks for that mention of LenScore. I hadn't heard of them.
     
  10. It may be interesting and a great lens but it's all about cost in my mind. It's certainly going to be smaller and lighter than the 600 f/4e FL. Maybe not quite as sharp, but hopefully in the same league. That said, I have a 500/4e FL and I'll be sticking with that super sharp lens even though it will probably be heavier and obviously lacking the 600mm reach. But I can add a 1.4TC and get a pretty dang sharp 700/5.6. Now if I didn't have the 500e I might be tempted with a 600/5.6 depending on cost and performance. That said, I'm not all that enthralled with f/5.6...it's one big reason why I sold my 80-400 VRII and why I've not purchased the Nikon 200-500.
     
  11. Butlerkid

    Butlerkid Cafe Ambassador Moderator

    Apr 8, 2008
    Rutledge, Tennessee
    Karen
    I have, and love, the 300 PF. In fact I sold my 300/2.8. But the reason I sold it was that the 2.8 lens never got used because 1) the focal length was too short for my needs and 2) the lens was too big to carry around for casual use (i.e. non-wildlife/birds). The change from f2.8 to f4 was not that big of a deal for casual use yet the 75% reduction in weight meant that I could now take a 300mm prime and my 1.4 tele as a very light weight kit.

    The new 500 lens retains the f4 aperture and the reduction of weight was only about 20%. That 1.8 lb reduction has me lusting after the new 500 f4, but the banker in my hesitates to pay so much for the 20% reduction in weight.

    The change from f4 to f5.6 in the new 600mm seems like it would have a much bigger impact on DOF for a super tele used for birding and wildlife as opposed to the 300mm's change of f2.8 to f4 when used for casual photography. Will the weight reduction be 75%. Time will tell.
     
  12. Randy

    Randy

    May 11, 2006
    it feels like a lot more
    I couldn't HH the g and I can HH the e
     
  13. Randy

    Randy

    May 11, 2006
    the 500e is an amazing lens, the best I've ever used for HHing
     
  14. For 500/4's I agree. And I agree that it's much easier to HH than my 500/4G. It's still a beast but that extra weight savings is also noticeable when walking around. And I think it is optically better if that's possible....
     
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2018
  15. CAJames

    CAJames

    Sep 6, 2006
    Lompoc, CA
    600mm f/5.6 sounds just about perfect to me. We'll see how "significantly" cheaper it is.
     
  16. Peter Yonemori

    Peter Yonemori

    1
    Apr 20, 2018
    It will be my desired lens, so i will keep my 400mm 2.8 and get the 600mm f5.6 pf instead of trading for a 600mm f4.
     
  17. drr1531

    drr1531

    Jan 2, 2009
    Alaska
    Just out of curiosity I used LR to see how often I shoot wider aperture than f5.6. Less than 20 percent. And with the 500 f4 I shoot at f5.6 about 70 percent of the time. So the 5.6 is perfectly doable assuming it is sharp enough. I've been saving up(i.e. selling other gear) to upgrade to the 500 f4E. But if this one comes in at a reasonable price I may change that plan. Somehow I suspect Nikon regrets how low they priced the 200-500mm and won't make a similar mistake with this one.
     
  18. Butlerkid

    Butlerkid Cafe Ambassador Moderator

    Apr 8, 2008
    Rutledge, Tennessee
    Karen
    Shooting the 500/f4 @ f5.6 is stopping down one stop....which generally gives the best IQ. If that holds true for a f5.6 lens, you would need to shoot at f8. Just saying.....there's no free lunch.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. RoyC01

    RoyC01

    Jan 6, 2011
    SE USA
    Of note is that Nikon's only current prime f5.6 lens is at its sharpest @ f5.6.
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.