Nikon patent 400mm, 500mm and 600mm f/5.6 Phase Fresnel (PF) lenses (1 Viewer)

Some independent jpeg sample shots of the 500PF f5.6 on a D500, and D3X, from Optyczne, Poland - not sure if these are all handheld or not ....
https://translate.googleusercontent...700201&usg=ALkJrhhuDA0Kb-CLKqljZ8_x-1E0_Jkx1A



Chosun :gh:

Chosun Juan said:

Some independent jpeg sample shots of the 500PF f5.6 on a D500, and D3X, from Optyczne, Poland - not sure if these are all handheld or not ....
https://translate.googleusercontent...700201&usg=ALkJrhhuDA0Kb-CLKqljZ8_x-1E0_Jkx1A

Chosun :gh:

Click to expand...

Doesn't look awful, but not brilliant either. To me the files lack a bit of contrast and clarity. Might be heat haze, some shots are pretty long distance, I don't know, but it doesn't look quite like the prime-like crispness I'm used to from other primes. The strong AA-filter on the D3X might affect the result as well and it's only OOC JPG:s.

The 500mm PF does look a bit better than the 300/4 PF but considering the difference in MTF:s one might expect a bit more.

Hopefully Lenstip.com will make a full review of the 500 PF.

The shots from the Oly 300mm/4 pro or Leica Elmarit 200mm/2.8 looks more like how a prime should look to me, crisp, contrasty and clear.

https://www.lenstip.com/478.12-Lens...ital_300_mm_f_4.0_ED_IS_PRO_Sample_shots.html

https://www.lenstip.com/521.12-Lens...t_200_mm_f_2.8_POWER_O.I.S._Sample_shots.html

Vespobuteo said:

Doesn't look awful, but not brilliant either. To me the files lack a bit of contrast and clarity. Might be heat haze, some shots are pretty long distance, I don't know, but it doesn't look quite like the prime-like crispness I'm used to from other primes. The strong AA-filter on the D3X might affect the result as well and it's only OOC JPG:s.

The 500mm PF does look a bit better than the 300/4 PF but considering the difference in MTF:s one might expect a bit more.

Hopefully Lenstip.com will make a full review of the 500 PF.

The shots from the Oly 300mm/4 pro or Leica Elmarit 200mm/2.8 looks more like how a prime should look to me, crisp, contrasty and clear.

https://www.lenstip.com/478.12-Lens...ital_300_mm_f_4.0_ED_IS_PRO_Sample_shots.html

https://www.lenstip.com/521.12-Lens...t_200_mm_f_2.8_POWER_O.I.S._Sample_shots.html

Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree.
I went back and had a look at a few more from the 500PF f5.6, as well as from the Oly and Leica primes you linked. Surprisingly there seems to be a lot of variability in a lot of the shots. If I look at the best of each of the small number of photographs that I sampled from each lens, then they seem roughly in the ballpark.

Same goes for the comparable Canon 400 f4 DO II , some good, some ok, and some pretty crappy. Useful since this lens is known to have a pretty good reputation, and pretty nice MTF curves to back it up. https://www.lenstip.com/509.12-Lens_review-Canon_EF_400_mm_f_4_DO_IS_II_USM_Sample_shots.html

I'd be very interested to see some more rigorous tripod, mirror up, remote or timer release converted raws comparing:
500 ...... Nikon 200-500 with the 500 PF with 500 Sigma f4 with Nikon 500 f4 FL , and
600 ...... Tamron 150-600 G2 with the 600PF with Nikon 600 f4 FL

My guess is that the PF's may edge ahead of the (pro)sumer zooms, but at the expense of 3x the cost ..... wide open performance is going to be critical.



Chosun :gh:

Chosun Juan said:

Yeah, I agree.
I went back and had a look at a few more from the 500PF f5.6, as well as from the Oly and Leica primes you linked. Surprisingly there seems to be a lot of variability in a lot of the shots. If I look at the best of each of the small number of photographs that I sampled from each lens, then they seem roughly in the ballpark.

Same goes for the comparable Canon 400 f4 DO II , some good, some ok, and some pretty crappy. Useful since this lens is known to have a pretty good reputation, and pretty nice MTF curves to back it up. https://www.lenstip.com/509.12-Lens_review-Canon_EF_400_mm_f_4_DO_IS_II_USM_Sample_shots.html

I'd be very interested to see some more rigorous tripod, mirror up, remote or timer release converted raws comparing:
500 ...... Nikon 200-500 with the 500 PF with 500 Sigma f4 with Nikon 500 f4 FL , and
600 ...... Tamron 150-600 G2 with the 600PF with Nikon 600 f4 FL

My guess is that the PF's may edge ahead of the (pro)sumer zooms, but at the expense of 3x the cost ..... wide open performance is going to be critical.

