< ! --Digital window verification 001 -->

Nikon patents 200-500mm f/3.5-5.6 full frame lens

Nikon-Nikkor-200-500mm-f3.5-5.6-lens-patent

Nikon filed a patent in Japan for a 200-500mm f/3.5-5.6 and  200-500mm f/4-5.6 full frame zoom lenses:

  • Patent #2013-97322
  • Patent publication date: May 20, 2013
  • Patent filing date: November 4, 2011

200-500mm f/3.5-5.6  lens calculation:

  • Image height: 21.60mm
  • Zoom ratio: 2.40x
  • Focal length: 200.00 - 480.00mm
  • Aperture: 3.6 - 5.6
  • Angle of view: 12.21 - 5.11°
  • Lens design: 14 elements in 11 groups with one ED glass

200-500mm f/4-5.6  lens calculation:

  • Image height: 21.60mm
  • Zoom ratio: 2.40x
  • Focal length: 199.99 - 480.00mm
  • Aperture: 4.1 - 5.6
  • Angle of view 2ω = 12.26 - 5.10°
  • Lens design: 15 elements in 11 groups with one ED glass

Depending on the price, this could be a very interesting lens if it ever gets released - currently only two FX zoom lenses can reach 400mm: 200-400mm f/4G ED VR II and 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR.

Via Egami

This entry was posted in Nikon Lenses, Nikon Patents. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • JorPet

    200-500mm could be a very nice lens for me. I have debated about the 200-400 f/4, but the price is just too much for the little I would use it and the size and weight make it rather unattractive for what I want it for. Having a smaller variable aperture lens could make the difference and the extra 100mm could be nice.

    • http://Flickr.com/inthemist InTheMist

      It’s good to see that Nikon is again taking telephoto seriously.

    • Jeroen Wijnands

      I’ve got a sigma 150-500. Cheaper than a used 80-400 and pretty competent lens.

      • neversink

        I’ve got one too….
        Here’s what I hate about it:
        *Ugly hard bokeh
        *Very soft from about 375 – 500 mm
        *AF motor broke down in Africa after less than 1,000 shots
        (This AF problem has been documented throughout the web. Just do a search)
        *Sigma’s QC on this lens was awful. I will never buy Sigma again….

        I only use the Nikon 500mm f/4 for reach now. and sometimes the 70-200 f/2.8 with TC.

        • Remedy

          Sigma 35mm f/1.4 HSM laughs in your face with your QC.

          • An anonimous Photographer

            Although the new 35 gives excellent image results, it’s less than a year old..so a bit early to conclude about QC and design.

            • Remedy

              No and no.

            • Pablo Ricasso returned

              Yes. We should wait for a video that includes someone setting the lens on fire before admitting that most of the samples seemed sharper than the Nikon…

    • Micah Goldstein

      Yeah, the 200-400 is splendid to shoot with, but awful to carry. Cor, the thing is bigger than my leg when you put the hood on!

  • King of Swaziland

    Oh, look! Another patent that we’ll never see in final product form…

    • Indeed

      best answer so far!

    • Photo-Jack

      Indeed, tons of patents! But the patents rather appear to be intended, to prevent other makers from doing a product than bringing accordingly products to market.
      Since Nikon brought up a couple of nice DSLRs they seem to get into hybernation (with exeption of the P&S front)
      After the DSLRs this should have been the year of the lenses, since even the best body is only worth as much as the lens in front of it.
      And we now see more and more times other makers (from Zeiss over Sigma to Samyang) doing, what many of us would have expected from Nikon.

  • John Tangney

    This reminds me of the (fake) rumor from about 6-7 years ago for the 100-500. Here is an image of it:

    http://m0.i.pbase.com/o2/63/226563/1/117712390.MnpTS9eR.nikon100_500.jpg

  • Art

    Funny thing, our local pro store PictureLine just had their spring trade show. I asked the Nikon Reps if Nikon would ever do this and they said no, that there simply wasn’t a market for a lens like this. They were quite as adamant that there was no market for this sort of lens. Apparently, Nikon Japan feels differently.

