Jump to content
crowecg

New Nikon Lenses

Recommended Posts

Nikkor 24mm f/1.8G ED, 24-70mm f/2.8E ED VR and 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR

Interestingly a couple of E version lenses.

200-500 looks interesting as it is priced significantly lower than the 80-400.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nikon is going to sell a lot of the 200-500/5.6. It's priced 25% lower than the 300/4 PF VR in Norway. Probably no need to long for a 400/5.6 anymore for the nikonista. Combine the D7200 and the 200-500/5.6...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 200-500 f/5.6 is about the same price as the Sigma 150-600 f/5-6.3 Sport in Norway.

The Nikon is smaller, a lot lighter and has a fixed max aperture. The Sigma is built like a nuclear submarine and very sharp for the price.

 

Can't wait to see reviews comparing them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, I think they have been hearing how those Tamron and Sigma 150-600mm lenses have been selling like hotcakes and decided to plug the hole. Good to hear its a fixed aperture lens at an affordable price. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being a bit old school myself I also usually consider immediately that a lens will perform at its best stopped down two stops or more, and indeed until very recently this was definitely the case, where someone buying an f/1.4 lens in the hope of using that f/1.4 opening for practical use was in reality kidding themselves (the 105/2.5 AI-s Nikkor was possibly the stand-out exception to this in non-specialist lenses, indeed hugely expensive lenses like the 50/1.2 Noct Nikkor had to be specially designed to perform best wide-open and stopped-down performance suffered as a result).

 

With the latest advancements in lens design, glass and coating technology I'm finding that this old hard and fast rule is now being whittled away. My latest purchase of the Fujinon 90/2 has demonstrated this well, only the slightest loss of contrast wide-open being experienced from perfect performance - there is none of the usually expected sharpness falloff or vignetting in the corners that were usually the main reason to stop a lens down in use, nor indeed is there the coma and chromatic aberrations that usually appeared in the faster lenses such as the older 50/1.2  & 85/1.4 group. The Fujinon 50/1.2 is equally free of defect when used wide open. I'm assuming that other manufacturers are similarly producing lenses that perform as well wide-open these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Sigma 150-600 Sport performs best at f/8, but at f/6.3 it is very close and about the same as f/11.

 

MTF measurements on Lenstip.com: http://www.lenstip.com/417.4-Lens_review-Sigma_S_150-600_mm_f_5-6.3_DG_OS_HSM_Image_resolution.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But an extreme telephoto Zoom lens used wide-open at greatest FL?

 

And, especially, a consumer-grade one (which i am assuming to be its target market)?

I know that the super tele primes are required to be useable wide open, but I gather that this is not the common case for the super tele zooms?  Oh well...there's no free lunch, is there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not saying that it's so for all lenses, just that new lenses seem to perform a heck of a lot better wide open than did their predecessors.

 

I wouldn't write off a tele lens that has a max aperture of only f/5.6 until people have had a good go at using it and we see some images. Such a lens may well be equivalent in practical use to older lenses a stop or two faster that simply had to be stopped down to get the image quality up to maximum.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With three ED elements and a total of twenty elements, the Nikon 200-500/5.6 should be fairly well corrected. The zoom range is not extreme, as it's just 2.5x. Also Nikon has kept a modest max aperture at f/5.6.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading some of the product descriptions, the E aperture is being pushed as a benefit for continuous high speed shooting. Is this a sign of something new in terms of bodies? There are rumours of a D5 with 15 fps, or could it be preparing the way for F mount mirrorless?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always believed the lenses were designed (very) well for their prices.  The biggest problem is the quality control.  I've had unfortunate experiences with Nikon lenses bought new over the years.

 

The new 200-500 should perform admirably, considering that the zoom range is modest than Tamron and Sigma forerunners, IF, only IF, they would be manufactured under proper QC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always believed the lenses were designed (very) well for their prices.  The biggest problem is the quality control.  I've had unfortunate experiences with Nikon lenses bought new over the years.

 

The new 200-500 should perform admirably, considering that the zoom range is modest than Tamron and Sigma forerunners, IF, only IF, they would be manufactured under proper QC.

 

Given the price point I think the only assurance you can have is that it will be made in Asia, not Japan. That may be an issue for QC. I understand that all Sigmas are now made in Japan which might explain their rise to prominence in many photographers minds. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given the price point I think the only assurance you can have is that it will be made in Asia, not Japan. That may be an issue for QC. I understand that all Sigmas are now made in Japan which might explain their rise to prominence in many photographers minds. 

 

That's for sure, but QC has "basically" nothing to do with the origin of the product.  Also, the design isn't just about the elimination of various aberrations but also about the whole construction that is easier to assemble with the tightest possible tolerances.  The designs of many old lenses (and the camera bodies) were so tricky that only a handful of sophisticated craftsman could assemble.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

f/5.6 is much too slow for a long FL telephoto because at full-length it is highly likely that you will need to stop-down by at least one full stop and maybe even two.

 

For action shots and the need for high S/S under poor lighting (thinking Sports, BIFs and wild life) which is why most people are using a 400-500 mm lens, I cannot imagine that this lens will cut it.

Fully agree. I bought a mint boxed used 200-400/4G VR2 a couple weeks ago and if the 200-500 had been available I still would have taken the 200-400. I replaced the Nikon foot with this one

http://kiwifotos.com/show_product.php?id=414&id1=&id2=&id3

 

I have the same arca compatible foot on my 300/2.8G VR as well - designed to support 500/4G so it is sturdy enough. Well made, hard anodized, good price/quality ratio. I have an arca foot (KF-78) from the same supplier on my 70-200/2.8G VR. No sign of wear or tear on any of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Nikon 500 f4 costs £5,700.  

