Nikon 400 F/4.5 lens announced

[Ken Miracle]

I was seldom excited with TC's on my DSLR's ... one exception was the Tamron 70-200 G2 and and the Tamron 1.4 TC which was exceptional and so much so at the time that I sold my 300pf as I had just aquired the 500pf. That Tamron 70-200 G2 was probably the best lens I ever owned re. IQ, focusing speed etc. etc. But and it is a big BUT it was almost never used. As a run and gun birder where photography is for ID first and I love to chase sparrow sized birds so more mm is better Hence my 600 f/4E giving way to my 800 mm f/6.3 pf. I have also been very surprised at how well the Z1.4TC performs on the Z100-400 and even the f mount 1.4 on the 500pf both now sold as I have moved to all Z mount lenses.

 

[Chris K]

I’m a bit tempted to replace my 500PF with my 100-400 too, but the 500PF works so well with the 1.4x that I’m more questioning my need for the 800PF.

The 100-400 has a tiny bit of fringing in harsh contra light, and the combination of the 1.4x and my Northern clime often conspire to give me more PP work than I will tolerate.

 

[Ken Miracle]

I’m a bit tempted to replace my 500PF with my 100-400 too, but the 500PF works so well with the 1.4x that I’m more questioning my need for the 800PF.

The 100-400 has a tiny bit of fringing in harsh contra light, and the combination of the 1.4x and my Northern clime often conspire to give me more PP work than I will tolerate.

For my run and gun birding, mostly ID shots of small birds ( think sparrows) in brush and in the open, and BIF shots of birds from Swallows to Eagles (all hand held) over a wide range of terrain and cover I have essentially replaced my 500pf and 600f/4E with the Z800pf .... the combination of weight, focal length, IS, focus etc. as a package made the 800 pf a no brainer for me. This specialized lens fits my specialized needs.

 

[fcotterill]

Some members have not have read this essay

The Log Jam at 400mm | Thom Hogan

Nikon announces the 400mm f/4.5 VS S lens for the Z System

www.zsystemuser.com

 

[Snapquacky]

Some members have not have read this essay

The Log Jam at 400mm | Thom Hogan

Nikon announces the 400mm f/4.5 VS S lens for the Z System

www.zsystemuser.com

Interesting read, thank you. One part of that caught my attention, see below:

So, the 400mm f/4.5 is not PF, but it's another of the "shorter than expected lenses." So yes, Nikon is starting to show off some of the design benefits that come from that large, close lens mount.

Intrigued to know how much difference that could be making.

 

[fcotterill]

Interesting read, thank you. One part of that caught my attention, see below:

Intrigued to know how much difference that could be making.

I'm not qualified to say. Likely, it's the only Nikon engineers are privy to the deeper intricacies of the optical design on Z vs F mount for telephotos. The number of elements is intriguing, particularly how they cluster in the rear of the lens barrel. And they have not skimped on special glass to minimize CA.

Compared to the 400 f2.8S (with its 2 fluorite elements) and without its TC14 engaged:

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

It's been postulated the shorter focal lengths leverage the most benefits from the wider, shallower mount. However this does not appear to be strictly so. Basically, there are too many uncertainties

 

[Snapquacky]

I'm not qualified to say. Likely, it's the only Nikon engineers are privy to the deeper intricacies of the optical design on Z vs F mount for telephotos. The number of elements is intriguing, particularly how they cluster in the rear of the lens barrel. And they have not skimped on special glass to minimize CA.

View attachment 41993

Compared to the 400 f2.8S (with its 2 fluorite elements) and without its TC14 engaged:

View attachment 41995
It's been postulated the shorter focal lengths leverage the most benefits from the wider, shallower mount. However this does not appear to be strictly so. Basically, there are too many uncertainties

Thanks for posting these images, I find the number of elements and positioning quite interesting. I read the other day where somebody raised there concerns about the shear number of elements in some of these new lens designs, they were comparing to the 'more traditional' 600f4 and 400f2.8 I suspect without built in TC's. Mention of more room for error with sample variation which I suppose would make some sense.

Sadly I am not in a position to experience all this wonderful glass at the moment, no doubt those who have used most or all of these super tele lenses will have an opinion. I suspect weight loss plays a big part, and of course reduction in size, are these new lenses also beating their predecessors in sharpness, micro contrast and general image quality. Very interesting indeed to me at least, thanks for taking the time to post.

