New Nikon Lenses - 24-70 2.8 VR, 24 1.8 and 200-500 5.6

[Lance B]

Just remember, these are MTF's of the lenses wide open. Things will look different stopped down, hopefully with better MTF's.

Regardless, the 200-500 look impressive MTF's, just the same.

[arthurking83]

Just remember, these are MTF's of the lenses wide open. Things will look different stopped down, hopefully with better MTF's.

Regardless, the 200-500 look impressive MTF's, just the same.

Agreed!

but the key point is that the 200-500 will, for all intents and purposes, produce almost indistinguishable images from those out of the 200-400.
And this is where Nikon's issue will have to be resolved.

The 200-500 will almost certainly produce even better MTF results at 400mm(as most zoom lenses produce their best resolution figures in the lower to middle focal ranges).

Take into account that the 200-400 with a 1.4x TC will give 560mm, and the inevitable slight drop in MTF values that go with that ...

I still think that the 200-500 is a bit of a headache for Nikon with respect to future sales of the 200-400 .. until it's updated of course!

[Lance B]

You make some valid points. However, the 200-400 f4 will be revamped like all the other super tele lenses in Nikon's line-up and have Fluorite Glass, probably be sharper and have lighter construction and thus be a much more desirable lens in the new guise. The thing is, the 200-400 is an f4 lens which is a distinct advantage over the 200-500 which is an f5.6 lens and when you consider you can add the 1.4x TCIII to the 200-400 and get to a 560mm f5.6. Not only that, I do believe that Nikon will have to follow Canon's lead and have a 1.4x TC incorporated into the lens. There is more to a lens than just sharpness as well, bokeh and overall IQ do play a large part in lens decision for many people and something that I also value and also notice is an advantage with many of the exotics. Not to mention weather sealing, build quality and robustness.

Yes, the 200-500 will be a very well received lens, but there will still be a place for the 200-400 especially with the update that will come along.

[arthurking83]

Agree with everything you say Lance, have no doubt there, but Nikon can't really afford to follow Canon.

eg. Nikon's 14-24 back in 2007/08.
They had to take the lead there, they did so and the payoff was huge for them.
How many Canon devotees lusted over that lens .. same with the 200-400/4 now. Back before that lens many Canon shooters lusted after that lens too.

Nikon(being a much smaller company can't really afford to follow Canon) .. there isn't enough money in such a business case for them.

Thom Hogan talks about this incessantly, and I think he's right!
At the current rate of decay, and technological advancements .. Nikon need to take the lead, or suffer in the future.

If I were a Nikon head honcho with any capacity to make a decision regarding the 200-400, it's new direction would have to be along the lines of PF lenses to make it smaller and lighter and natively 500 or 560mm and still at f/4. Doesn't have to achieve 500/4 levels of IQ, but close enough would be good. Fluorite lenses for sure, but PF to make it smaller lighter(aka 300/4) .. and then charge basically whatever you want.

[Lance B]

You are correct that Nikon is a much smaller company that Canon. Can they afford to follow? Nikon can't always be innovative all the time with new lenses no matter how much they may want to be as there are just so many innovations you can make with current technology and manufacturing abilities. I also really don't think you can call Nikon making lenses "following" Canon, they are just bread and butter lenses, think 300 f2.8, 400 f2.8, 500 f4, 600 f4, 24-70 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8 etc - they all make them. The fact is Nikon made the 200-400 f4 first and I think it will be made again, probably with the internal 1.4x TC. I don't think PF is necessarily the answer either - can they make it in a zoom, no one has yet - or they would have made it with the new 24-70 f2.8 and as good as the 300 f4PF is I don't think it is a step forward IQ-wise.

Anyway, it is all just speculation. We really don't know what's up Nikon's sleeve, what their abilities are both technoligically and manufacturing-wise and what their research shows.

[arthurking83]

..... I don't think PF is necessarily the answer either - can they make it in a zoom, no one has yet - ......

Canon has with the 70-300 DO lens.

I don't know how good it is by comparison to a well made 70-300 non diffractive lens tho.(ie. no personal experience, but talk of it is positive).

I suppose the gestation period for the Nikon 24-70 was started at about the time that Tamron released the 24-70VC lens(so Nikon reacted quickly to counter that effort)
If we assume that a lens' engineering phase is about 2 years or so, then it makes sense that they wouldn't attempt a PF model of the 24-70 without some sort of feedback via another product first.

ie. the 300/4 PF wasn't one of Nikon's recent releases without issues.
Hence, Nikon were smart not to push such boundaries on another professional product.

I suppose now that the 300/4 PF is a well known and used product Nikon would use that feedback(user, manufacturing and marketing feedback) to further advance their future lens releases.

[Cage]

I don't know whether my thoughts are swayed by personal desire but I firmly believe that there would be quite a strong demand for a sub $2000 500mm f5.6 semi-pro prime.

I'm reckon that 90% of the buyers of the various 150-600mm's are buying them to use at the longer end (and they seem to run out of puff at around 500mm anyway) as most users will already have the 200mm-400mm range covered with their other lens. If you surveyed potential 200mm-500mm buyers I'm bloody sure that most, if not all, are more attracted to the long end than the short end.

[arthurking83]

I reckon you're on the money Kev.

a smaller lighter weight long lens is something many people seem to desire(if you go by the forums).

