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

[mackguyver]

Like most Canon guys, I read the Nikon press release with a bit of yawn, but then I saw this:

Smaller, Lighter, Faster Telephoto
Nikon has also introduced the AF-S NIKKOR 300mm f/4E PF ED VR, the world’s lightest 300mm full-frame fixed focal length AF lens2, which is nearly 30% shorter and 1.5 lbs. lighter than its predecessor. Extremely easy to handle and built to suit the needs of serious photographers in the field, the new 300mm f/4 lens utilizes Phase Fresnel optical technology to help correct chromatic aberration and reduce the overall size and weight of the lens, making it easy to pack for any assignment. Capable of producing tack-sharp images and beautiful background blur at a distance, Nikon’s newest FX-format lens also features four and a half stops of VR image stabilization3, a VR Sport mode, VR tripod detection as well as several of the latest NIKKOR optical technologies including electromagnetic aperture control, a Silent Wave Motor for quiet AF operation, ED glass for further controlling chromatic aberrations and Nano Crystal Coat for superior image quality.

It sure sounds like a DO or DO-like lens.

Update: Yes, it is - here's the description from Nikon's lens page:

Phase Fresnel
Phase Fresnel (PF) lens elements effectively compensate for chromatic aberration and ghosting when combined with ordinary glass lens elements. The PF lens element is based upon the Phase Fresnel lens, which appears to have a series of concentric circles engraved onto it. Utilizing a Phase Fresnel lens element allows Nikon engineers to use fewer lens elements, resulting in a more compact and lightweight lens. Due to the characteristics of a PF (Phase Fresnel) lens that utilizes the photo diffraction phenomenon, when there is a strong light source within the frame or when light enters the lens from outside of the frame, ring-shaped colored flare may occur according to shooting conditions. This phenomenon can be minimized with “PF Flare Control” to be included in Capture NX-D (ver.1.1.0 or later). For more information, see software Help/manual. Capture NX-D is available from the Nikon website. Be sure to keep your software up to date.

It's interesting to see that they are using software to tame the flare issues.

 

[AcutancePhotography]

Be very interesting to see the actual tests of this lens. Looks like a nice one and the weight savings is a plus.

 

[Keith_Reeder]

Looks like a cool lens.

And what a great example of Nikon "innovation": a "DO" lens a mere E-L-E-V-E-N years after Canon's first, the 70-300mm DO IS, hit the streets.

Well done, Nikon...

 

[AcutancePhotography]

Looks like a cool lens.

And what a great example of Nikon "innovation": a "DO" lens a mere E-L-E-V-E-N years after Canon's first, the 70-300mm DO IS, hit the streets.

Well done, Nikon...

Does Canon use the Phase Fresnel lens element schema?

 

[mackguyver]

Looks like a cool lens.

And what a great example of Nikon "innovation": a "DO" lens a mere E-L-E-V-E-N years after Canon's first, the 70-300mm DO IS, hit the streets.

Well done, Nikon...

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.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Looks like a cool lens.

And what a great example of Nikon "innovation": a "DO" lens a mere E-L-E-V-E-N years after Canon's first, the 70-300mm DO IS, hit the streets.

Well done, Nikon...

Does Canon use the Phase Fresnel lens element schema?

No. Canon does not have to use software to remove flare caused by the elements.

At $2000, it should not be necessary to use Nikon software to clean up the image.

 

[arcanej]

FWIW, the Nikonistas seem well aware that mothership Nikon has adopted DO.

MB:
PF ... silly how Nikon spells DO ...
Diffractive optical and fluorite elements, electromagnetic diaphragm ... it seams that Nikon is finally catching up with Canon in lens techology after so many years ...
But seriously this new lens looks very handy, and due to DO (PF) it is exceptionally small and light (though low weight is probably due to use of plastic also).
Nikon PF also seams different than Canon DO, they provide similar benefits but Nikon is using one meniscus lens glued to diffractive element while Canon uses two diffractive elements.
I just hope that bokeh will be better than Canon 400mm DO that I dont like very much... in that case this lens would be really great ...
By the way separate tripod collar now makes perfect sense, it is compatible with 70-200mm f/4 so you can use it interchangeably and those two lenses would make really fantastic and light travel combo ...

http://nikonrumors.com/2015/01/06/nikons-phase-fresnel-pf-lens-explained.aspx/#comment-1775042316

 

[mb66energy]

Looks like a cool lens.

And what a great example of Nikon "innovation": a "DO" lens a mere E-L-E-V-E-N years after Canon's first, the 70-300mm DO IS, hit the streets.

Well done, Nikon...

Yes, really well done because it is an interesting lens because it is really small and lightweight. With it's 2000 Euro/$ it is in the sweet spot between 1000 Euro zooms and a 6500 Euro lens. If it's optically great and takes TCs well.

 

[Loswr]

Yes, really well done because it is an interesting lens because it is really small and lightweight. With it's 2000 Euro/$ it is in the sweet spot between 1000 Euro zooms and a 6500 Euro lens. If it's optically great and takes TCs well.

Do you mean optically great before or after flare artifacts are 'minimized' in post using CaptureNX? :

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

 

[mb66energy]

Yes, really well done because it is an interesting lens because it is really small and lightweight. With it's 2000 Euro/$ it is in the sweet spot between 1000 Euro zooms and a 6500 Euro lens. If it's optically great and takes TCs well.

Do you mean optically great before or after flare artifacts are 'minimized' in post using CaptureNX? :

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

flare artifacts: It depends on the strength of these artifacts. If the correction is only relevant for passionate pixel peepers ... I would accept it.