 

[Snapquacky]

Some random information on elements/groups from Nikon, Sony and Canon, 400's but also 800 and a few others...

Nikkor Z 400mm f/4.5 VR S - 19 elements in 13 groups

NIKKOR AF-S 400mm f/2.8E FL ED VR - 16 elements in 12 groups

NIKKOR Z 400mm f/2.8 TC VR S - 25 elements in 19 groups (including 7 elements in 4 groups in the built-in teleconverter)

Sony FE 400mm F2.8 GM OSS LENS - 23 elements in 17 groups

Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM - 7 elements in 6 groups

Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO IS II USM - 18 elements in 12 groups

Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS III USM - 17 elements in 13 groups
______________________________________________________

Canon RF800mm f/5.6L IS USM - 26 elements in 18 groups

Nikon 800mm f/5.6 VR - 20 elements in 13 groups

Nikon Z 800mm f/6.3 VR - 22 elements in 14 groups.
_________________________________________________

Sony 200-600 - 24 Elements in 17 Groups
_______________________________________

NIKKOR Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S - 25 elements in 20 groups

Sony FE 100-400mm G Master - 22 elements in 16 groups


The Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM has a ridiculously low number of elements and groups, I wonder why that is, less than half of all the others, lack of image stabilisation?

 

[fcotterill]

This short video demonstrates how really light and compact this 400mm is to handle

 

[O]

Hot off the presses. 1,160 grams (about 2.55 lbs), $3.250. Not yet listed on NPS

Nikon Nikkor Z 400mm f/4.5 VR S lens announced - Nikon Rumors

The previously rumored Nikon Nikkor Z 400mm f/4.5 VR S lens is now officially announced: Pre-orders: US: Adorama | Amazon | B&H Photo DE: Calumet | Foto Erhardt | Foto Koch UK: WEX CA: Camera Canada First look Hands-on report Sample photos Nikkor Z 400mm f/4.5 VR S lens additional informtion...

nikonrumors.com

Not Cheap, looks like the monitored internet chatter has helped price point this lens.

I feel the 500 mm F5.6 is a more useful lens due to its range but its not a Z lens, i think Nikon have been clever, bring out a 400 first then a 500 z or 200-600 Z.

 

[Alistair]

Not Cheap, looks like the monitored internet chatter has helped price point this lens.

I feel the 500 mm F5.6 is a more useful lens due to its range but its not a Z lens, i think Nikon have been clever, bring out a 400 first then a 500 z or 200-600 Z.

Is this not the Z mount 560mm F5.6 ?

 

[fcotterill]

Nikon has been refining it's R&D strategy over the past 2 decades, at least. Again, as with the cursory lens schematics and specs they publish, any industrial details are only drip fed to the photography press.

OPTIA was one significant advance it seems, to simulate alternative optical designs for lenses. They admitted to this with the NeoNoct aka 58 F1.4G, as Haruo Sato relied on OPTIA in doggedly pursuing his goal of 3 D rendering. This translated interview is an interesting read....2 parts. At least some of Z mount Nikkors appear to perpetuate these principles inaugurated in their beautiful bokeh.

Nikon devoted significant effort into refining its 'Centennial Prime', the 105 F1.4E. Compared to the 58 F1.4G, they improved the Sharpness whilst perpetuating the exquisite bokeh of the NeoNoct. Another interesting interview in 2 Parts includes explanations why Nikon has used a pair of ED elements in the anterior of its telephotos, ever since the Nikkor-H 300mm f2.8 was designed for the 1972 Winter Olympics.

The 300 f4E PF can also be viewed in retrospect as something of a watershed in its innovations and very high qualities, including optimizations for superb IQ with the f mount TCs. Its design entailed big challenges.

It seems the 18-200 DX super zoom can be recognized today as an earlier watershed, when Nikon changed its approach. This included the switch to a tight team of engineers replacing a single designer. These young designers conquered major challenges in the process. This is still an excellent travel zoom on DX. In key respects, it's the progenitor of much that has followed in high quality Nikkor zooms.