    • Remedy

      Guys You all need to realize one thing. Nikon is a japanese company, directed from Japan and all the decisions are made in Japan. You need to get to one crucial fact, all the other guys around the world are a fking sales men with fancy names for their jobs for them to feel better, more valuable. The fact is they are fking sales men and have no fking clue about what is going to be done/released until Japan HQ decides to tell them.

      • Calibrator

        While I generally agree with what you say you err in one part: The fancy titles are for fooling customers and business partners and not making the employees think they are worth more. Corporations with shitloads of titles generally don’t care so much about their employees…

  • NikonBob

    I just recently bought the 200-400mm f/4 VRII lens. I love it … it is going to get a lot of use … probably will be my new go to lens. I have found that it maintains its sharpness with the 1.4x teleconverter. With my D300 that makes it effectively a 420-840 mm f/5.6 lens. I am looking forward to picking up a Jobu Pro2 gimbal head in a couple of weeks to use with this lens for bird and wildlife photography. So, I see no need for a 200-500 mm lens for myself.

  • Plug

    Do these designs suggest internal focusing and thus fixed length? But give me a lightweight 300 f4 ahead of them, anyway. 1.7 converter would give the reach.

    • gsum

      With a 2.5 zoom ratio it will not be fixed length and might be an efficient dust pump. I’ll stay with the 300mm f4, even though it lacks VR.

      • Al

        Unlikely, 70-200 is 2.8x, sigma 300-800 2.7x they’re both fixed, There’s no way a lens that big could be anything other than fixed!

  • Art

    Any idea what the objective lens diameter will be?

    • M

      At least 90mm for a 500mm f/5.6.

      • Pablo Ricasso returned

        Both the Sigma 150-500 and the Tamron 200-500 use 86 filters for f6.3. Nikon had some old lenses with 95 filters and Tamron and Tokina had some old manual xx-500 f 5.6 that used that filter size. It would surely have a 95 filter.

  • ok21380

    I would like to point out, that since the optical design contains only one ED element, this lens design is likely a cheaper alternative to 80-400. The new 80-400 G contains four ED elements and one super ED element. I can see that Nikon could do this lens. After all they did 18-35G, 16-35G and 14-24 G…

    • Pat Mann

      I would not expect this to be cheaper than the 80-400 f/5.6 AF-S. A 500mm f/5.6 lens has a nominal objective diameter of 89.3 mm, significantly greater than the 71.4 mm of a 400mm f/5.6 lens, and 1.56 times the lens area. The physical construction must be significantly larger than the 80-400. In spite of the single ED element, I don’t think Nikon will release a piece of consumer-oriented junk in this focal length, and would estimate the price of this lens at $4,000-4,500.based on the current price of the 200-400 and 80-400 zooms.

      Although this is the full-frame budget birder’s lens, a bit longer than the 70-300 when used on DX, it’s not going to approach the price of the shorter zooms.

      My preference would still be for 400 f/5.6 and 500 f/5.6 AF-S primes for birding.

  • Geoff

    If it is sharp at 500mm it is mine.

    • Remedy

      If You expect it to be 500mm f/4 sharp then You couldn’t be more wrong. Think of it as Sigma 50-500++

      • Andy

        How would you know?

        • Remedy

          Because unlike You I understand lens design principals.

          • Davide

            Do you also understand how principles is spelled? :-)

            Anyway, between 500 mm f/4 and Sigma 50-500, there is a lot of range…

            If it is 16-85 sharp or 24-120 sharp and it costs less than $2500, I might seriously consider it

  • Muddy

    I can’t wait to have one in my hands so I can throw it in the mud, set it on fire and do all kinds of stupid things…

  • Julian

    If this is more a pro-sumer lens like the 70-300 then I’m definitely interested – I cannot afford a $2000+ lens for what is an occasional hobby of mine (birding) – but I can maybe stretch to around $1000 max for a lens like this with decent sharpness at 500mm and I can live with the varying aperture.

    • FredBear

      Probably upwards of $10,000.
      Nikons 200-400 F4 is over $6,500
      Canon’s 200-400 F4 is 12,000 PSTG.

