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



## mackguyver (Jan 6, 2015)

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 n*ew 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 (Jan 6, 2015)

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 (Jan 6, 2015)

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 (Jan 6, 2015)

Keith_Reeder said:


> 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 (Jan 6, 2015)

AcutancePhotography said:


> Keith_Reeder said:
> 
> 
> > Looks like a cool lens.
> ...


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


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 6, 2015)

AcutancePhotography said:


> Keith_Reeder said:
> 
> 
> > Looks like a cool lens.
> ...


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 (Jan 6, 2015)

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).
> ...


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


----------



## mb66energy (Jan 6, 2015)

Keith_Reeder said:


> 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.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 6, 2015)

mb66energy said:


> 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 (Jan 7, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> mb66energy said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (Jan 7, 2015)

arcanej said:


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


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.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 7, 2015)

mb66energy said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > mb66energy said:
> ...



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...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 7, 2015)

Keith_Reeder said:


> 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 (Jan 7, 2015)

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


----------



## mb66energy (Jan 7, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> mb66energy said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


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.



neuroanatomist said:


> 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 (Jan 7, 2015)

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.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 7, 2015)

Plainsman said:


> 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 (Jan 7, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> 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 (Jan 7, 2015)

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 (Jan 7, 2015)

JohanCruyff said:


> 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.


----------



## yorgasor (Jan 7, 2015)

I'm just now dipping my toes on the Nikon side of things to see how the other side lives (previously I've used old manual focus AIS lenses on my canon bodies, but now I'm experimenting with a nikon body & AF lenses) . I just ordered the previous 300mm f/4 lens the day before this announcement. From what I've read so far about this new lens though, I don't feel bad for not waiting.


----------



## Harv (Jan 7, 2015)

Nikon not only wants it's customers to pay $2,000 U.S. for this new 300 f/4 lens, but to then cough up an additional $224 for the tripod ring.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 8, 2015)

Harv said:


> Nikon not only wants it's customers to pay $2,000 U.S. for this new 300 f/4 lens, but to then cough up an additional $224 for the tripod ring.



So they're copying Canon's 70-300L, too.


----------



## Harv (Jan 8, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Harv said:
> 
> 
> > Nikon not only wants it's customers to pay $2,000 U.S. for this new 300 f/4 lens, but to then cough up an additional $224 for the tripod ring.
> ...



Unfortunately. For a lens in this price bracket, the ring should be included, even if the price was $30 or $40 higher which is all it should be whether Canon or Nikon. It's when they sell it as an accessory that the price goes through the roof. That practice sux.


----------



## Maiaibing (Jan 8, 2015)

Harv said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Nikon not only wants it's customers to pay $2,000 U.S. for this new 300 f/4 lens, but to then cough up an additional $224 for the tripod ring.
> ...



Bad sign of things to come. Esspecially when you know how extremely bad the overall economy of selling parts on the side is (except for possible profits...).

Got a 70-300L and looked at the original tripod ring. No way. Got a Japanese brand (made in China) knock-off for a bargin. Works like a charm.

If camera companies continue to move in this direction it will not take long before we see a serious company (i.e. someone with a brand name you believe you can trust) fielding high quality lens mounts. 

May not be a bad thing. Carbon mounts anyone?


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 8, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> 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.



Also looked at the pair of night-scene images supplied by Nikon and totally agree. It is really bad. Even after "software correction". However, the first 2 Canon DO lenses [400/4 DO and 70-300 DO] are probably not any better as far as flares/ghosting goes in counterlit shots. At least i got that impression from quite a number of user reports [never tried them myself]. Whether the 400/4 II is (significantly) better, remains to be seen. 

For reasons of price/value and also those qustions marks re. optical performance with strong light sources in the frame or just outside I will definitely not buy any DO (or "PF") lenses but leave Augustin Jean Fresnel's 1822 invention to lighthouse lens and similar use cases. 

btw: 1822 ... 2001 ... so much for Canon being "innovative" with DO. ;D


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jan 8, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> btw: 1822 ... 2001 ... so much for Canon being "innovative" with DO. ;D



_Yeah, about that_...

"Innovate" doesn't mean what you clearly think it means. It's not synonymous with "invent". 

That's why we have two different words...


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jan 8, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> I'm sure the measurements will be good



And as you suggest, will stem from DxO totally failing to put the lens in any testing situation which will actually trigger the flare...


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jan 8, 2015)

Doesn't look _that_ sharp, either:
https://photographylife.com/nikon-300mm-f4e-pf-ed-vr-image-samples


----------



## 9VIII (Jan 8, 2015)

Too bad they couldn't make a good, inexpensive 400mm lens.
I might actually get a Nikon if they did...
But who am I kidding, any inexpensive 400mm lens from Nikon would have rainbows around every high contrast border and resolve as much detail as a cropped image off a 70-200 zoom lens from Canon.


