A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

New Nikon 500mm f/5.6 Is this an error?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 15th 18, 06:08 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
-hh
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 699
Default New Nikon 500mm f/5.6 Is this an error?

RichA wrote:
Here is a shot purportedly of the new lens. $10,000.


Update says half that (~$4300).

It's very expensive for a slower lens, …


Long lenses like this don’t get particularly fast without becoming pricy.
It’s less than what the Canon 400mm f/4 DO costs, for example...

but more than that, does that front lens look 90mm wide? Reason I ask
is, it has to be at least that wide for the 500mm to be that fast. Probably
just perspective of the shot making it seem narrower in the front.


Looks to be bigger than 77mm, so seems fine. And the small size is because
they’re also using the equivalent of Canon’s DO bit.

https://petapixel.com/2018/07/14/nik...tted-its-tiny/



-hh
  #2  
Old July 16th 18, 12:08 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
-hh
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 699
Default New Nikon 500mm f/5.6 Is this an error?

On Monday, July 16, 2018 at 1:01:55 AM UTC-4, RichA wrote:

I often wondered how FF wildlife shooters coped with needing huge lenses just
to fill-frames with wildlife shots, that kind of thing.


When its the only tool for the job, its the only tool for the job.

Slower, lighter versions of lenses were treated like the poor relations by
the makers like Nikon and were rarely as optically-good as the fast f/2.8's
which is counter-intuitive when you know about lens manufacturing.


Yet ... It still comes back to tolerances and that costs money.


That may changing with current camera's exceptional high-ISO performance
maybe not needing f4-f2.8 speeds from lenses as much as before.


It may, or may not. For example, Canon's f/4-5.6 75-300 DO IS is pretty much
what you're asking for, but it seem to have become all that popular of a lens.
Perhaps reading some reviews will reveal to you why.

-hh
  #3  
Old July 21st 18, 02:02 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Ken Hart[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 422
Default New Nikon 500mm f/5.6 Is this an error?

On 07/19/2018 12:46 AM, RichA wrote:
On Monday, 16 July 2018 07:08:58 UTC-4, -hh wrote:
On Monday, July 16, 2018 at 1:01:55 AM UTC-4, RichA wrote:

I often wondered how FF wildlife shooters coped with needing huge lenses just
to fill-frames with wildlife shots, that kind of thing.


When its the only tool for the job, its the only tool for the job.

Slower, lighter versions of lenses were treated like the poor relations by
the makers like Nikon and were rarely as optically-good as the fast f/2.8's
which is counter-intuitive when you know about lens manufacturing.


Yet ... It still comes back to tolerances and that costs money.


That may changing with current camera's exceptional high-ISO performance
maybe not needing f4-f2.8 speeds from lenses as much as before.


It may, or may not. For example, Canon's f/4-5.6 75-300 DO IS is pretty much
what you're asking for, but it seem to have become all that popular of a lens.
Perhaps reading some reviews will reveal to you why.

-hh


Nikon used to sell a 400mm f/5.6 MF lens, a friend has one. Good performance, much better than some of the crap from other manufacturers of that time. Leads me to believe film shooters (since 400 ISO was "fast" in those days) were either better photographers or the results were just nowhere near as good as current digital, maybe both.

It's amazing what a tripod, or a bean bag, or even brazing the lens
against a tree can do for sharpness.

--
Ken Hart

  #4  
Old July 21st 18, 02:23 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,541
Default New Nikon 500mm f/5.6 Is this an error?

On Jul 20, 2018, Ken Hart wrote
(in article ):

It's amazing what a tripod, or a bean bag, or even brazing the lens against a tree can do for sharpness.


I suspect that you meant *bracing* rather than *brazing*. Unless you have a
lens which could stand the heat of *brazing*. ;-)

--

Regards,
Savageduck

  #5  
Old July 21st 18, 02:31 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21,974
Default New Nikon 500mm f/5.6 Is this an error?

In article , Ken Hart
wrote:


It's amazing what a tripod, or a bean bag, or even brazing the lens
against a tree can do for sharpness.


it's even more amazing what optical stabilization can do, thereby
eliminating the need to carry a tripod or a bean bag, which may be
prohibited in many situations, such as museums, public streets and
parks, theaters and tsa checkpoints.

it's also amazing what a little (ok, a lot of) math can do after the
photo was taken, especially when a depth map was captured.
  #6  
Old July 21st 18, 03:07 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,541
Default New Nikon 500mm f/5.6 Is this an error?

