Lens Summary
Brand: Nikon
Also Known As: Nikon NIKKOR 500mm f/8
Lens Type: Prime Lens
Format: Full Frame / FX
Focus: Manual Focus
Lens Mount: Nikon F
Release Date: 1984-01-01
MSRP Price: N/A
Made in: Japan
Production Status: Discontinued
Lens Description: Powerful catadioptric (mirror reflex) lens with long focal length in a short barrel and with an aperture of f/8.
Nikon NIKKOR 500mm f/8 Specifications
| Lens Specifications | |
|---|---|
| Lens Type | Prime Lens |
| Focal Length | 500mm |
| Mount Type | Nikon F |
| Format | Full Frame / FX |
| Compatible Format(s) | 35mm SLR |
| Compatible with Teleconverters | No |
| Vibration Reduction (Image Stabilization) | No |
| Aperture Information | |
| Aperture Ring | No |
| Maximim Aperture | f/8 |
| Minimum Aperture | f/8 |
| Maximum Angle of View (Full frame or larger format) | 5° |
| Optical Information | |
| Lens Elements | 6 |
| Lens Groups | 6 |
| Focus Information | |
| Focus | Manual Focus |
| Built-in Focus Motor | No |
| Minimum Focus Distance | 1.5m |
| Filter Information | |
| Filter Size | 82mm |
| Accepts Filter Type | Screw-on |
| Physical Characteristics | |
| Weather / Dust Sealing | No |
| Mount Material | Metal |
| Tripod Collar | Yes |
| Dimensions | 109 x 89mm |
| Weight | 840g |
| Other Information | |
| Available in Colors | Black |
Reader Interactions
User Reviews
User Review Policy: All user reviews are moderated. If you would like your review to be posted, please make sure that there is enough valuable information for others to read. Two or three word reviews will be deleted. Also, please do not forget to give a star ranking to the reviewed product. Thank you!
I have owned both the N version and the older C version of this lens. I still owned the C version because I liked the results I get with it versus the N version. I am told the N version i superior and I know it focuses closer but the copy I had did not deliver what it was touted for. That being said, these lenses are given a bad wrap for low contrast. When used in situations like distant airplane or stationary ground objects not across the horizon, these lenses really deliver. When shooting mountains through atmosphere, they suffer the contrast problem unless it just rained and the air is clear. I used to photograph peacocks with both versions and had outstanding results. The focal plane is razor thin so focusing can be challenging. The light transmitted is low but workable. That being said, I have great moon shots with this lens. I have taken handheld shots at 125th. It is work but doable. I like these lenses because they are challenging. I was photographing things when auto anything didn’t exist. It required skill to get great shots with the gear at the time. Theses lenses on digital bodies are much easier to use with much more refined high ISO settings and the ability to immediately see if you got the shot. Something that was not possible with film. They are not a replacement for a refractive telephoto lens. I use my 200-500 Nikkor for moving objects. This is more of an art lens for me. I don’t mind the highlight donut bokeh. When done right it can be asthetically please if but I know it is not for everyone. If you are considering a catadioptric lens, don’t cheap out and buy the $100 cheap Chinese lenses. They are no where near the quality of the Nikkor lens. For a $100 more you can get the Nikkor and have better shots. The Chinese lenses truly have no contrast no matter what you photograph.
This is a very interesting lens that shouldn’t be overlooked even though it can rarely compete with other telephotos in ‘normal’ situations.
I purchased a copy a few years ago mainly just for interests sake, prior to getting a 200-500. Given the manual focus, f8 aperture and lack of VR, it cannot realistically be used for any moving subjects, be they birds, racehorses or cyclists. Despite the F8 aperture, this mirror lens provides a depth of field of less than a foot at any focal distance. Someone cleverer than me in optics can explain why, but that means manually tracking anything is virtually impossible. Combined with lack of VR, getting shots of still subjects is difficult unless your at a minimum of 1/500 sec, which at f8 is tricky in less than bright light. Finally, the out of focus highlights have the special doughnut bokeh that often makes things look a bit weird (although is sometimes groovy!).
However, if you have got a still subject and access to a decent tripod, this is a very useful compact option. And I would be very interested to hear how it performs on a body with IBIS. Once in focus, subjects are truly sharp and have nice contrast. Coming in at around half the size and weight of the already compact 500/5.6 PF, this mirror lens is a marvel of portability. I have recently used it to film a nesting pigeon 15m away and I found no benefit to using my zoom, or other lenses in my kit. This mirror lens with it’s built in hood balanced perfectly with my Z50 giving an effective 750mm focal length, but still with a shallow enough DoF to blur out foreground a background branches. If someone one day manages to create an AF & VR version, it would be incredible if you don’t mind onion rings.
I have had mine for several years and love it on my Sony a7RIII. The IBIS makes it a hand shooter even at 125th. I even get autofocus using my Pronto. The f8 aperture slows the AF down, so birds in flight is hit and miss but it works. It works great for sunspot pics with a 1.4 and 2x combined teleconverters. All that said it’s very sharp and light, albeit with onion rings. lol
One of the least useless mirror lenses, given its sharpness, not-too-low contrast, and minimum focussing distance (1.5m in the last version). To get sharp pictures handheld is challenging because focussing an ever-moving subject (in the viewfinder) is difficult. Shooting exposure time should be 1/1000s or shorter, so get a high-ISO capable camera. A monopod with an orientable head is nearly a must, not because of the weight (that lens is way too light, being full of air) but because of camera shake.
With the 300/4 PF available, the usefulness of the 500/8 is further reduced: success rate and image quality of the cropped 300/4 shots is generally superior. And you may guess which has the better bokeh…