New Nikon 300mm f/4 - with DO-like optics?

[yorgasor]

I'm just now dipping my toes on the Nikon side of things to see how the other side lives (previously I've used old manual focus AIS lenses on my canon bodies, but now I'm experimenting with a nikon body & AF lenses) . I just ordered the previous 300mm f/4 lens the day before this announcement. From what I've read so far about this new lens though, I don't feel bad for not waiting.

 

[Harv]

Nikon not only wants it's customers to pay $2,000 U.S. for this new 300 f/4 lens, but to then cough up an additional $224 for the tripod ring.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Nikon not only wants it's customers to pay $2,000 U.S. for this new 300 f/4 lens, but to then cough up an additional $224 for the tripod ring.

So they're copying Canon's 70-300L, too.

 

[Harv]

Nikon not only wants it's customers to pay $2,000 U.S. for this new 300 f/4 lens, but to then cough up an additional $224 for the tripod ring.

So they're copying Canon's 70-300L, too.

Unfortunately. For a lens in this price bracket, the ring should be included, even if the price was $30 or $40 higher which is all it should be whether Canon or Nikon. It's when they sell it as an accessory that the price goes through the roof. That practice sux.

 

[Maiaibing]

Nikon not only wants it's customers to pay $2,000 U.S. for this new 300 f/4 lens, but to then cough up an additional $224 for the tripod ring.

So they're copying Canon's 70-300L, too.

Bad sign of things to come. Esspecially when you know how extremely bad the overall economy of selling parts on the side is (except for possible profits...).

Got a 70-300L and looked at the original tripod ring. No way. Got a Japanese brand (made in China) knock-off for a bargin. Works like a charm.

If camera companies continue to move in this direction it will not take long before we see a serious company (i.e. someone with a brand name you believe you can trust) fielding high quality lens mounts.

May not be a bad thing. Carbon mounts anyone?

 

[AvTvM]

Flare artifacts: looking at the sample image pair linked above, even after 'correction' the flare appears pretty bad – there is still a very noticeable veiling glare on the image. I'd be interested to see what a shot with a strong light source (the sun, for example) a bit outside the frame looks like. As it is, the lens should probably come with a 'black box warning' not to use it for backlit shots.

Also looked at the pair of night-scene images supplied by Nikon and totally agree. It is really bad. Even after "software correction". However, the first 2 Canon DO lenses [400/4 DO and 70-300 DO] are probably not any better as far as flares/ghosting goes in counterlit shots. At least i got that impression from quite a number of user reports [never tried them myself]. Whether the 400/4 II is (significantly) better, remains to be seen.

For reasons of price/value and also those qustions marks re. optical performance with strong light sources in the frame or just outside I will definitely not buy any DO (or "PF") lenses but leave Augustin Jean Fresnel's 1822 invention to lighthouse lens and similar use cases.

btw: 1822 ... 2001 ... so much for Canon being "innovative" with DO. ;D

 

[Keith_Reeder]

btw: 1822 ... 2001 ... so much for Canon being "innovative" with DO. ;D

Yeah, about that...

"Innovate" doesn't mean what you clearly think it means. It's not synonymous with "invent".

That's why we have two different words...

 

[Keith_Reeder]

I'm sure the measurements will be good

And as you suggest, will stem from DxO totally failing to put the lens in any testing situation which will actually trigger the flare...

 

[Keith_Reeder]

Doesn't look that sharp, either:
https://photographylife.com/nikon-300mm-f4e-pf-ed-vr-image-samples

 

[9VIII]

Too bad they couldn't make a good, inexpensive 400mm lens.
I might actually get a Nikon if they did...
But who am I kidding, any inexpensive 400mm lens from Nikon would have rainbows around every high contrast border and resolve as much detail as a cropped image off a 70-200 zoom lens from Canon.

 

[mackguyver]

I'm sure the measurements will be good

And as you suggest, will stem from DxO totally failing to put the lens in any testing situation which will actually trigger the flare...

Intentional use aside, flare does seem to ruin shots pretty well - low contrast and the resulting drop in resolution, nasty artifacts, etc...

 

[AvTvM]

To me it looks like a generic problem with diffractive optics. It'll be interesting to see how well the 400mm/4 DO II can handle strobg light sources in or just outside the frame ...

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Canon DO technology is probably much better but also more expensive. So far most of DO patents were for superteles like 600/4, 400/ 2.8 etc. (AFAIR no patent for 300/4 DO and several patents for 300/4 with traditional optics).

I've seen Canon DO patents recently for almost every focal length. However, since they shorten the lens length by allowing the light to be bent more, they are most useful at longer focal lengths.

The technology is more expensive, Canon has issued several patents recently based on resin lenses with a radial dispersion of particles embedded in the plastic. It has also been mentioned that they are extremely difficult to produce, and have a very low yield, so we are unlikely to see any unless they are able to control the dispersion of the particles.