 

The 200-400 costs £4,600.

 

The 200-500 costs £1,100.

 

It will, rightly, be a great success.  The price is remarkable.

 

It brings 500 mm within the reach of people whose budget is limited.  F5.6 is fine for very many situations.

 

Of course, this assumes that it will be good optically.  But I would be amazed if it is not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The train to E-Lenses continues, but there are still G-type releases. A 24/1,8 is not too tempting currently, as well as replacing the 24-70 just because VR is added (maybe if 50fps with the D5 require an E lens). The most interesting ist the 200-500 mm lens though (i have always wished for an f/4 high-end now there is a f/5,6 with a different approach).
Difficult to say whether that might be an interesting lens. We will see how the quality is and whether the 80-400 is endangered to be cannibalised in sells due to the significantly lower price.
Speed won't be that much of issue - I am using the 70-300 stopped down to 11 mostly due to quality reasons. It wont reach the big glass primes nor the 200-400 in quality and a high speed you can work with at maximum aperture, but sometimes a compact lightweight lens for travelling and hiking is needed, the 70-300 is good for that but keeps the wish for more range, the 80-400 is expensive and the newly announced probably too heavy to make enough difference to make sense beside a 200-400 as a more compact and lightweight alternative with still some decent quality

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if the 200-500 is stopped down to f/8 it should be capable of some great photos.  Today's cameras perform well at high ISO making fast shutter speeds possible for sports and birds.  It is only one stop slower than the pricey 500 f/4.  Nikon will sell a boatload of these, and I bet it blows the Sigma away.  Portability opens some great possibilities.

 

My experience with the 70-300VR is there isn't enough improvement from f/8 to f/11 to make it worth it.  Try to avoid using this lens at settings longer than 270mm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed Ann
But sometimes compromises are needed.

BTW. The 200-500/5,6 hopefully will have good IQ but there will be limits. Even the 200-400/4 s is limited in mid to long range IQ, but I think most users will agree that it is a concept that makes sense

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At a quarter of the 200-400, the 200-500 will find many aspiring wildlife/bird photographers.  That said, I agree with Ann that there will be significant compromises.  High ISO performance on the body will be a requirement and the quality of the focus tracking will also be tested.  

 

Maybe Nikon will surprise us.  I would be definitely interested to try it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome to the FZ site Timothy. I hope  that you enjoy what the site has to offer.

 

 

At a quarter of the 200-400, the 200-500 will find many aspiring wildlife/bird photographers.  That said, I agree with Ann that there will be significant compromises.  High ISO performance on the body will be a requirement and the quality of the focus tracking will also be tested.  

 

Maybe Nikon will surprise us.  I would be definitely interested to try it out.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome again, Timothy. :) 

 

Yes, I think that this will probably be a good lens for Nikon users who can't afford the 200-400. I was quite happy with the 70-300mm VR when I had that one. It's also a bit faster than the Sigma and Tamron alternatives so should make a few people happy in that regard. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After so many updates and new entries I feel Nikon should care about their Micro Nikkor Lineup

The 60G is a great winner a piece of must have glass

I like to see a 105 and 200 Micro in the same quality range. Must not be VR even.

How can it be that all of us still use 30 year old designs because current offerings are not up to the task?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Starting 17 September Nikon will sell the lens for 1599€....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After so many updates and new entries I feel Nikon should care about their Micro Nikkor Lineup

The 60G is a great winner a piece of must have glass

I like to see a 105 and 200 Micro in the same quality range. Must not be VR even.

How can it be that all of us still use 30 year old designs because current offerings are not up to the task?

 

I don't agree with that statement at all. I had many old Nikkor lenses and they were not up to the standard of their modern equivalent. I had the 105/VR and it was a very good lens. I only sold it because I had the Sigma 105/OS which I found slightly better. Now I have the 45mm Panasonic/Leica Macro Elmarit for micro four thirds and it is a wonderful lens. In the future I might get the Olympus 60mm. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't agree with that statement at all. I had many old Nikkor lenses and they were not up to the standard of their modern equivalent. I had the 105/VR and it was a very good lens. I only sold it because I had the Sigma 105/OS which I found slightly better. Now I have the 45mm Panasonic/Leica Macro Elmarit for micro four thirds and it is a wonderful lens. In the future I might get the Olympus 60mm. 

 

Hmmm - I'll differ here - I sold my 105/2.8 VR for a much better lens - the 105/2.8 AI-s, which although was a 1:2 Micro on its own, was etched with distance and magnification figures between 1:2 and 1:1 when fitted with the specifically designed PN-11 extension tube.

 

It was far better to manually focus than the AF-S VR, (of course MF was the only option with the AI-s, and as such it got the superb Nikon MF helicoid), but then I really can't think of many reasons why someone who is serious about macro photography would deliberately try to use AF anyway. Particularly at the closest magnifications MF is the only thing to be using, and the AF-S manual focus ring is an absolute dog to use.

 

Equally the inclusion of VR in the 105/AF-s made no sense when Nikon issued the directive to avoid using VR when focussing in the macro range. Totally silly addition of useless bulk and weight.

 

I think Nikon tried to kill two birds with that 105/2.8 AF-S - combining both the previous 105/2.8 Micro with the superb 105/2.5 short tele and pretending that the new lens was as good as both those lenses put together. In the end I had the two AI-s lenses in use and not that hybrid 105/2.8 VR AF-S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

By visiting this website you are agreeing to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy & Guidelines.