Comments on: Is this patent for a new Nikon 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 lens?

By: Kickmatic23

Kickmatic23 — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 05:20:00 +0000

New 70-300 or 80-400.. i’ll buy it as long as its reasonable and its DX. I was just going to buy the 70-300 VR but I’ll hold out until they announce a new lens

By: Jeff

Jeff — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 19:55:46 +0000

wow. Someone actually read the post and used logic instead of jumping to irrational concussions. Kudos Chris.

By: Robb Mann

Robb Mann — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 19:10:08 +0000

My guess is this is likely the replacement for the 300 f4. Given the additional glass my guess is it will be a 300 f3.5. The only Nikon lenses w/o a rear element see the big telephotos, and the only big tele w/o a rear filter holder is the current 300 f4.0. I also remember a rumor about Nikon coming out with some semi-pro f3.5 glass, so it fits.

By: Peter

Peter — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 08:57:21 +0000

then what is it ?

By: Chris

Chris — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 23:24:00 +0000

So I read through the patent and thought I’d offer my opinions. The lens diagrammed in Fig. 13 and described on page 77 (column 21 and 22) and table 4 seems to be the existing 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 VR. The optical designs are nearly identical (just compare the diagrams) and table 4 lists some key data:

-focal length range 71.4mm-294mm
-f-stop: 4.64-5.88.

These values are rounded, like they often are when going from actual optical designs to labeling products for the market.

The diagram also shows all groups moving forward when zooming towards the telephoto end of the range. This would correlate with the extending barrel on the 70-300.

The diagram shows the front element (G1A or L11 for those following the diagram) as stationary when focusing, so this design is an IF (internal focusing) lens, as is the 70-300 VR.

It’s also mildly interesting to note that the abberations (fig. 14) show almost no LCA at the wide end, and some coming in at the long end. That corresponds with the lens reviews I’ve read.

The patent text also mentions an aperture stop mounted in front of and moved with the third lens group when zooming. I don’t have one of these lenses, but if someone reading this does, would they mind checking and reporting back? It would really be all we’d need to make this definite and call this a busted rumor.

Regardless, I’m fairly certain this isn’t a patent for a new 80-400, nor any f/4 zooms. All of the optical designs discussed are of a similar form, and are (approx.) 70-300mm zoom ranges. Also, as others have pointed out, a US patent would not be issued until long after the lens was invented and sent to market.

By: Ivan

Ivan — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 14:44:33 +0000

If it’s an f/4 constant lens, then I’m pretty much sold! As much as I’d love a 70-200 it’s too damn expensive. Then again, there’s always the 80-200 AF-D, though if this 70-300 has VR.. augh, I don’t know, I love me that f/2.8.

By: Hans

Hans — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 14:14:33 +0000

your comment, any sense, doesn’t make

By: Brian

Brian — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 12:57:01 +0000

Judging on what Nikon has released in the recent past, I say this is a new AF-S 70-300VR f/4 G DX. We have the 10-24mm DX and possibly now a 70-300VR f/4 DX which puts a 24-70 f/4 DX also on the table. Release the new “DX Trinity” in conjunction with a D300s and for me it’s plausible. The f/2.8 lenses would be the “Pro” line, the f/4 would be the advanced amateur / semi-pro and then you have the consumer grade multi-aperature line.

I honestly don’t see Nikon overlapping the 200-400mm f/4 with a AF-S 80-400VR f/4. With Nikon releasing models to compete directly with Canon (D5000, etc.) I’m not seeing a FX lens.

I hope I’m wrong on this one.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 07:42:14 +0000

I hope it is 70-200/4

By: Narna

Narna — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 23:29:46 +0000

Oh please tell me its a 70-210 F4 or a new zoom micro. Either or both in one would make me VERY happy.

By: DrB

DrB — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 22:04:01 +0000

Not true, the patent includes data relating to specific lens parameters. Look at the tables. The claims are also pretty narrow (as patent claims go), and were clearly framed with a specific lens in mind.

By: MB

MB — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 21:46:06 +0000

The patent is just a concept and not and actual lens design.

By: DrB

DrB — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 21:40:21 +0000

It’s worth noting that the priority data on the US patent refers to Japanese patent applications filed back in 2004 & 2005 – don’t be fooled by the recent grant date, this is something Nikon invented some years ago, most likely sometime in 2003.

The claims relate to a VR system for a particular grouping of lens elements – most likely for use in a specific lens. Based on the focal lengths mentioned in Tables 1, 2 and 3 in the specification (e.g. see the top of column 16 of the text), I’d say this is pretty conclusively the 70-300mm VR.

By: [NR] admin

[NR] admin — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 20:51:52 +0000

I posted this already in another forum:

Regarding the 70-300 patent: you can see from the main lens diagram that it is not obvious that this is the old 70-300 lens – the main patent diagram looks much more like the 80-400. Or let’s put it this way – it may be obvious to some, but it was not obvious to me. I did go through the patent and as you can see it contains multiple diagrams – for example the one on page 47 (diag 45) is different than the diagram on the first page. Also, if you have noticed, my post had a question mark – I was asking my readers for an opinion since I am not an optical engineer/expert and patents in general are difficult to read/understand. The post ratings shows that this was worth posting to my audience.

By: mike

mike — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 20:45:25 +0000

Look at figure 61 on page 64. It’s the same as the current 70-300VR.

By: P

Mon, 01 Jun 2009 18:10:43 +0000

I think is a new 70-200mm lens. This lens is on sale in DK alon with D300, and the optical layout looks more like the old 70-200.

By: Astrophotographer

Astrophotographer — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 17:33:03 +0000

I’ll defend the admin, this wasn’t easy to read. I have an advantage in I know a little about optical design (I’m not an engineer) so I knew what to look for.

I think what everyone is missing is this is not for a specific lens but a general concept in zoom lenses. That why there are several different designs. And the figure on page 1 is representative of the patent and not a specific lens, none of the lens tables match it or refer it it.

That said, Nikon may base future lenses off this patent.

Look at patent 7,242,532 (which this one refers to) fig.1 to see the 70-300

By: gsvrg

gsvrg — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 16:14:41 +0000

well, i am not an optical engineer too, but, looking at the graphics in Nikon website the 70-200 (G) and 200-400 (G too) doesn’t have the last lens element (near the bayonet)
http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/lens/af/zoom/af-s_vr_zoom70-200mmf_28g_if/img/pic_004.jpg (70-200 G)

http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/lens/af/zoom/af-s_vr_zoom200-400mmf_4g_if/img/pic_004.jpg (200-700 G)

since the 80-400 doesn’t have a G model, maybe it is!!

*sorry if this information is wrong, as i said, i am not an optical engineer too

By: Marty mcfly

Marty mcfly — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 15:58:39 +0000

U should hire a fulltime optical engineer. Do it. Do it

By: [NR] admin

[NR] admin — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 14:18:39 +0000

no problem, I understand your point – there is always room for improvement