Nikon Z 800mm f6.3 PF lens announcement

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

Ivan Rothman

Ivan Rothman

Well-known member
Supporting Member
Marketplace
Member's gallery
With the just made announcement of the Z 28-75mm f2.8 lens, Nikon also announced the development of a Z 800mm f6.3 S VR PF lens. No information of its cost or weight, but based on difference between the F mount 500mm f4 and the 500mm f5.6 PF and then looking at the specs for the F mount 800mm f5.6, I would guess that this lens might weigh 5 or 5.5 lbs and cost $5000.

A great combo for wildlife photography that is lightweight and gives a great range of focal length, might be a Z9, 24-120 f4, 100-400 f4.5-6.3 (which when used with 1.4X TC goes to 560mm f8) and 800mm f6.3 PF (with 1.4X TC goes to 1120mm at f9.5). Z9 should have no problem with AF at f9.5.
I would then be tempted to trade in my beloved but heavy F mount 600mm f4 - I'm getting too old to be carrying it around. And then rely on Topaz DeNoise AI or similar software to handle the increased noise when shooting in low light with higher f stops.
 
Member's gallery
I can still manage my G series 500 F4. I seldom hand hold it, unless I am sitting down, elbow on knee. I actually appreciate the fact that it is heavy in a weird way. 1) It meant it became available for sale from a trusted family member once the E series version came out. 2) It means I really do take my monopod an Wimberley Monogimbal with me (or the tripod with Sidemount) This means that I do get better shots. If it was actually lighter I might be tempted to imagine that hand holding with a long lens and VR turned on might be a good idea. What do you think? Is it just about carrying the huge lens to the spot or does the technique for hand holding a longish lens have some hidden skills that I have yet to discover? (I did find out that beanbags are heavy and hard to carry)

I am always curious about whether lighter versions of really long focal lengths are automatically better.
 
Member's gallery
I'm VERY interested in this one. Although I like F/5.6 better, I can live with a third of a stop :) However, I'd guess more like $8000 (not that I'm opposed to $5000 or so :) )

This looks like it would be very hand-holdable and great for a lot of the work I do. Nikon is really killing it with lens innovations and, ultimately, that may be the deciding factor for many when shooing a system.
 
Member's gallery
Looks very interesting. Wonder what it will weigh and of course, what the cost will be. As reference, the 500 PF is 3.2 lb (1.5 KG). Going from 500 to 800 at the same F stop, ignoring the 1/3 stop difference, the weight will double or slightly more. Of course, the price may follow. Just a curious side note: at one point I compared lens prices to their weight. the price per pound (or KG) was very similar across a large number of superteles (from one mfr). Not sure if that is true from Nikon today, ...
 
Member's gallery
I am excited to see they are changing it up. The lightweight design will definitely be a great benefit and hopefully the decrease in price puts in reach for more people. Yet why f/6.3 vs f/5.6? The 500mm PF is f/5.6 and it's big brother is f/4. I can't see someone forking over more cash just for a f/5.6 version. Would they even make an f/4 800mm...which would be a monster.

Anyways, good for them, sure it will sell well. I still have my eyes on that 400mm f/2.8 with 1.4 TC. 560mm f/4 and 400mm f/2.8 in one lens. Also want to see a new 300mm f/2.8.🤤

Lenses are where it is at in my opinion, without great glass, your body is pointless.
Great Lens + Cheap body = Great photos
OK lenses + Super HighEnd Body = ok photos.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
Griffym said:
I can still manage my G series 500 F4. I seldom hand hold it, unless I am sitting down, elbow on knee. I actually appreciate the fact that it is heavy in a weird way. 1) It meant it became available for sale from a trusted family member once the E series version came out. 2) It means I really do take my monopod an Wimberley Monogimbal with me (or the tripod with Sidemount) This means that I do get better shots. If it was actually lighter I might be tempted to imagine that hand holding with a long lens and VR turned on might be a good idea. What do you think? Is it just about carrying the huge lens to the spot or does the technique for hand holding a longish lens have some hidden skills that I have yet to discover? (I did find out that beanbags are heavy and hard to carry)