The challenges injected by VR seems to be one reason for the increase in lens elements in these modern telephotos. However the intricacies of optical engineering continue to mature in modern lenses, we photographers are living in interesting times!

Some random information on elements/groups from Nikon, Sony and Canon, 400's but also 800 and a few others...

Nikkor Z 400mm f/4.5 VR S - 19 elements in 13 groups

NIKKOR AF-S 400mm f/2.8E FL ED VR - 16 elements in 12 groups

NIKKOR Z 400mm f/2.8 TC VR S - 25 elements in 19 groups (including 7 elements in 4 groups in the built-in teleconverter)

Sony FE 400mm F2.8 GM OSS LENS - 23 elements in 17 groups

Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM - 7 elements in 6 groups

Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO IS II USM - 18 elements in 12 groups

Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS III USM - 17 elements in 13 groups
______________________________________________________

Canon RF800mm f/5.6L IS USM - 26 elements in 18 groups

Nikon 800mm f/5.6 VR - 20 elements in 13 groups

Nikon Z 800mm f/6.3 VR - 22 elements in 14 groups.
_________________________________________________

Sony 200-600 - 24 Elements in 17 Groups
_______________________________________

NIKKOR Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S - 25 elements in 20 groups

Sony FE 100-400mm G Master - 22 elements in 16 groups


The Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM has a ridiculously low number of elements and groups, I wonder why that is, less than half of all the others, lack of image stabilisation?

 

[fcotterill]

The photos in this Japanese article depict more details of the 400 f4.5S, including size comparison to the 400 f2.8S TC

写真で見る NIKKOR Z 400mm f/4.5 VR S 400mm単焦点に小型軽量版　F2.8とサイズ比較

ニコンが7月15日に発売するZマウント交換レンズ「NIKKOR Z 400mm f/4.5 VR S」の外観をお届けする。

dc.watch.impress.co.jp

 

[Snapquacky]

Nikon has been refining it's R&D strategy over the past 2 decades, at least. Again, as with cursory lens schematics they publish, any industrial details are only drip fed to the photography press.

OPTIA was one significant advance it seems, to simulate alternative optical designs for lenses. They admitted to this with the NeoNoct aka 58 F1.4G, which Haruo Sato relied on in doggedly pursuing his goal of 3 D rendering. This translated interview is an interesting read....2 parts. At least some of Z mount Nikkors appear to perpetuate these principles inaugurated in their beautiful bokeh.

Nikon devoted significant effort into refining its Centennial prime, the 105 F1.4E. compared to the 58 F1.4G, this improved the Sharpness whilst perpetuating the exquisite bokeh in the NeoNoct. Another interesting interview in 2 Parts. Interesting explanations why Nikon has used a pair of ED elements in the anterior of its telephotos ever since the Nikkor-H 300mm f2.8 was designed for the 1972 Winter Olympics.

The 300 f4E PF can also be viewed in retrospect as something of a watershed in its innovations and very high qualities, including optimizations for superb IQ with the f mount TCs. Its design entailed big challenges.

The 18-200 DX super zoom seems to have been a watershed, as Nikon changed its approach, including the switch to a tight team of engineers replacing a single designer. These young designers conquered major challenges in the process. This is still an excellent travel zoom on DX. In key respects, it's the progenitor of much that's followed in high quality Nikkor zooms.

The challenges injected by VR seems to be one reason for the increase in lens elements in these modern telephotos. However the intricacies of optical engineering continue to mature in modern lenses, we photographers are living in interesting times!

Very interesting, I will continue reading these articles in full later, thank you for posting.

 

[Alistair]

Some members have not have read this essay

The Log Jam at 400mm | Thom Hogan

Nikon announces the 400mm f/4.5 VS S lens for the Z System

www.zsystemuser.com

Skim-read but dismissed as the nonsense it is. There are only two 400mm lenses, a fast and a slow one. Thom ropes in the 70-200 and 100-400 to make a clickable headline. Both of these roped in lenses are essential to a lens line-up regardless of what else is there.