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 8, 2015)

Keith_Reeder said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sure the measurements will be good
> ...


Intentional use aside, flare does seem to ruin shots pretty well - low contrast and the resulting drop in resolution, nasty artifacts, etc...


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 8, 2015)

To me it looks like a generic problem with diffractive optics. It'll be interesting to see how well the 400mm/4 DO II can handle strobg light sources in or just outside the frame ...


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 8, 2015)

jasny said:


> 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).


 
I've seen Canon DO patents recently for almost every focal length. However, since they shorten the lens length by allowing the light to be bent more, they are most useful at longer focal lengths.

The technology is more expensive, Canon has issued several patents recently based on resin lenses with a radial dispersion of particles embedded in the plastic. It has also been mentioned that they are extremely difficult to produce, and have a very low yield, so we are unlikely to see any unless they are able to control the dispersion of the particles.


----------



## Chapman Baxter (Jan 20, 2015)

*New Nikon 300mm f/4 with Phase Fresnel Optics*

There are not many lenses for which I envy Nikon users but one of them is the new Nikon 300mm f/4 VR with "Phase Fresnel" optics (sounds similar to DO optics). It appears to be about 8" long, weighs 755g and costs $2,000 (despite which many Nikon users are complaining about the high price!). I would absolutely love a 755g, 8" long 300mm f/4 DO IS at $2,000, especially in unobtrusive black.

I really think Nikon has nailed the potential of diffractive optics with their new lens and hope that Canon will follow suit.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYe3ht8-oJs


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 21, 2015)

*Re: New Nikon 300mm f/4 with Phase Fresnel Optics*

Funny. I would be excited, if it was a 300/2.8 @ 755grams and 160 mm length @ € 2,000. Or a 400/4.0. 
300/4.0 ... 1st gen nikon DO design ... no, thanks!

For 2k i'd much rather buy the EF 100-400 II - with "diffractive stuff" only happening at f/16 and above. 

In my book, fresnel lenses will stay where they are: in beautiful, old lighthouses, that i will take pictures of using strictly "non-fresnel optics". 




Chapman Baxter said:


> There are not many lenses for which I envy Nikon users but one of them is the new Nikon 300mm f/4 VR with "Phase Fresnel" optics (sounds similar to DO optics). It appears to be about 8" long, weighs 755g and costs $2,000 (despite which many Nikon users are complaining about the high price!). I would absolutely love a 755g, 8" long 300mm f/4 DO IS at $2,000, especially in unobtrusive black.
> 
> I really think Nikon has nailed the potential of diffractive optics with their new lens and hope that Canon will follow suit.
> 
> www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYe3ht8-oJs


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 21, 2015)

*Re: New Nikon 300mm f/4 with Phase Fresnel Optics*



Chapman Baxter said:


> 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...


----------



## Synkka (Jan 21, 2015)

*Re: New Nikon 300mm f/4 with Phase Fresnel Optics*



neuroanatomist said:


> Chapman Baxter said:
> 
> 
> > I really think Nikon has nailed the potential of diffractive optics with their new lens and hope that Canon will follow suit.
> ...



I think they were referring to overpricing lenses /sarcasm


----------



## weixing (Jan 21, 2015)

Hi,
Here is a short review in Chinese:
https://translate.google.com.sg/translate?sl=zh-CN&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dcfever.com%2Fnikon%2Freadnews.php%3Fid%3D12312&edit-text=

Second page VR and flare test:
https://translate.google.com.sg/translate?sl=zh-CN&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dcfever.com%2Fnikon%2Freadnews.php%3Fid%3D12312&edit-text=

The interesting thing is that the concentric circles engraved in the DO elements can be seen... 

Have a nice day.


----------



## fragilesi (Jan 21, 2015)

Harv said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Harv said:
> ...



Not sure why you think they are that much cheaper to include as a bundle versus separate.

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.


----------



## Chapman Baxter (Jan 21, 2015)

*Re: New Nikon 300mm f/4 with Phase Fresnel Optics*



neuroanatomist said:


> Chapman Baxter said:
> 
> 
> > I really think Nikon has nailed the potential of diffractive optics with their new lens and hope that Canon will follow suit.
> ...



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.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Jan 21, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> AcutancePhotography said:
> 
> 
> > Does Canon use the Phase Fresnel lens element schema?
> ...



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


----------



## justaCanonuser (Jan 21, 2015)

mb66energy said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, and does Nikon make optically great TCs? : :
> ...



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 (Jan 21, 2015)

*Re: New Nikon 300mm f/4 with Phase Fresnel Optics*



Chapman Baxter said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Chapman Baxter said:
> ...



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 (Jan 21, 2015)

fragilesi said:


> ..................
> 
> 
> 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 (Jan 21, 2015)

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 (Jan 23, 2015)

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 (Jan 23, 2015)

hoodlum said:


> 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 (Jan 23, 2015)

AvTvM said:


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



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


----------