On Jul 20, 2018, nospam wrote
(in ) :

In , Ken Hart
wrote:


It's amazing what a tripod, or a bean bag, or even brazing the lens
against a tree can do for sharpness.


it's even more amazing what optical stabilization can do, thereby
eliminating the need to carry a tripod or a bean bag, which may be
prohibited in many situations, such as museums, public streets and
parks, theaters and tsa checkpoints.


Strangely enough TSA seems to have a reasonable tolerance for tripods which
can travel as a carry-on, or in checked bags, and if you have a TSA Pre KTN,
you can clear the checkpoint without unpacking electronics, cameras &
lenses, removing belt & shoes, thereby making some air travel almost normal
again. Even if you use a regional airport which does not have TSA Pre lines,
go through the regular TSA check point with your TSA Pre marked boarding pass
(electronic, or paper) without removing belt/shoes, or separating
electronics/camera equipment. If you have Global Entry things are even
better, somewhat like having TSA Pre on steroids.

....and for US citizens/residents I highly recommend installing *Mobile
Passport* into your iPhone/Android phone. That makes your return home through
Passport control, and Customs a quick and painless experience.

it's also amazing what a little (ok, a lot of) math can do after the
photo was taken, especially when a depth map was captured.


--

Regards,
Savageduck

  #7  
Old July 21st 18, 03:27 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21,974
Default New Nikon 500mm f/5.6 Is this an error?

In article .com,
Savageduck wrote:

It's amazing what a tripod, or a bean bag, or even brazing the lens
against a tree can do for sharpness.


it's even more amazing what optical stabilization can do, thereby
eliminating the need to carry a tripod or a bean bag, which may be
prohibited in many situations, such as museums, public streets and
parks, theaters and tsa checkpoints.


Strangely enough TSA seems to have a reasonable tolerance for tripods which
can travel as a carry-on, or in checked bags,


technically true, however, the final say is up to the tsa clerk at the
checkpoint who can (and does) make up rules on the fly, so if he
decides it's 'dangerous' (i.e., he wants a free tripod), you will be
required to 'voluntarily surrender' it.
  #8  
Old July 21st 18, 01:54 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Ken Hart[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 422
Default New Nikon 500mm f/5.6 Is this an error?

On 07/20/2018 09:23 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Jul 20, 2018, Ken Hart wrote
(in article ):

It's amazing what a tripod, or a bean bag, or even brazing the lens against a tree can do for sharpness.


I suspect that you meant *bracing* rather than *brazing*. Unless you have a
lens which could stand the heat of *brazing*. ;-)


Perhaps. But remember I use 40+ year old lens, which probably have more
metal mass than modern lenses. Thus they might withstand the heat of
brazing better. The tree, on the other hand...


--
Ken Hart

  #9  
Old July 21st 18, 02:14 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21,974
Default New Nikon 500mm f/5.6 Is this an error?

In article , Ken Hart
wrote:

But remember I use 40+ year old lens, which probably have more
metal mass than modern lenses.


that extra metal offers zero optical benefit.
  #10  
Old July 21st 18, 09:05 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Ken Hart[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 422
Default New Nikon 500mm f/5.6 Is this an error?

On 07/21/2018 09:14 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , Ken Hart
wrote:

But remember I use 40+ year old lens, which probably have more
metal mass than modern lenses.


that extra metal offers zero optical benefit.

No one ever said it did. What I did say - as a joke - which you so
conveniently snipped was "Thus they (referring to the older, heavier
lens) might withstand the heat of brazing better. The tree, on the other
hand... "

This was in response to SD pointing out my typo: "brazing" instead of
"bracing" the lens against a tree to steady it. The "c" and "z" keys are
one key apart, and both words are valid British words, so the Ubuntu
spell checker wouldn't flag my error. As it would if I were to type
"color" instead of "colour".

It has been my general experience that the larger a mass of metal, the
more heat it can absorb and dissipate (There are exceptions.). Therefore
a larger lens, with more metal mass would be more likely to withstand
the heat of brazing the lens to a tree, than would a smaller, lighter,
more modern lens with more plastic parts. There was no comparison of the
optical properties between an older lens and a modern lens. I also
alluded to the difficulties of attempting to braze a lens to a tree.
I've never tried it, but I suspect there would be some difficulty in
that project. Wood, either living or cut and dried, generally does not
braze well.

Were you born without a sense of humor, or did you have it surgically
removed later?

--
Ken Hart

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Anyone seen any Nikon 500mm f/4 VR lenses? Dave[_27_] Digital Photography 14 September 10th 08 09:49 AM
Anyone seen any Nikon 500mm f/4 VR lenses? Dave[_27_] 35mm Photo Equipment 14 September 10th 08 09:49 AM
Nikon 500mm f4.0 AFS Gngphoto 35mm Equipment for Sale 0 April 29th 04 06:46 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.