Chosun :gh:

Click to expand...

Yes, the operator of the camera seems to have serious problems with getting the birds eye into focus. More rigorous tests are definitely needed. The flat surfaces should look better though.

Lenstip gave the 500mm PF their Editors Choice award. I've always liked Lenstip reviews. They are very thorough and consistent and they do not pull punches when the test results are less than impressive. I'll say it again: this 500mm PF looks like a hot lens for bird photographers and I'd be interested if I didn't already have a 500mm f/4 (I have the older 500mm f/4G VR which is 8.5 lbs!). I'll keep hoping for a 600mm f/5.6E PF, and not f/4 because I think a 600mm f/4E PF would cost at least the same as the current 600mm f/4, i.e., $12K+. I usually prefer to stop down 1 stop anyway.

Dave

Addendum: Actually the sample bird photos on that Lenstip review are not overly impressive, but I don't see any details as to whether a tripod was used or VR engaged, etc. In any case I expect noticeably better from my old 500mm f/4. Here is a jpeg 100% crop example of what I typically get with my 500 f/4 (D500 + 500mm f/4 on tripod with VR on, 1/1000s, f/8, ISO 800, flash, minimal editing).
Dave

It's a bit unfortunate that LensTip.com use a 10 year old camera having only 24MP on FF (and AA-filter) in their lab tests.
But in this case it seems that 24MP on FF is not limiting rather than the resolution of the lens.
I suspect that the lens might not be quite up to delivering 20MP on DX?
At least not for pixel peeping at 100%*.

*Looking at a 100% crop from a 24MP file on a 100-150 PPI computer screen from perhaps 30-40 cm distance, corresponds to a very large print size, but still, there are lenses that look sharp att 100% on screen.

I'm not ready to draw any firm conclusion that the lens is "soft" in comparison to the 500 f/4. I think we need to wait for more careful head-to-head comparisons. The example I posted from my 500 f/4 is not really a fair comparison... too many variables... But it occurred to me looking at the Lenstip examples of sparrows that I could share a crop of a sparrow at approximately the same relative scale, so I did. My guess is that the actual differences in image quality between the f/4 Nikon/Sigma vs. f/5.6 PF will be very minor, maybe only evident when pixel peeping. Let's wait and see.
Dave

Dave, Vespo, all,

I think it's very difficult to draw any conclusions about the sharpness of the 500 PF from the lenstip tests or sample shots which show wide variation in settings and in bodies used between lenses. A lot of the sample shots are taken at very low shutter speeds, so I would think we're not seeing all that the lens is capable of. Only one shot on the D500 was at 1/2500 sec.

If you compare their image resolution tests against such highly regarded lenses as the Canon 400 f4 DO II, and the 300 f2.8 L IS II, then we can see that at f5.6 and f8 they are all very similar results for the centre of the frame. ie. in that 40 - 46lpmm range. When TC's are added to these two, then the 500 PF seems good at comparable focal lengths.

I think the only conclusion we can firmly draw from this review is that the IQ of the 500PF rapidly drops off at f11 and above due to diffraction effects. Still, it performs well at and between wide open and at f8 - probably the most used aperture range in practice.

I will reserve judgement on this particular lens - but beyond being an indicator of what we can expect with the 600 PF it doesn't interest me. That's the one that I'm waiting on. Though if Nikon decides to put a ridiculous price hike on the 600 and send it over $4000, or not bring it in at 1.8kg or less, or not clearly best the Nikon 200-500 and Tamron 150-600 G2's IQ, then that may see my interest in that one evaporate too!



Chosun :gh:

"Lance B" on dpreview posted some shots including a few birds, in this thread:
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4319647

Dave

opticoholic said:

"Lance B" on dpreview posted some shots including a few birds, in this thread:
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4319647

Dave

Click to expand...

Nice find Dave! The large versions of those shots certainly inspire more confidence (particularly the perigrines) - they are more in line with what you would expect after looking at the 500PF's quite good MTF charts ........ I think there might be hope yet o

It's up to Nikon now to do the right thing (for me) with the 600 ..... and then get cracking on a 600 f4 PF !!!! :king:




Chosun :gh:

Yeah,
I will keep watching for more cumulative evidence/examples, but I'm expecting this 500 PF lens to produce very nice results, especially in bright direct light. No, maybe not quite as good as the faster non-PF $10-12K lenses, but pretty close in good light. I'm with you on everything you said about hoping for a 600 PF, except I would prefer a little slower smaller f/5.6 maximum aperture because as I said, it would be more affordable for me... But even if a 600 f/5.6 PF does appear, there's a good chance I will just stick with my 500 f/4 G for a year or two and watch and see what develops in the native mirrorless options. I could imagine myself someday switching to exclusively using Olympus/micro-4/3 for my bird photography, if/when they finally improve mirrorless C-AF/tracking up to D500 level.
Dave

opticoholic said:

"Lance B" on dpreview posted some shots including a few birds, in this thread:
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4319647

Dave

Click to expand...