 

[Chapman Baxter]

New Nikon 300mm f/4 with Phase Fresnel Optics

There are not many lenses for which I envy Nikon users but one of them is the new Nikon 300mm f/4 VR with "Phase Fresnel" optics (sounds similar to DO optics). It appears to be about 8" long, weighs 755g and costs $2,000 (despite which many Nikon users are complaining about the high price!). I would absolutely love a 755g, 8" long 300mm f/4 DO IS at $2,000, especially in unobtrusive black.

I really think Nikon has nailed the potential of diffractive optics with their new lens and hope that Canon will follow suit.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYe3ht8-oJs

 

[AvTvM]

Re: New Nikon 300mm f/4 with Phase Fresnel Optics

Funny. I would be excited, if it was a 300/2.8 @ 755grams and 160 mm length @ € 2,000. Or a 400/4.0.
300/4.0 ... 1st gen nikon DO design ... no, thanks!

For 2k i'd much rather buy the EF 100-400 II - with "diffractive stuff" only happening at f/16 and above.

In my book, fresnel lenses will stay where they are: in beautiful, old lighthouses, that i will take pictures of using strictly "non-fresnel optics".

There are not many lenses for which I envy Nikon users but one of them is the new Nikon 300mm f/4 VR with "Phase Fresnel" optics (sounds similar to DO optics). It appears to be about 8" long, weighs 755g and costs $2,000 (despite which many Nikon users are complaining about the high price!). I would absolutely love a 755g, 8" long 300mm f/4 DO IS at $2,000, especially in unobtrusive black.

I really think Nikon has nailed the potential of diffractive optics with their new lens and hope that Canon will follow suit.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYe3ht8-oJs

 

[neuroanatomist]

Re: New Nikon 300mm f/4 with Phase Fresnel Optics

I really think Nikon has nailed the potential of diffractive optics with their new lens and hope that Canon will follow suit.

So...you hope that Canon decides to release a DO lens where they have to warn in advance about flare problems, claim those problems can be minimized by a post-processing software correction, and provide an example of that correction where the resulting shot still suffers badly from veiling glare? To each their own, I guess...

 

[Synkka]

Re: New Nikon 300mm f/4 with Phase Fresnel Optics

I really think Nikon has nailed the potential of diffractive optics with their new lens and hope that Canon will follow suit.

So...you hope that Canon decides to release a DO lens where they have to warn in advance about flare problems, claim those problems can be minimized by a post-processing software correction, and provide an example of that correction where the resulting shot still suffers badly from veiling glare? To each their own, I guess...

I think they were referring to overpricing lenses /sarcasm

 

[weixing]

Hi,
Here is a short review in Chinese:
https://translate.google.com.sg/translate?sl=zh-CN&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dcfever.com%2Fnikon%2Freadnews.php%3Fid%3D12312&edit-text=

Second page VR and flare test:
https://translate.google.com.sg/translate?sl=zh-CN&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dcfever.com%2Fnikon%2Freadnews.php%3Fid%3D12312&edit-text=

The interesting thing is that the concentric circles engraved in the DO elements can be seen...

Have a nice day.

 

[fragilesi]

Nikon not only wants it's customers to pay $2,000 U.S. for this new 300 f/4 lens, but to then cough up an additional $224 for the tripod ring.

So they're copying Canon's 70-300L, too.

Unfortunately. For a lens in this price bracket, the ring should be included, even if the price was $30 or $40 higher which is all it should be whether Canon or Nikon. It's when they sell it as an accessory that the price goes through the roof. That practice sux.

Not sure why you think they are that much cheaper to include as a bundle versus separate.

Me, I'm very happy with my 70-300L, have never put it on a tripod and am happy to have saved the money. I think Canon realised that a significant portion of the users (and I won't say majority because like everyone else I don't know) don't need the tripod ring and shouldn't be forced to pay for something they don't want.

 

[Chapman Baxter]

Re: New Nikon 300mm f/4 with Phase Fresnel Optics

I really think Nikon has nailed the potential of diffractive optics with their new lens and hope that Canon will follow suit.

So...you hope that Canon decides to release a DO lens where they have to warn in advance about flare problems, claim those problems can be minimized by a post-processing software correction, and provide an example of that correction where the resulting shot still suffers badly from veiling glare? To each their own, I guess...

I meant with the DO tech of the 400mm DO II which evidently suffers none of the above.

My point (which I suspect you got) is that $2,000 is accessible to a lot more users than Canon's $7,000 asking price. The 400mm DO II is out of my range whereas a 300mm f/4 DO at $2,000 would be attainable for a lot more of us. Needless to say, we're talking about Canon so we can be fairly sure that isn't going to happen.