The 500mm f/4.0 costs a lot more though. But look how short this thing is. Must be some heavy negative lenses in it to make it 500mm.https://petapixel.com/2018/07/14/nikon-500mm-f-5-6-spotted-its-tiny/

I think you're wrong on the $10k.  Recheck your source.Also, not that small.

DiffractionLtd wrote:The 500mm f/4.0 costs a lot more though. But look how short this thing is. Must be some heavy negative lenses in it to make it 500mm.https://petapixel.com/2018/07/14/nikon-500mm-f-5-6-spotted-its-tiny/It's rumored to be $4,300, not $10,000.It does look small for a 500mm f5.6.

Lance B wrote:DiffractionLtd wrote:The 500mm f/4.0 costs a lot more though. But look how short this thing is. Must be some heavy negative lenses in it to make it 500mm.https://petapixel.com/2018/07/14/nikon-500mm-f-5-6-spotted-its-tiny/It's rumored to be $4,300, not $10,000.It does look small for a 500mm f5.6.I've never seen a 500 5.6 so I have no idea if it's small for one, but I noticed the lens hood was left off to give the appearance of it being smaller.I checked the specs and at 11" with no hood, it's the same length as my 300 2.8VR, and unless they're going to shave 2 or 3 pounds off the 6.4 lbs of my 300, it's not going to be the lens that fellows who want to shift to mirrorless due to the weight are going to want. For reference the 200-500 is 5.1 lbs.  And at 11" and 6+ lbs a 300 2.8 is not a lens to lug around and handhold all day.But they say a good salesman can sell a refrigerator to an Eskimo, though you're probably not politically correct calling anyone a salesman or an Eskimo anymore.

T O Shooter wrote:Lance B wrote:DiffractionLtd wrote:The 500mm f/4.0 costs a lot more though. But look how short this thing is. Must be some heavy negative lenses in it to make it 500mm.https://petapixel.com/2018/07/14/nikon-500mm-f-5-6-spotted-its-tiny/It's rumored to be $4,300, not $10,000.It does look small for a 500mm f5.6.I've never seen a 500 5.6 so I have no idea if it's small for one, but I noticed the lens hood was left off to give the appearance of it being smaller.I checked the specs and at 11" with no hood, it's the same length as my 300 2.8VR, and unless they're going to shave 2 or 3 pounds off the 6.4 lbs of my 300, it's not going to be the lens that fellows who want to shift to mirrorless due to the weight are going to want. For reference the 200-500 is 5.1 lbs. And at 11" and 6+ lbs a 300 2.8 is not a lens to lug around and handhold all day.But they say a good salesman can sell a refrigerator to an Eskimo, though you're probably not politically correct calling anyone a salesman or an Eskimo anymore.Just as well it doesn't have a meniscus lens

That is impressively small. Whatever the weight, at that length, it should be well-balanced. It's got a gold ring so, Nikon is definitely representing professional quality.

Bill Ferris wrote:That is impressively small.You have to be seeing something other than what I'm seeing, and I'm coming from large primes, so I should have an idea of what's a large lens and what is not. Though at this point I could be nuts as well.But a 300 2.8VR is 11" and a 300 Pf is almost 1/2 that at 5.8"  In comparison a 500e is 15.2", the mentioned 300 2.8VR is 11" and the 500 Pf is 11".Even the 200-500 is over 5 lbs and at 200mm is 11" +/- long.So I'm not feeling the 300 Pf was great, light and small, when the 500 5.6 comes up. It's just not doing to a 500 f4 what the 300 Pf did to a 300 2.8.Whatever the weight, at that length, it should be well-balanced. It's got a gold ring so, Nikon is definitely representing professional quality.Gold rings are not what they used to be.

T O Shooter wrote:Lance B wrote:DiffractionLtd wrote:The 500mm f/4.0 costs a lot more though. But look how short this thing is. Must be some heavy negative lenses in it to make it 500mm.https://petapixel.com/2018/07/14/nikon-500mm-f-5-6-spotted-its-tiny/It's rumored to be $4,300, not $10,000.It does look small for a 500mm f5.6.I've never seen a 500 5.6 so I have no idea if it's small for one, but I noticed the lens hood was left off to give the appearance of it being smaller.I checked the specs and at 11" with no hood, it's the same length as my 300 2.8VR, and unless they're going to shave 2 or 3 pounds off the 6.4 lbs of my 300, it's not going to be the lens that fellows who want to shift to mirrorless due to the weight are going to want. For reference the 200-500 is 5.1 lbs. And at 11" and 6+ lbs a 300 2.8 is not a lens to lug around and handhold all day.I still say it is still small for a 500mm f5.6 especially considering the 200-500 when extended to 500mm is 340mm long! I also think the 500 is supposed to be only 240mm long, not 280mm as you have indicated. I think you will find that it will weigh in at less than 2kg, possibly 1.5-1.8kg.  This will make it a truly portable travel super tele.But they say a good salesman can sell a refrigerator to an Eskimo, though you're probably not politically correct calling anyone a salesman or an Eskimo anymore.

In the UK the 500 f4 is around £8450 including 20% sales tax.Without sales tax it is around £6,800.£6,800 for the f4 makes US $10,000 seem expensive,I have not seen any Nikon announcement on an f5.6 price. Without sales tax £3,400 might be a first guess.