I am always curious about whether lighter versions of really long focal lengths are automatically better.
Click to expand...
The "hidden skills" you are looking for are "youth and strength"! Sitting down on the WalkStool helps.
-Tom
 
Member's gallery
I hope it’s lightweight! I struggled with the 200-500 (@ 2.3kg) so I used the monopod with the wimberley monogimbel ( thanks to @Steve ’s video)
but for me, I’d like to see the z 200-600 before committing. Either way, I do hope they can take the z teleconverters. That‘s why I got the 2x with the z 70-200. 🙏
 
Member's gallery
Steve said:
This looks like it would be very hand-holdable and great for a lot of the work I do. Nikon is really killing it with lens innovations and, ultimately, that may be the deciding factor for many when shooing a system.
Click to expand...

I think this is exactly the reaction Nikon wanted from many people who bought a Z9 or even a competitor product. 800mm at f/6.3 is staking out a position that nobody else is matching. It makes the Z9 even more compelling. Now you have a top camera, a top lens, and a lens design that is hard enough to produce that design and manufacturing are tough to match. For wildlife, I'm not sure you can ask for more.

For someone considering a system change, this means slamming on the brakes.

I also find the timing of this announcement interesting. It's in a small window right before the Z9 starts to ship and takes over the news cycle. It's really a smart communication strategy.
 
Member's gallery
Admittedly I should know the answer to this, but the 800 5.6 lists for $16,200 if one is ever in stock. I got mine much less, but love the lens. 6.3 is less than a half stop. I can't see myself trading in my 800 5.6, but the 800 6.3 will likely be half that. The MTF chart is literally a flat line. So I'm not sure how the optical quality could be improved; I love it, and as soon as the Z9 gets here I'll be going to my favorite eagle spot to try it out. So just wondering how it could be less than half (likely) what a new 800 5.6 would cost. Is it just a weight thing? I don't mind the weight and using a tripod. I own the 500 5.6 and love it for larger birds and am anxious to use it in a boat for loons. Hopefully there are tests between the 800 5.6 and 800 6.3 down the line.
 
Member's gallery
padrepaul said:
Admittedly I should know the answer to this, but the 800 5.6 lists for $16,200 if one is ever in stock. I got mine much less, but love the lens. 6.3 is less than a half stop. I can't see myself trading in my 800 5.6, but the 800 6.3 will likely be half that. The MTF chart is literally a flat line. So I'm not sure how the optical quality could be improved; I love it, and as soon as the Z9 gets here I'll be going to my favorite eagle spot to try it out. So just wondering how it could be less than half (likely) what a new 800 5.6 would cost. Is it just a weight thing? I don't mind the weight and using a tripod. I own the 500 5.6 and love it for larger birds and am anxious to use it in a boat for loons. Hopefully there are tests between the 800 5.6 and 800 6.3 down the line.
Click to expand...
The PF design allows a smaller lens but involves some optical compromises that may be undesirable in some situations. The main issue is flare, but you can get some odd bokeh and backgrounds due to reflections with PF lenses. It's half the length, smaller elements, and possibly fewer elements - all of which can reduce cost. A smaller lens driving smaller elements needs a smaller AF motor.

At 800mm, it's going to take great technique to handhold the lens - but it's possible. One of the benefits of VR in the lens is a more stable viewfinder.
 
Member's gallery
In trying to guess what the price would be for the Z 800mm f6.3 lens, I looked at the relative prices of the F mount lenses. Nikon's 300mm f2.8 costs $5500 compared to the 300mm f4 PF lens which is much smaller and lighter and costs $2000, almost ⅓ the price of the larger lens. Nikon's 500mm f4 costs $10,300 compared to the much lighter 500mm f5.6 PF lens which costs $3600, ⅓ the price. So my "guess" is that the Z 800mm f6.3 PF lens will be much lighter and smaller than the F mount 800mm f5.6 and will be a fraction of its cost of $16,300. Maybe that will be $5000-6000. Maybe more.
I would consider trading in my 600mm f4 (a $12000 lens) for the new Z 800mm not only for the longer reach of 800mm but most importantly for a lens which is much lighter and easier to travel or hike with.
 