      • Kynikos

        Wrong. This patent is not for a fixed aperture lens.

        • FredBear

          Really? Wow.

          OK, as you know better, what will the price be?
          500 F4 is $8,500 so lose one stop convert it to a zoom and sell it for what? $600 like the 4.5/5.6 70-300?
          One item has 14 elements, the other 15 – similar to the high end super telephotos – it’s going to be big and heavy.
          I wish it would come in at around $2,500 but there’s no chance of that considering the new 80-400 is already at that price point.

          • Nikoniastu

            Fred no one knows what the price of this lens would be, but I think you have gone too way up with $10,000. It would be non-sense.

          • El Aura

            This lens with an entrance pupil of 89.3 mm would be priced between the 80-400 mm AF-S (71.4 mm entrance pupil) and the 200-400 mm f/4 (100 mm entrance pupil). If we approximate the amount of glass needed by the (minimum) area of the front element, the 80-400 mm has about 50% of the 200-400 mm and a xxx-500 mm f/5.6 80% of it. You can interpolate that how you want but about $4000 won’t be to far off.

            • FredBear

              Barrel will be metal to carry the mass which will add to the cost.
              Sigma 500 F4.5 is $5,000 and with Nikon’s pricing (I’m equating the wider aperture of the Sigma against Nikon’s higher mark-up) plus the zoom function I can’t see it being cheaper than this.
              Depends on what target market Nikon is aiming at. With the new 800 F5.6 at $18,000 it would appear that Nikon is putting some effort into ‘flagship’ models and this might be another one.
              If the design sees the light of day then we’ll all know.

      • Neopulse

        Canon: $11799* and Nikon $6749 (at the moment on Amazon) and also the Canon comes with a 1.4 TC. But STILL too damn expensive in my opinion the Canon lens.

    • Jeroen Wijnands

      Nikon does not care about pro-sumer wanting to dabble with birds and wildlife. That’s why Sigma’s picking up all the business in that segment.

    • fiatlux

      The Sigma 150-500 OS and 50-500 OS are a bit slower and sell for 1000-1500$. The 50-500 OS is supposed to be pretty good.

      I’d guess if Nikon released such a lens it would be closer to 2000$, but still a bit cheaper than the 80-400 (if the 200-500 is indeed lighter built and has only one ED lens).

      If you want a cheap 200-500 look for the Tamron, but don’t expect miracles.

      • Pablo Ricasso returned

        This lens, if built, would likely have a lot of plastic. The old generation VR and the use of a single ED element indicate that it is a consumer lens that would be intended to compete with the lenses that you just mentioned. It might even be just a bit over a thousand. I would think of the 18-55 vr and the 70-300vr (both contain ED glass) when estimating the price. If priced right, they would sell a lot of units.

        • Pablo Ricasso returned

          Oh, and in order of quality now is the Sigma 150-500 followed by the Tamron followed by the Bigma (50 – around 440) The Bigma is only sharp in the center, but very sharp there, so it may work for you depending on your style and your goals. The VR version, or whatever they call it, is actually less sharp than the early version. It just has VR, or whatever they call it. And yes, it really only goes a bit further than 400 in reality.

          A good copy of the 150-500 might contend with this. It’s sibling is the 120-400 which you can see that DXO scored between the new and old version of the 80-400. Fortunately for Nikon, Sigma has apparently allowed some bad quality control on that lens and it will continue to suffer a bad reputation regardless of it’s potential performance.

          This is like when Tamron and everyone was selling a bunch of cheap 70-300 zooms that people bought a lot of as part of a kit. Nikon put out one that was so close that people speculated that they had Tamron produce it for them. It must have worked because now I see them in the stores anymore. It’s unfortunate that it is taking so much time and that people have to buy so much garbage before someone decides to address the demand.

  • Sebastian

    Could be a by-product of Nikon working on keeping up with the Joneses, i.e. Canon’s 400-200+TC. This may be one of the designs that didnt make the cut.

  • aaaaa

    image heigth 21,6mm? This is DX, not FX.

    • Remedy

      Learn some basics about lens design specs.

