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

[justaCanonuser]

Does Canon use the Phase Fresnel lens element schema?

I'm no optical engineer, but from what I read about it online, it seems to be the same principle.

Yes, what Canon calls diffraction optics is based on Fresnel lenses.

 

[justaCanonuser]

Oh, and does Nikon make optically great TCs? : :

TCs from Nikon: Don't know because I have no experience with Nikon. But what I have heard in the last 25 Years about Canon's TCs: They are designed into the resulting lens+TC combo and show extremely good quality. But if I use a lens 99% without TC it wouldn't matter too much for me.

Let's wait for the reviews and what will Canon's answer be in 2016 or 2017 ...

After Canon released their new Mark III TC's, the German photozine "Colorfoto" made a lab test of both 1.4/5x and 2x TC's of TC + 70-200/2.8 combos from Canon, Nikon, and Sigma. It turned out that Nikon's and Sigma's combos were no match for Canon's superior optical performance (important to mention: the editors of this photozine are widely known as Nikon fanboys). I remember this because then my wife decided not get any Nikkor or Sigma TC for her (Nikon) gear until both companies will release new and hopefully better versions.

 

[Roo]

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.

Canon's optical solution appears to be far more effective than Nikon's half baked optical and software solution, so no wonder they're selling it for only $2k. I'm sure if they figured out a full optical solution the asking price would be in the same region or more than as Canon, as they do with their 70-200. By the same token, if Canon do offer a 300 f4 DO it will be an optical solution and priced accordingly.

 

[candyman]

..................


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.

I have never used mine either on a tripod ...but...I do own the tripodring. It always attached as it is very handy as support holding the lens. Especially because the front ring is the zoom ring. For me, this combination works great.

 

[Plainsman]

For Nikon users this will be a very sharp light weight prime capable of stellar performance with a high res body like the D7100 - great for airshows, BIF etc....

 

[hoodlum]

Here are some images from a production lens.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/55118683

And here is a comparison to the old Nikon 300mm (no diffractive optics)

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/55152746

I don't see any major issues related to bokeh or contrast from these images.

 

[AvTvM]

I don't see any major issues related to bokeh or contrast from these images.

It may not show in carefully arranged and selected official glossy marketing materials ... but it will rear its ugly head in real life - exactly in those situations, when owners of the lens are already most challenged to capture good images.

There is an issue! Otherwise Nikon would never have admitted to it up front and included warning language and images in their 300/4 phase fresnel "brochures" and added (only partially effective) correction functionality to nikon software ...

 

[hoodlum]

I don't see any major issues related to bokeh or contrast from these images.

It may not show in carefully arranged and selected official glossy marketing materials ... but it will rear its ugly head in real life - exactly in those situations, when owners of the lens are already most challenged to capture good images.

There is an issue! Otherwise Nikon would never have admitted to it up front and included warning language and images in their 300/4 phase fresnel "brochures" and added (only partially effective) correction functionality to nikon software ...

Those images were from a production unit that someone purchased in Australia.