Member's gallery
EricBowles said:
The PF design allows a smaller lens but involves some optical compromises that may be undesirable in some situations. The main issue is flare, but you can get some odd bokeh and backgrounds due to reflections with PF lenses. It's half the length, smaller elements, and possibly fewer elements - all of which can reduce cost. A smaller lens driving smaller elements needs a smaller AF motor.

At 800mm, it's going to take great technique to handhold the lens - but it's possible. One of the benefits of VR in the lens is a more stable viewfinder.
Click to expand...

Thanks Eric, makes sense. I'm sure it'll be great for a lot of people and am glad Nikon developed it. Lots of lenses coming out, but hard to see changing to any Z glass when the current glass I own takes such nice photos. I think they'll hit a key market with that new 800 for bird and wildlife photographers. Now will be curious too when they announce the 200-600, and if they'll continue to make the 800 5.6.
 
Member's gallery
Maybe that will be $5000-6000. Maybe more.

[/QUOTE]

If the price per millimeter (focal length) of the other PFs is any guide, then we can expect it to come in at about $5,600. However, this is a Z-mount lens and those have trended higher than their F-mount counterparts, plus the 800mm PF is just 1/3 stop slower than the 500mm PF, so we may not be looking at a linear increase in price. If it comes in at or below $6,000, then I think it would be almost as newsworthy as the price of the Z9. I suspect it may come in closer to Steve's estimate of $8,000, which would price me out of the market for sure. A 500mm PF + TC 1.4E III will have to suffice. :)
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
Has Nikon put out any Z lens that is cheaper that the F-mount counterpart?

f6.3 makes a lens cheaper, PF makes a lens more expensive. So, I wouldn't be surprised if it comes in at least at the price of the current 800mm f5.6.
 
Member's gallery
I could never afford a lens like this, but what a great addition to the super-tele line.
I am guessing that the lens will be $7200 to $9500... a wide range for sure, but unless it has a lot of plastic parts, the lens will be expensive. Those large front elements and PF elements are not inexpensive to manufacture.
I look forward to seeing how the lens performs in the field... sadly, I will not be one of those w/ the income to put it through its paces.

regards,
bruce
 
Member's gallery
StefanSC said:
Has Nikon put out any Z lens that is cheaper that the F-mount counterpart?

f6.3 makes a lens cheaper, PF makes a lens more expensive. So, I wouldn't be surprised if it comes in at least at the price of the current 800mm f5.6.
Click to expand...

I would also bet closer the the current 800 vs the 500PF. Maybe 10-14k because of the smaller fstop… but if it’s 7-8k that would be great for those looking to get it :)
 
Member's gallery
Depends how you look at it. If you compare the lenses by named aperture and focal length, they are more expensive. If you compare actual performance and image quality, you get a very different result. Z lenses are arguably much better value for the dollar.
 
Member's gallery
Keep in mind the previous PF models haven't gotten all of the weight savings from the PF technology. They've all been a full stop smaller aperture than their counterparts, i.e. 300 f4PF vs 300 2.8 and 500 5.6 PF vs 500 f4. If they're only dropping 1/3 of a stop then we can hardly expect comparable size difference to the first two examples. Also looking at the images on the Nikon lens roadmap it is almost the exact same length and objective lens diameter as the 400mm 2.8. It does neck down significantly more so will surely be much lighter than the 400. But certainly it is still a pretty good sized lens.
 
Member's gallery
Steve said:
I'm VERY interested in this one. Although I like F/5.6 better, I can live with a third of a stop :) However, I'd guess more like $8000 (not that I'm opposed to $5000 or so :) )

This looks like it would be very hand-holdable and great for a lot of the work I do. Nikon is really killing it with lens innovations and, ultimately, that may be the deciding factor for many when shooing a system.
Click to expand...
Lens selection was what sold me on Nikon when I bought my first SLR, the FM. IMO, lenses are what Nikon must do better than the other system manufacturers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top