      • gsum

        Go on then Einstein enlighten him – if you can.

        • MB

          21.6mm Image height is equal to radius of a given image circle, this means that diameter is equal to 43.2 and that is diagonal of a full frame (24*26mm) and you don’t have to be Einstein to know something as basic as this.

          • gsum

            10/10, you’ve done very well.

          • Remedy

            Oh … learned some basics myself now
            thx

            • Remedy

              The basics how to pretend being someone else you sad phuck?

          • Pat Mann

            Thanks. We seem to have to go through this every time a patent comes up. Time for admin to include that note on the image height spec on every one. (Of course that wouldn’t prevent those who don’t read the original post completely and go straight to the comments from bringing it up over, and over, and over …)

        • http://www.flickr.com/jaybie Jay Donahue

          bahahaha

          • aaaaa

            Thanks MB, now even I understood …
            ;-)

  • Hans

    They have the best computers and all the knowledge, why don’t they make it f2.0 ???

    • Eric Calabos

      O brother, you cant change laws of physics by computers

      • Hans

        What physic law prevents them from making that?

        • Mistral75

          Laws of physics say the front lens of a 500mm f/2.0 would have a diameter superior or equal to 25cm and add that such lens would be very heavy.

          Law of economics say it would be extremely expensive.

          • The_Animal

            Did you see the aperture? f/3.5-5.6 or f/4-5.6??? where the hell did it say f/2?

            • The_Animal

              Hans, it’s not the physics or economics. You wouldn’t be able to lift a 500mm at f/2. Take a look at the 200-500mm f/2.8 as an example. You try and lift that thing. Unless you mount it on a golf cart, you wouldn’t be able to make use of it.

            • Mistral75

              Hans said “They have the best computers and all the knowledge, why don’t they make it f2.0 ???” and “What physic law prevents them from making that?”. I was replying to him.

    • Mr. Mamiya

      You know the Sigma 200-500 f/2.8? Think twice as big.

      • Hans

        I have googled it. Impressive.

        • Remedy

          You only just found out about Sigma 200-500 f/2.8? x_x

    • Spy Black

      It would be an impractical size. And cost.

      • BRAMANTE

        bah… i use mine for street …pfui

        • Pat Mann

          I’ve seen it mounted in the back of your Humvee.

  • disqus_LSIRGT5iob

    An affordable AF-S 24/1.8 DX would impress me more…

  • Jeroen Wijnands

    Knowing Nikon even the 200-500mm f/4-5.6 would already cost considerably more than the 80-400 and the 200-500mm f/3.5-5.6 would cost significantly more than the 200-400.

    In other words, Sigma needn’t worry, the budget market will not be entered by Nikon.

    • xjxjxjxj

      dont’t think so.while my knowledge about optics is about 0.3 still it is obvious, that a 2.5 zoom (200-500) is way easier to design and build than a 5.0 zoom with VR (80-400). this would be a 1000 € lens aimed at the prosumer crowd. one ED lens…

      • Jeroen Wijnands

        Nikon has never recognized there’s a hobbyist market for anything more than a 70-300vr.

      • Pat Mann

        A 2.5x f/5.6 zoom is easier to design for good performance throughout the range than a 5x or even a 2x f/4 zoom, true. This lens also has a single-element VR section, which I think is a first. Based on that and the single ED element, this looks more like a design exercise and concept patent than a lens ready to bring to market. I’m guessing the lens actually produced would have 2 or 3 ED elements to provide better resolution throughout the range based on Nikon’s long-lens offerings of the past few years.

        A 1000-euro lens in this focal length is pure “con-” sumer, no “pro-” involved. Unless Nikon is considering a new “e” series of throwaway lenses to go with a 400-euro D6000 FX body line, that won’t happen. They can’t meet their own minimum optical standards for a lens release at that sale price in this focal length and aperture.

        • KnightPhoto

          I agree, only 15 elements and a single ED and no Super ED? This is some kind of 150-500 class competitor and does not appear to be in the league of the new 80-400 or 200-400.

          I’d only be interested in a top class lens in this focal range (and this does not appear to be a higher class lens). The 200-400 is only a 2X zoom yet has 24 elements 4 of which are ED, and 17 groups.