From NR;https://nikonrumors.com/2018/07/06/nikon-af-s-nikkor-500mm-f-5-6e-pf-ed-vr-lens-additional-information-price-and-length.aspx/

nuke12 wrote:From NR;https://nikonrumors.com/2018/07/06/nikon-af-s-nikkor-500mm-f-5-6e-pf-ed-vr-lens-additional-information-price-and-length.aspx/If the price of Euro 4,300 includes tax the UK launch price should be around £4,000, falling to around £3,500 at some future time when 15% street discounts become normal.While the weight saving would be tempting I already have the 200-400 and 200-500 in addition to the 300 PF. I do not foresee my buying it at least in the short term.

T O Shooter wrote:Bill Ferris wrote:That is impressively small.You have to be seeing something other than what I'm seeing, ...For context, the 200-500 collapsed to 200mm is about the same length as the 500 f/5.6E PF. The 500 f/4E FL is 15-inches in length - significantly longer. In the world of 500mm lenses, the new f/5.6E PF is small.

T O Shooter wrote:Bill Ferris wrote:That is impressively small.You have to be seeing something other than what I'm seeing, and I'm coming from large primes, so I should have an idea of what's a large lens and what is not. Though at this point I could be nuts as well.But a 300 2.8VR is 11" and a 300 Pf is almost 1/2 that at 5.8" In comparison a 500e is 15.2", the mentioned 300 2.8VR is 11" and the 500 Pf is 11".The latest rumour puts the 500mm f/5.6E Pf at about 9.5 inches long (240mm), not 11 inches.

Lance B wrote:DiffractionLtd wrote:The 500mm f/4.0 costs a lot more though. But look how short this thing is. Must be some heavy negative lenses in it to make it 500mm.https://petapixel.com/2018/07/14/nikon-500mm-f-5-6-spotted-its-tiny/It's rumored to be $4,300, not $10,000.It does look small for a 500mm f5.6.Conflicting reports of price.  $4,300 though sounds more realistic.

DiffractionLtd wrote:Lance B wrote:DiffractionLtd wrote:The 500mm f/4.0 costs a lot more though. But look how short this thing is. Must be some heavy negative lenses in it to make it 500mm.https://petapixel.com/2018/07/14/nikon-500mm-f-5-6-spotted-its-tiny/It's rumored to be $4,300, not $10,000.It does look small for a 500mm f5.6.Conflicting reports of price. $4,300 though sounds more realistic.Where did you get your price from?

Sorry, I was tired and in a hurry, but I didn't think it would be $10k because lenses slower by a stop are usually a couple orders of magnitude cheaper.

Bill Ferris wrote:That is impressively small. Whatever the weight, at that length, it should be well-balanced. It's got a gold ring so, Nikon is definitely representing professional quality.The 24-120 f/4 also has a gold ring.

DiffractionLtd wrote:Lance B wrote:DiffractionLtd wrote:The 500mm f/4.0 costs a lot more though. But look how short this thing is. Must be some heavy negative lenses in it to make it 500mm.https://petapixel.com/2018/07/14/nikon-500mm-f-5-6-spotted-its-tiny/It's rumored to be $4,300, not $10,000.It does look small for a 500mm f5.6.Conflicting reports of price. $4,300 though sounds more realistic.No conflicting reports that mention $10,000, are there?

DiffractionLtd wrote:Sorry, I was tired and in a hurry, but I didn't think it would be $10k because lenses slower by a stop are usually a couple orders of magnitude cheaper.A couple of orders of magnitude??  An order of magnitude is generally considered to be a 10X difference.  I don't thing the 500mm f/5.6 will be selling for $100.  Or even a $1000.

Hi to all,Interesting find. I suppose we still have to take it as "anything can happen". Meaning either it is true, false, correct or incorrect.Here is my opinion about a 500mm f5.6 PF:if it is true then it is a mistake.What is my logic behind my opinion? Well, there is a fairly decent 200-500mm f5.6 Nikkor, it is light as far as super zooms go and optically excellent with exceptional VR.Then, above mentioned zoom is reasonably affordable. So why would I, or anyone else, spend thousands more to have the same focal length and f stop? Yes, it likely will focus faster being a prime lens but that would be the only major improvement. Would it worth three thousand extra? Not with any reasonable logic I would say.We know how expensive the Nikon exotic telephoto lenses are. So most who cannot afford those look for alternative solutions. Therefore they buy a Nikkor 200-500mm , a Tamron 150-600mm or one of the Sigma offerings. How would a 500mm f 5.6 prime lens would fit into this picture?I could see a 600mm f 5.6 lens as a viable offering but not a 500mm one. Why? 600mm is what many who are into wildlife or birding really wish to have. A 600mm f5.6 PF with much lighter weight than its f4 counterpart  for $4,500.00-5,000.00 would be much more affordable and handy. Due to being a prime lens it would focus much faster than the above mentioned zooms. It would only sacrifice one f stop over its f4 cousin but given its easier handling this lens would be excellent for birding and wildlife.Put a 1.4x converter on the 600 mm lens and you have a 840mm f8 lens that would still be reasonably usable with a D500 or D5 in the ISO 400-1600 range. On the other hand the shorter 500mm would go up to 700mm f8, only 100mm over the Tamron and Sigma zooms while sacrificing 2/3 of a stop to do that. Not enough of an advantage in my practice.I like the 500mm f4E FL with a 1.4x converter. 700mm at f5.6 is very usable as far as I can attest to it. Would I use a 500mm f5.6 with a converter for about three thousand dollars more than a Tamron 150-600 G2 to gain 100mm extra while losing 2.3 of a stop when compared to the Tamron? Absolutely not.Anyway, this is my take on the possible 500mm f5.6 PF Nikkor. I wish it would show up as a 600mm f5.6. That would tickle my fancy.Best to all, AIK