 

[fcotterill]

Many photographers depend on teleconverters to extend the niches of shorter lenses. Invariably it's a tradeoff in quality vs expenditure and also weight. This often cuts costs dramatically eg TC2 on a 70-200.
It's great how the Z System has matured with these 4 options to get a 400mm prime,zoom or combination. Then there are several F-mount options, some which also 'reach' 400 with a TC (the G and versions of the 70-200's, 200 f2G etc).
Many investing in expensive lenses, particularly on a tight budget, find these essays useful, not nonsense.
This topic that's been discussed over the past decade+ as new lenses are released; given the choices it's useful to have these reliable guidelines ie Brad Hill and Thom H

Natural Art Images: Brad Hill: Field Tests: Four Ways to 400mm

Field Tests by Brad Hill - Wildlife Photographer. A comparison of four ways to get to 400mm with Nikon lenses. Nikon Cameras, Nikon Lenses, Nikon Accessories.

www.naturalart.ca

 

[fcotterill]

Another recent comparison of 400 (560) options for the (Greater) Z Ecosystem

The Nikon Z 400mm f/4.5 Isn't PF, But It's As Small As One

Alongside the Z30, Nikon also just formally announced the $3250 Z 400mm f/4.5 S, shipping in mid-July. This lens isn't much of a surprise since it was already on the roadmap - plus it had plenty of hands-on previews from YouTubers last week - but it's still an exciting sight.

photographylife.com

 

[BLev65]

Good morning... I thought I'd share a story of my morning shoot and how I think this relates to the 400mm dilemma.
Today I visited a regular location to photograph beavers, muskrats, green herons, and wood ducks. The location is a steep climb up and a steep climb down... about 3/4 miles in both directions (I like to say it is uphill both ways ).

First the Backstory: I've been photographing the lives of beavers and their co-inhabitants since 2014. My original gear for this project was the 200-400 VR1 and D300 (followed by D500). This provides an effective 300-600mm f/4 lens. The burden of a pre-sunrise hike in and out the pond was something I always described as the "price to play."
In late 2018 I purchased the 500PF and began to exchange the 200-400 w/ a 500PF / 70-200 combo-platter. I sold both the 200-400 and 70-200 f2.8 since purchasing the 100-400S and now pair this with the 500PF.

Enter today: I was at the trialhead by 5:45 (or so). The morning was overcast and threatening to rain. After the mornings hike in, I nestled down along the beaver's lodge and waited. Once the beaver appeared (and later the heron) the shooting began. Here I was at 500mm f5.6 / 1/320 / ISO6400. Every bit of focal length and light mattered. There was not one moment in which I thought... let me grab the 100-400mm lens, as I needed to be at 500mm.

The 4004.5 lens poses a problem for someone who already has the 100-400 and 500PF. The 500PF is "that good" and is 500mm w/out a converter. The 400PF is redundant w/ the 100-400 and w/ converter, slower than the 500PF.

For those who do not have the 100-400 / 500PF combo-platter and want all native glass, the 400 f4.5 is perfect... Had Nikon released the 400 f4.5 prior to my purchase of the 100-400, I think I would have pre-ordered... however, in the end, I might have had buyer's remorse, as 500mm is an important starting point for much of my wildlife photography.

Attached... a picture of the beaver pond at 7AM 7/4
regards,
bruce

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[Snapquacky]

Good morning... I thought I'd share a story of my morning shoot and how I think this relates to the 400mm dilemma.
Today I visited a regular location to photograph beavers, muskrats, green herons, and wood ducks. The location is a steep climb up and a steep climb down... about 3/4 miles in both directions (I like to say it is uphill both ways ).

First the Backstory: I've been photographing the lives of beavers and their co-inhabitants since 2014. My original gear for this project was the 200-400 VR1 and D300 (followed by D500). This provides an effective 300-600mm f/4 lens. The burden of a pre-sunrise hike in and out the pond was something I always described as the "price to play."
In late 2018 I purchased the 500PF and began to exchange the 200-400 w/ a 500PF / 70-200 combo-platter. I sold both the 200-400 and 70-200 f2.8 since purchasing the 100-400S and now pair this with the 500PF.

Enter today: I was at the trialhead by 5:45 (or so). The morning was overcast and threatening to rain. After the mornings hike in, I nestled down along the beaver's lodge and waited. Once the beaver appeared (and later the heron) the shooting began. Here I was at 500mm f5.6 / 1/320 / ISO6400. Every bit of focal length and light mattered. There was not one moment in which I thought... let me grab the 100-400mm lens, as I needed to be at 500mm.