  • Joe G

    I actually really like the idea of a lens like this. Considering my 70-200 vr II is the longest lens in my kit because I don’t do a lot of tele work this lens for around $12-1400 might be a pretty nice lens for me.

    On the other hand if this thing were to become a product which it probably won’t, I would rather see a 300 f4 with VR or a 400 5.6 with VR or even a 500 5.6 VR first. Honestly if they want to be smart they need to start hitting Canon where it hurts, and right now that would be things like a 500 5.6 VR for $1200, a 200 2.8 VR, 50 1.2 that is worth a darn, 18 1.4, a 16 PCE, and a new 100 or 135 f2 with VR. Stop fussing around with lenses that are not going to gain you any market share because the competition already has a good one and start making some lenses that people want and can’t have in either camp! Canon has a lot of compelling glass that you can only get with canon 17 TSE, 50L, 85L, 300 F4 IS, 400 5.6, and really the 135L doesn’t quite have a direct competitor considering the age and price of the nikon.

    • neversink

      Personally, I don’t care whether or not Nikon comes out with a new lens or not. I am perfectly happy with the lenses that are on the market for FX. True, I would be very excited if they put out a new 58 nocturnal lens or a new 200mm micro lens. But if they do or don’t, it won’t affect my photography one way or another. There are enough options out there for anyone (pro or amateur) to be happy.

      • Pat Mann

        What kind of consumer are you? You’re supposed to want more, more, more.

    • Remedy

      Before Nikon “starts hitting Canon where it hurts” You should hit a wall with Your head till it really hurts.
      18mm f/1.4? Why not 14mm f/0.95?
      16mm PC-E? why not 12mm PC-E?
      500mm f/5.6 VR for 1200$? Please do build one (use kickstarter or something) and I’m buying Your whole stock.
      200mm f/2.8 VR? Probably the most pointless lens on the planet considering the performance of a 70-200 f/2.8 zooms (because you were not that stupid to think it would be smaller or lighter or something like that right?)
      Only 135mm f/2 VR makes sens. (only by coincidence I assume)

      Now to the Canon’s compelling glass: 50mm f/1.2L a piece of crap and very unfunny joke. Wide open it’s probably the softest lens on the planet, being beaten even by those chinese 600-1200mm zooms you can find on ebay.

      85L slow as phuck to focus, and I really don’t see how it’s better than Nikon’s 85 or Sigma’s 85.

      Image quality wise 135DC f/2 is as great as Canon’s 135L, sure it’s slower in terms of AF but it’s better built, and has aperture ring which makes it wonderful for videographers.

      400 f/5.6? Sorry but it gets destroyed by the new 80-400 AF-S

      Also Canon’s 300 f/4 L IS is not a bad lens, it’s actually quite good but it has very poor IS (around 2 stops) and it’s safe to say Nikon’s 80-400 AF-S even if tad darker at 300mm it has nothing to be ashamed of in terms of optical performance and when we talk about VR it simply annihilates Canon’s IS (around 5 stops vs just above 2). Given the fact Nikon’s are way better in low light You can boost the iso on Nikon and compensate the gentle loss of light with results being identical.

      The only missing lens is the really wonderful Canon 17mm TS-E. That’s the one that is missing in Nikon’s lineup. But given the choice of which lens would I want in my system, this 17mm TS-E or Nikkor 14-24 f/2.8 I take the second one without any doubts.

      And finally if You can’t get a decent image from a great lens the Nikkor 50mm f/1.2 AIS is then You are a rather poor, unskilled, sad, joke photographer.

      • Joe G

        Wow way to be a jerk. First off those lenses are not that unrealistic optically. Canon has a 17 TSE that is an incredible lens. Before Nikon made the 14-24 not many people would have said that a 14-24 zoom was realistic much less that it could be one of the sharpest wide angles ever made. As for an 18 1.4 there have been 20 1.8s and they did not even begin to stress the image circle. Finally a 500 5.6 for 1200 is not absurd like you make it sound. It is the prime version of the lens in this post a lens that will likely not exceed 2000 dollars. Take away the extra glass and mechanics of a zoom and I think 12-1500 could be well within reason. So yeah don’t be a jerk and assume everything that doesn’t currently exist is impossible.