Looks good but the photos are downscaled quite a lot. Nothing wrong with the bokeh though.

Hopefully Steve Perry will do a review of the 500 PF on his youtube-channel and maybe a shootout with the faster primes.

Lens is not yet in any stores around here and they knew nothing on when it would arrive so I suspect it might take some time before I can get my hands on it.

Chosun Juan said:

Dave, Vespo, all,

I think it's very difficult to draw any conclusions about the sharpness of the 500 PF from the lenstip tests or sample shots which show wide variation in settings and in bodies used between lenses. A lot of the sample shots are taken at very low shutter speeds, so I would think we're not seeing all that the lens is capable of. Only one shot on the D500 was at 1/2500 sec.

If you compare their image resolution tests against such highly regarded lenses as the Canon 400 f4 DO II, and the 300 f2.8 L IS II, then we can see that at f5.6 and f8 they are all very similar results for the centre of the frame. ie. in that 40 - 46lpmm range. When TC's are added to these two, then the 500 PF seems good at comparable focal lengths.

Chosun :gh:

Click to expand...

The Nikon's MTF charts and also the LensTip MTF50 (perceived sharpness test) on 24MP FF seem ok, but...

I assume that the f5.6 aperture will be a limit for maximal resolution here, a f2.8 or f4 will always be able to deliver more resolution. And in this case the lens rather then camera, might be the limit when reaching 45MP (or 20MP on DX).

I just wonder if there will be much point using D850 or D500 on this lens considering image sharpness and resolution. My feeling is that using a D750 in 1.5x crop mode (10MP) might look as sharp as D500's 20MP scaled down to 10MP.

Another discussion of the Lenstip review and the somewhat unimpressive samples here:
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4319424

I read this because I have the Olympus 300 f/4, which I like a lot; even with the 1.4X teleconverter I think it often matches the image quality from my much heavier Nikon 500 f/4 without any teleconverter. In-camera processing and sharpening is something to keep in mind. Olympus is pretty aggressive with sharpening, but even so I sometimes have trouble making the images from the larger Nikon lens look as good. In any case, regarding the Lenstip samples, someone in the thread above found this from the Lenstip FAQ page:


Dave

Vespobuteo said:

The Nikon's MTF charts and also the LensTip MTF50 (perceived sharpness test) on 24MP FF seem ok, but...

I assume that the f5.6 aperture will be a limit for maximal resolution here, a f2.8 or f4 will always be able to deliver more resolution. And in this case the lens rather then camera, might be the limit when reaching 45MP (or 20MP on DX).

I just wonder if there will be much point using D850 or D500 on this lens considering image sharpness and resolution. My feeling is that using a D750 in 1.5x crop mode (10MP) might look as sharp as D500's 20MP scaled down to 10MP.

Click to expand...

Lens resolution capability is of course the $64,000 question :brains:

We already have ~50MP full frame cameras - Canon 5DS R, Nikon D850, and now Z7, along with the Sony a7R III ...... and we know higher resolution (~70-80MP, and maybe up to 100MP or so soon after) cameras are on the way (probably for the 2020 Tokyo Olympics) from Nikon, Sony, and Canon. We don't know what Pentax have planned and whether they will continue to mix it up with the big boys, and then there's Panasonic too - I imagine they will be taking it right to Sony and won't be taking a backwards step on resolution.

~50MP corresponds roughly to an APS-C resolution of ~20-24MP, but about 4 years ago we already had the amazing 28MP Samsung NX-1. At say ~70MP FF , we will be up over 30MP APS-C .....

We already have two diffractive optics lenses to suit these hi res FF cameras - the Canon 400 f4 DO ISII , and the Nikon 300 f4 PF. I haven't heard of any resolution brick walls for these diffractive lenses on these ~ 50MP cameras, even with 1.4xTC's attached - taking them out to f5.6.

This new Nikon 500 f5.6 PF certainly is a 'focused' wee-beastie ..... it seems that it will spend all it's time in practice living in the rather narrow f5.6 - f6.3 - f7.1 - f8 aperture range of peak IQ. A rather thin margin. Given it's sharpness wide open, and the fact that it will be mostly used by birders/ distant wildlife photographers, this shouldn't be a problem. I don't know if you would ever run into depth of field limitations (IQ drop) on say oblique shots of large animals like bull elephants etc.

The manufacturers have known that higher resolution sensors have been coming for a while now .... I don't think it's so much the sensor technology, design, and manufacture that holds them back, but rather the camera's central processors, architecture, and storage medium capacities and speeds, as well as things like heat dissipation.