The weird part of this 200-500 lens too is, if they can do it at about $2k, then it makes sense that they could do a 500/5.6 prime at say $1500 or even less.

... anyhow, as they say it's all speculation. While it's fun to do, it never results into any meaningful reality
(unless you're a Sigma fanboi )

[glennb]

I don't know whether my thoughts are swayed by personal desire but I firmly believe that there would be quite a strong demand for a sub $2000 500mm f5.6 semi-pro prime.

I'm reckon that 90% of the buyers of the various 150-600mm's are buying them to use at the longer end (and they seem to run out of puff at around 500mm anyway) as most users will already have the 200mm-400mm range covered with their other lens. If you surveyed potential 200mm-500mm buyers I'm bloody sure that most, if not all, are more attracted to the long end than the short end.

I agree! Im not after a lens with a massive zoom range that's sacrificing sharpness/contrast/resolution. I would be very keen for a prime 400mm or 500mm f5.6 at a affordable price, $2kish. ATM I like the new Nikon 300mm f4 but is probably a touch short for me so Im thinking to add a 1.4 TC to it. But it then becomes about 1K+ more than what I want to spend and a drop in image quality. So It could be this lens (200-500) if it does well in tests or just keep waiting for a lens that suits my needs in my price range. Notice one price, aus stock of $1800 for the new Nikon 200-500mm

[Cage]

Glen, I have the Nikon 300mm f4 (pre PF) and my 1.4 T/C lives on it.

You would have to do some really, really serious pixel peeping to see any degradation with the combo.

I don't have any intention of getting rid of it any time soon.

[glennb]

Glen, I have the Nikon 300mm f4 (pre PF) and my 1.4 T/C lives on it.

You would have to do some really, really serious pixel peeping to see any degradation with the combo.

I don't have any intention of getting rid of it any time soon.

Got all excited and then I noticed no VR, it does look like a very good lens though.

[cupic]

I have had reservation on the latest 200-500mm f/5.6 but as the price for an Australian retailer @ 1696 I think it night be time to buy
While no real world reviews have emerged would the Mtf's ( Even though I don't know how to read them )be enough or wait for more reviews to surface


cheers

[Lance B]

As I stated previously, the MTF's shown are wide open. However, they are quite impressive MTf's just the same, especially for a consumer type zoom. They will only improve when stopped down. What is in it's favour is that it is only a 2.5x zoom and it should be easy enough to design and manufacture and therefore should be capable of very good results.

[arthurking83]

The only thing that will hurt this lens in terms of IQ will be sample variation.

Nikon don't seem to have a very good grasp of the manufacturing processes required to produce consistently good products across the production run.(have a read of lensrental's recent blogs )

For the real world tho .. the thing to ask yourself is how fussy are you .. really.
I'm not a perfectionist, so while the MTF graphs looks good .. and knowing that these are only theoretical (or best case) scenarios .. even if the MTF graphs were 10-15% lower .. I'd still consider this lens as an option .. even compared to the Sigma 150-600 Sport(which would be my preference).

My reservation with it is simply one of Nikon's recent quality issues.
* the new 24-70/2.8 VR has been delayed for release .. due to an issue with the lens(Nikon obviously won't say what)
* 300PF
* countless recent cameras have had to be recalled for fixing something too!

Nikon are having massive major quality control issues .. which from my perspective is sad to see!
If it's new and it's Nikon .. the best way forward is to wait .. which in itself is an issue, because if everyone did that .. the issues that the product may have won't surface as quickly as they otherwise would.
If Nikon's customer care program wasn't so blatantly self serving .. I don't think this would be a problem.
But going on their recent track record on product issues, they procrastinate for far too long.

[Sar NOP]

The announcement of the new 200-500/5.6 VR (with a very "low" price tag) is a good news for the 200-400/4: Nikon will certainly upgrade the current pros zoom 200-400/4 to a higher level (FL glass, weight reduction, built-in TC, etc).

[cupic]

Anyone seen a post with the 200-500mm @ 500mm
Just want to see the lens extended to 500mm'

[cupic]

Just 75mm extra when fully extended

[MattNQ]

Nikon Rumors have posted a link to a Swedish review with sample images.
It didn't translate well.....if you work out what "With the new AF-S 200-500 / 5,6g ED VR Nikon shows where furniture should go" means, let me know

https://translate.google.com/transla...0vr&edit-text=

Also a couple more below. Is is just me or has Nikon really restricted the number of lenses sent out for review?
I'd have thought they'd be wanting to be hitting the Sigma 160-500 sport with a bit of pre-sales momentum.

This one has some better test images
http://foto-info.si/test-nikon-af-s-...m-f5-6e-ed-vr/

https://translate.google.com/transla...0mm-f5-6-vr%2F

[Cage]

Pretty good reviews Matt. Some of the pics look very promising.

It's now on top of my 'Lens Lust List".

[arthurking83]

Nikon Rumors have posted a link to a Swedish review with sample images.
It didn't translate well.....if you work out what "With the new AF-S 200-500 / 5,6g ED VR Nikon shows where furniture should go" means, let me know .....

While I can't explain exactly what they're trying to express with that comment .. but considering that it is a SWEDISH! site .. and Sweden's predominant export is IKEA .. well it makes sense that most things that make sense to the Swedes will have some relevance to furniture!