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 ...

 

[weixing]

FWIW, the Nikonistas seem well aware that mothership Nikon has adopted DO.

MB:
PF ... silly how Nikon spells DO ...
Diffractive optical and fluorite elements, electromagnetic diaphragm ... it seams that Nikon is finally catching up with Canon in lens techology after so many years ...
But seriously this new lens looks very handy, and due to DO (PF) it is exceptionally small and light (though low weight is probably due to use of plastic also).
Nikon PF also seams different than Canon DO, they provide similar benefits but Nikon is using one meniscus lens glued to diffractive element while Canon uses two diffractive elements.
I just hope that bokeh will be better than Canon 400mm DO that I dont like very much... in that case this lens would be really great ...
By the way separate tripod collar now makes perfect sense, it is compatible with 70-200mm f/4 so you can use it interchangeably and those two lenses would make really fantastic and light travel combo ...

http://nikonrumors.com/2015/01/06/nikons-phase-fresnel-pf-lens-explained.aspx/#comment-1775042316

Hi,
From the sample image, the flare look quite bad... Anyway, I notice that the design is different... Canon use dual or triple layered DO elements and base on the Nikon diagram, it's seem like only a single layered DO elements.

May be Nikon had to avoid Canon patent??

Have a nice day.

 

[Loswr]

Yes, really well done because it is an interesting lens because it is really small and lightweight. With it's 2000 Euro/$ it is in the sweet spot between 1000 Euro zooms and a 6500 Euro lens. If it's optically great and takes TCs well.

Do you mean optically great before or after flare artifacts are 'minimized' in post using CaptureNX? :

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

flare artifacts: It depends on the strength of these artifacts. If the correction is only relevant for passionate pixel peepers ... I would accept it.

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 ...

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.

TCs: Nikon TCs don't have a stellar reputation. It is amusing that you bring up TCs as one of two criteria which would make the lens interesting, but then turn around and say that they don't matter to you...

 

[Loswr]

And what a great example of Nikon "innovation": a "DO" lens a mere E-L-E-V-E-N years after Canon's first, the 70-300mm DO IS, hit the streets.

Well done, Nikon...

Even better is Nikon's use of fluorite elements in their two newest supertele primes a mere F-O-R-T-Y F-I-V-E years after Canon started doing so (and after Nikon bashed fluorite elements for cracking easily and negatively impacting autofocus with temperature changes). Many Nikon lenses suffer from significant chromatic aberration, looks like they've decided to throw the book (Canon's book, that is) at the problem…. Given the flare issue and a design that's a couple of generations old compared to Canon, it looks like they may have missed the mark a bit with their version of DO technology.

It's interesting that a handful of people on this forum repeatedly bash Canon for a lack of innovation. It appears that Nikon's recent innovations are copying old Canon lens technologies and buying Exmor sensors from Sony. :

 

[JohanCruyff]

Let's wait for the unbiased : and indispensable DXO test ;D .

 

[mb66energy]

Yes, really well done because it is an interesting lens because it is really small and lightweight. With it's 2000 Euro/$ it is in the sweet spot between 1000 Euro zooms and a 6500 Euro lens. If it's optically great and takes TCs well.

Do you mean optically great before or after flare artifacts are 'minimized' in post using CaptureNX? :

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

flare artifacts: It depends on the strength of these artifacts. If the correction is only relevant for passionate pixel peepers ... I would accept it.

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 ...

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.

I think comparing both images isn't a good idea - I would wait for comparisons between the new Nikon lens and a "classical" lens of high quality.

TCs: Nikon TCs don't have a stellar reputation. It is amusing that you bring up TCs as one of two criteria which would make the lens interesting, but then turn around and say that they don't matter to you...

"But if I use a lens 99% without TC it wouldn't matter too much for me." perhaps a matter of my non-native english ... I meant "But if somebody uses a lens 99% without TC it wouldn't matter too much for that person."

 

[Plainsman]

The resolution MTF curves look exceptionally good - as good or better than the 100-400vII?

Allied to a high res body like the D7100 it should outclass say 7DMKII with 300/4.

But Canon are ahead with their TCs so this lens could be extended to 420 but maybe no further.

 

[Loswr]

But Canon are ahead with their TCs so this lens could be extended to 420 but maybe no further.

It's an interesting trade off. Nikon TCs aren't as good optically, but once you get to f/8 some Nikon bodies offer many more AF points than Canon.

 

[Maiaibing]

Smaller, Lighter, Faster Telephoto[/u][/b]
Nikon has also introduced the AF-S NIKKOR 300mm f/4E PF ED VR, the world’s lightest 300mm full-frame fixed focal length AF lens2, which is nearly 30% shorter and 1.5 lbs. lighter than its predecessor. Extremely easy to handle and built to suit the needs of serious photographers in the field

LOL - 775g amazing! - another reason to change sides? Canon really needs to upgrade its 300 f/4 IS L for sure. make it a little smaller and save some weight plus an upgrade to modern optical standards could make it a winner lens even for 2.000$. Maybe this can inspire Canon to do so after they finally realeased the 100-400 f/4-5.6 IS L II.

 

[jasny]

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).

 

[mackguyver]

Let's wait for the unbiased : and indispensable DXO test ;D .

I'm sure the measurements will be good, but given the f/4 aperture, it will "score" very poorly as that is a major component. Also, they don't test for flare or other oddities that may come from this design, so we'll have to see what others see there.