    • Chad Gladstone

      I would love to see Nikon announce a new 50/58 1.2, 105 f/1.8 VR, 135 1.8 VR and a 200 f/2.8 VR. These are prestige lenses that promise superior performance in extremely useful Fl’s. Given how outstanding the cost/performance of the recent 28,50,85 g’s, I am finding the size/weight and performance being wholly unsurpassed by Nikon’s 2.8 zoom alternatives (the benchmarks appear to corroborate these findings as well). For those shooting with the D800 or in anticipation of future high resolution offerings, with the prospect of even more demanding sensored bodies, many are confronted with the stark reality that the zooms are being far surpassed by the optical performance of the new primes. Irrespective of how compelling Canon’s offerings are (or are not – they have not even begun to open pandora’s box in taxing their lens offerings with demanding sensors), Independent testing has proven these optical formulas are ripe for refreshment and the 20 year old designs were not specified to exploit the advantages that these new digital sensors require.

      The new primes appear to me so vastly superior in IQ to their zoom alternatives in the overlapping fl’s that I dumped my 24-70 g (as state of the art at the time but is now showing is age, even if, shortly after its heralded introduction, it reigned supreme, it can now longer even keep pace with the D800). No doubt, when it is replaced by a new 24-70 VR, I will purchase one, if only for the sake of convenience, but for IQ alone, the primes seem poised to further distance themselves from the zoom alternatives at a far faster pace than I would dare to advocate just a few short years ago.

      With the prospect of refreshing the 105/135/180 or 200 2.8mm afs VR primes, the 70-200 will be an bloated, event specific, relic, habitually demanding replacement every 4-5 years seeming losing pace from an accelerating sensor evolution. We keep buying the new zooms because there are no viable Nikon prime alternatives. That has got to change. No matter what “magic,” Nikon incorporates into their pro zooms, the primes will offer uncompromising performance in a lightweight package. We are reaching a tipping point now where the zooms provide such diminishing returns at disproportionately high market prices that primes appear the only true roadmap for shooters who are unwilling to sacrifice image quality. If Nikon will not capitulate in marketing these desirable offerings, Sigma will. The 70-200 VRII is outstanding for a zoom and I dare say the best tele zoom I have ever used. The same was true for the aging 24-70, but on the D800, the former a solid performer while the latter delivers suboptimal results when compared to the prime alternatives. The next 24-70 VR will have to be spectacular, indeed, just to remain relevant. Unless there is something truly revolutionary announced, restoring some semblance of parity, I am exiting the habitual 2.8 zoom upgrade path.

      For all the flexibility they provide, the acuity compromise no longer justifies their continued acquisition. Weight aside, there is a reason super teles are dominated by primes, it is because they offer unsurpassed IQ. It is becoming abundantly clear that the same necessity for primes at shorter FL’s are now the only short term solution as the sensor demands continue to proliferate the market at an increasingly rapid pace. While 2.8 pro zooms were once hallmarked as the pinnacle of technological achievement, now that they are being benchmarked, they are performing marginally. Nikon’s zoom paradox demands a complete zoom lens overhaul to provide its users that further assurances that Nikon has the capacity to vastly improve zoom optics correlative to the sensor demands.

      Failure to do so will give pause to any rational consumer where no appreciable benefit can be realized by the user because the resolving power that the sensor’s require is no longer compatible with Nikon’s current stable of zoom lenses. Better sensors without improved optics yields no measurable overall IQ improvement.

      In the wide, normal, and short tele range, the 24, 28, 35, 50, 85 and 200 f/2 have grossly out resolved their zoom counterparts to such an appreciable extent that, apart from the convenience of the zoom, their respective utility is only quantified by their ability to zoom.