The 400PF lens poses a problem for someone who already has the 100-400 and 500PF. The 500PF is "that good" and is 500mm w/out a converter. The 400PF is redundant w/ the 100-400 and w/ converter, slower than the 500PF.

For those who do not have the 100-400 / 500PF combo-platter and want all native glass, the 400 f4.5 is perfect... Had Nikon released the 400 f4.5 prior to my purchase of the 100-400, I think I would have pre-ordered... however, in the end, I might have had buyer's remorse, as 500mm is an important starting point for much of my wildlife photography.

Attached... a picture of the beaver pond at 7AM 7/4
regards,
bruce
View attachment 42123

Hi Bruce, thanks for the backstory, very interesting. As you say I think 400 for wildlife is potentially on the short end, unless it was an f2.8 in which case I would take one! The 500PF on Z mount would surely be a nicer option. Those conditions and ISO6400 sound familiar to me though

 

[Ken Miracle]

Good morning... I thought I'd share a story of my morning shoot and how I think this relates to the 400mm dilemma.
Today I visited a regular location to photograph beavers, muskrats, green herons, and wood ducks. The location is a steep climb up and a steep climb down... about 3/4 miles in both directions (I like to say it is uphill both ways ).

First the Backstory: I've been photographing the lives of beavers and their co-inhabitants since 2014. My original gear for this project was the 200-400 VR1 and D300 (followed by D500). This provides an effective 300-600mm f/4 lens. The burden of a pre-sunrise hike in and out the pond was something I always described as the "price to play."
In late 2018 I purchased the 500PF and began to exchange the 200-400 w/ a 500PF / 70-200 combo-platter. I sold both the 200-400 and 70-200 f2.8 since purchasing the 100-400S and now pair this with the 500PF.

Enter today: I was at the trialhead by 5:45 (or so). The morning was overcast and threatening to rain. After the mornings hike in, I nestled down along the beaver's lodge and waited. Once the beaver appeared (and later the heron) the shooting began. Here I was at 500mm f5.6 / 1/320 / ISO6400. Every bit of focal length and light mattered. There was not one moment in which I thought... let me grab the 100-400mm lens, as I needed to be at 500mm.

The 400PF lens poses a problem for someone who already has the 100-400 and 500PF. The 500PF is "that good" and is 500mm w/out a converter. The 400PF is redundant w/ the 100-400 and w/ converter, slower than the 500PF.

For those who do not have the 100-400 / 500PF combo-platter and want all native glass, the 400 f4.5 is perfect... Had Nikon released the 400 f4.5 prior to my purchase of the 100-400, I think I would have pre-ordered... however, in the end, I might have had buyer's remorse, as 500mm is an important starting point for much of my wildlife photography.

Attached... a picture of the beaver pond at 7AM 7/4
regards,
bruce
View attachment 42123

Just in case you missed it the 400 f/4.5 is not a PF lens.

Out of curiosity what Z body were you using?

I have found my Z9 and Z6II better in low light than my D500 was but I am quite tolerant of higher ISO. Just to note the 400 f/4.5 is not a PF lens.

 

[ssheipel]

I'm sticking with my F-mount 180-400 f4 but have committed to finally growing arms and shoulders strong enough to make hand holding (which I do all the time) actually produce keepers

 

[BLev65]

Just in case you missed it the 400 f/4.5 is not a PF lens.

Out of curiosity what Z body were you using?

I have found my Z9 and Z6II better in low light than my D500 was but I am quite tolerant of higher ISO. Just to note the 400 f/4.5 is not a PF lens.

Thanks for the note Ken... I do know that the 400 f4.5 is not a PF. If I called is a PF lens, I'll edit my post.
As for my gear,... I took a trip in March with my wife to photograph birds of SE TX. At that time I had... a Z7ii, two Z6ii, Z7 and D500. For optics, we had the 500PF, 200-400VR, 100-400S, 24-200, and 24-70. My wife is not taking pictures any longer, so I sold off the redundant gear, simplified things, and used some of the proceeds to buy a Z9.
I now have only 2 bodies and 3 lenses.. Z9 w/ 500PF (always attached), Z6ii w/ either the 24-70 or 100-400.
The Z9/Z6ii are much better at ISO 3200-6400 than the D500. I set my auto ISO to max out at ISO 1600 on the D500s. I'd push this to 3200, but would never shoot it above that ISO. I tend to shoot sunrise/crepuscular light and find that high ISO really stinks during these conditions.
My ideal lens would be the 400 f2.8S w/ built in converter, unfortunately, I am not prepared to shell out that much money... However, there may be a point when I will break into the piggy bank to make that one big purchase.