You would think that they have the corresponding resolution parameters of their lenses up to standard to suit and future proofed - certainly the new S series of Nikon lenses for the Z mount mirrorless cameras have been designed with that capacity, and I would bet Canon's MkIII's too. Being a 2018 released design that's not exactly in the bargain basement, you would hope that the PF range of lenses has been designed to cope with these upcoming hi res cameras too .....

Just to be on the safe(r) side though - Nikon had better get that super secret 600mm f4 PF out




Chosun :gh:

opticoholic said:

Another discussion of the Lenstip review and the somewhat unimpressive samples here:
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4319424

I read this because I have the Olympus 300 f/4, which I like a lot; even with the 1.4X teleconverter I think it often matches the image quality from my much heavier Nikon 500 f/4 without any teleconverter. In-camera processing and sharpening is something to keep in mind. Olympus is pretty aggressive with sharpening, but even so I sometimes have trouble making the images from the larger Nikon lens look as good. In any case, regarding the Lenstip samples, someone in the thread above found this from the Lenstip FAQ page:

https://www.lenstip.com/126.1-article-Frequently_asked_questions.html#5

"It is also worth noticing that all sample photos are taken with the noise reduction switched off and sharpening set on minimum or low, depending on a given camera, in order to make the comparison between them easier. As most of users don’t set the sharpening so low in their cameras our sample shots might seem weak to them."​

Dave

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that the folks on that thread got their wires crossed. Lenstip was actually saying that the 500 PF was comparable in IQ to the old 300 f4 REFRACTIVE design, and not the 300 f4 PF as the folks on that thread interpreted it.

I'm not surprised! Everybody knows that right here on BF is the only source of truly accurate information :-O



Chosun :gh:

I tend to get way too wrapped up in getting the maximum resolution. I need to remind myself that good photography is about so much more, first and foremost (for me) simply getting out with the gear you have and enjoying the moment. As a case in point, someone just shared this image with me today, which will surely go viral. It was taken through the window glass of a commercial airliner!

https://mymodernmet.com/jon-carmichael-total-eclipse-photo/

Dave

Chosun Juan said:

Nikon have already hit the brick wall, that's why they now have the Z-mount.

The manufacturers have known that higher resolution sensors have been coming for a while now .... I don't think it's so much the sensor technology, design, and manufacture that holds them back, but rather the camera's central processors, architecture, and storage medium capacities and speeds, as well as things like heat dissipation.

You would think that they have the corresponding resolution parameters of their lenses up to standard to suit and future proofed - certainly the new S series of Nikon lenses for the Z mount mirrorless cameras have been designed with that capacity, and I would bet Canon's MkIII's too. Being a 2018 released design that's not exactly in the bargain basement, you would hope that the PF range of lenses has been designed to cope with these upcoming hi res cameras too .....

Just to be on the safe(r) side though - Nikon had better get that super secret 600mm f4 PF out

Chosun :gh:

Click to expand...

In that case they should perform as the Zeiss Otus on D3X, but they don't. They actually underperform on the D3X that is only 24MP on FF. And I really don't see how it could be any better on D850.

The 300/4 PF is not close to the 300/2.8 VR in performance.
Even the 300/4 AF-S has less aberrations stopped down a bit.
(do mouse-over on the test image, and the little arrow points left/right on the current lens):

https://www.the-digital-picture.com...meraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

The PF-lenses is a compromise between weight/size and optical performance. If you want to go lightweight, you will pay with some image quality.

But it's not only about lens design. Manufacturing is as important. Hopefully the 500mm PF will have less initial QC issues than the 300mm PF.

Here is a test of the 300mm/4 PF on D800E (36MP), it's not what I would call a sharp lens. It's quite soft actually.

https://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/nikon/300mm-f4e-pf-ed-vr-af-s-nikkor/blur/nikon-d800e/

A lens that is razor sharp is one of Nikons later designs, the 105mm/1.4E ED, and it might be one of the sharpest they have. But note that you have to stop down to f5.6. (On Z-mount that will probably not be needed.)

https://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/nikon/105mm-f1.4e-ed-af-s-nikkor/blur/nikon-d800e/

opticoholic said:

I tend to get way too wrapped up in getting the maximum resolution. I need to remind myself that good photography is about so much more, first and foremost (for me) simply getting out with the gear you have and enjoying the moment. As a case in point, someone just shared this image with me today, which will surely go viral. It was taken through the window glass of a commercial airliner!

https://mymodernmet.com/jon-carmichael-total-eclipse-photo/

Dave

Click to expand...

Good point!

Personally, I have no problem using older gear that some might rate as inferior or outdated. A lot of great photos were taken with a lot less than 45MP. To me dynamic range and ISO performance is a lot more important than the megapixel count when shooting wildlife.

On the other hand, if Nikon want us to pay premium for the latest and greatest? gear, they better see to that the quality and IQ correlate to the price and published MTF curves.