      As we get closer to diffraction limited optics, there are not many usable stops for a shooter to choose now anyway. The days of the Pro zooms appear numbered in DSLR if they continue to drop in light transmission and relative performance incongruities, yet the remaining primes that have not been redesigned in some 20 years, are in desperate need of an immediate overhaul as well. What good is a 54mp sensor when the optics are only capable of resolving 32? The law of diminishing returns dictates no utility in such an absurd proposition. Yet, there is a substantial possibility that this will be the next flagship body. Prime lenses are the only viable option I can see on the horizon capable of resolving at this level. If there are designs for such zoom lenses, it would be a revelation and I would happily embrace them, but the smart money, for now is one the primes.

  • JustGettheSigmaforLess

    Sad that Nikon is copying Sigma these days (150-500, 50-500). Nikon should act proper as a leader and make a 300-600. (A.) No one else is making it, (B.) Every damn telephoto lens already gets us to 300 these days, 200-300 is completely redundant a complete waste of a special design, whereas very few people have beyond 300, and (C.) The optical design is more simple for a 2x telephoto (300-600) than a 2.5 x design, which means not only a longer focal length, but BETTER quality. Oh yeah, and, (D.) NIKON WOULD BE LEADING INSTEAD OF FOLLOWING SIGMA. Just two cents.

    • really?

      “Sad that Nikon is copying Sigma these days (150-500, 50-500).”

      :DDDDDDDDD

    • neversink

      sigma’s QC has been crap, particularly on the two lenses you mention. Also who knows when Sigma’s lenses will not be supported by Nikons’s next generation of cameras.

      Let me repeat what I wrote above about Sigma’s 150-500.

      *Ugly hard bokeh
      *Very soft from about 375 – 500 mm
      *AF motor broke down in Africa after less than 1,000 shots
      (This AF problem has been documented throughout the web. Just do a search)
      *Sigma’s QC on this lens was awful. I will never buy Sigma again….

      I only use the Nikon 500mm f/4 for reach now. and sometimes the 70-200 f/2.8 with TC.

    • Pat Mann

      Given the ability of the new bodies to focus at f/8, a relatively compact 200-600 mm f/8 is not out of the question, though I’d guess we’ll see it first from the 3rd-party manufacturers, who have both a larger market and looser release specifications. The objective diameter here is a nominal 75mm, doable with a 77mm filter thread by stretching the specifications tolerance a bit below f/8 (compare the 300mm f/4), fitting the form factor of a slightly stretched 80-400 f/5.6, and not requiring the structural complexity and additional production cost of an internal filter system like the telephoto lenses with an objective diameter larger than 75mm aperture have.

      A 300-600 f/5.6 requires a front element with an area 15% greater than 400mm f/4, would be in the $8,000+ price class, and be even more unwieldy than the very long 200-400 f/4, I’m afraid.

      Nikon once made a very fine 600mm f/5.6 manual-focus prime lens – with budget digital FX cameras now available, perhaps it’s time to bring that back in AF-S.

  • Brian

    I’ve often wondered why there was no 500mm offering from Canon or Nikon outside of the F/4 when Sigma sold so many 50/150 – 500 lenses. Based on price of 80-400 and 200-400 I’d figure this to be around the $5000 mark.

  • FarQinell

    ..to much of an overlap with the current 200-400/4.

    Would prefer a 300-600/5.6….!

    • Pablo Ricasso returned

      Put a converter on it.

  • robert

    id be happy with either a 300 f4, 400 or 500 f5.6 but all with VR

  • gly

    Nice, but how about in this life time please.

  • Mansgame

    If this is less than $3000, I’d be willing to sell my f/2.8 70-200ish lens which I use with a 2x teleconverter on occasion and get this.

  • Hillary Klntohn

    Using a D3200 with a 1974 NIKKOR H 4.5 300mm lens …effectively gives one a 500 mm lens….
    minus the A M switch

    minus the VR switch

    Minus digital settings of any sort ….

    Conjuring the might of the Ansel Adams spirits …I am able to get excellent shots with patience ….not for sports shots ..granted…

    However ..minus the action shots …For the price of a box of Twinkies ..I’m shooting distortion free , bright , clear , clean 24mp…. night shots and loving it.

    NIKON…taking the gear of the 70’s and making it work today …..

  • Back to top