bruce

 

[Ken Miracle]

Thanks for the note Ken... I do know that the 400 f4.5 is not a PF. If I called is a PF lens, I'll edit my post.
As for my gear,... I took a trip in March with my wife to photograph birds of SE TX. At that time I had... a Z7ii, two Z6ii, Z7 and D500. For optics, we had the 500PF, 200-400VR, 100-400S, 24-200, and 24-70. My wife is not taking pictures any longer, so I sold off the redundant gear, simplified things, and used some of the proceeds to buy a Z9.
I now have only 2 bodies and 3 lenses.. Z9 w/ 500PF (always attached), Z6ii w/ either the 24-70 or 100-400.
The Z9/Z6ii are much better at ISO 3200-6400 than the D500. I set my auto ISO to max out at ISO 1600 on the D500s. I'd push this to 3200, but would never shoot it above that ISO. I tend to shoot sunrise/crepuscular light and find that high ISO really stinks during these conditions.
My ideal lens would be the 400 f2.8S w/ built in converter, unfortunately, I am not prepared to shell out that much money... However, there may be a point when I will break into the piggy bank to make that one big purchase.

bruce

Hi Bruce As @Steve has said in books and videos each person will have a different tolerance for higher ISO ... I used to set my D500 limit to about 5,000 .. I have always had a terrible memory for numbers so not sure exactly where I put it. As I noted I shoot more for bird ID than anything else and my D6 is wearing the Z800 PF the vast majority of the time. My Z6II performs great in low light and I have used the Z100-400 and the 500pf (no longer have it) on it before sunrise with great results. Having the Z100-400 and the 800pf the 500pf was just sitting around my wife thought it was to big and she did not like taking the lens hood on and off so she would not use it so it was sold.
Z6II usually has Z24-120, Z70-200 or Z100-400 on it.

 

[BLev65]

Hi Bruce As @Steve has said in books and videos each person will have a different tolerance for higher ISO ... I used to set my D500 limit to about 5,000 .. I have always had a terrible memory for numbers so not sure exactly where I put it. As I noted I shoot more for bird ID than anything else and my D6 is wearing the Z800 PF the vast majority of the time. My Z6II performs great in low light and I have used the Z100-400 and the 500pf (no longer have it) on it before sunrise with great results. Having the Z100-400 and the 800pf the 500pf was just sitting around my wife thought it was to big and she did not like taking the lens hood on and off so she would not use it so it was sold.
Z6II usually has Z24-120, Z70-200 or Z100-400 on it.

Hello Ken,
I'm not a birder, so I rarely photograph birds to ID them. This is a little ironic, as I began my post collegiate years as an ornithologist studying birds in exotic locations. While I might have been described as an ornithologist, my interests were focused on adaptive survival... thus an evolutionary ecologist that used birds as a model to support my area of interest.
Anyway, I now photograph nature for art, for education, and to promote conservation. To me, light and composition are my priorities; the subject is secondary.
With respect to lenses, other than specialized occasions, I think the 800PF is too long for me. If Nikon had made a 500 f5.6 in Z-mount, I'd buy it in a heartbeat... for now, I have my eyes on the 400mm f2.8 w/ converter.

BTW... I purchased this hood from Zemlin... it is more like the hood you have on your 800PF lens: https://www.zemlinphoto.com/product...rue&sa=false&sbp=false&q=false&category_id=82

 

[Ken Miracle]

Hello Ken,
I'm not a birder, so I rarely photograph birds to ID them. This is a little ironic, as I began my post collegiate years as an ornithologist studying birds in exotic locations. While I might have been described as an ornithologist, my interests were focused on adaptive survival... thus an evolutionary ecologist that used birds as a model to support my area of interest.
Anyway, I now photograph nature for art, for education, and to promote conservation. To me, light and composition are my priorities; the subject is secondary.
With respect to lenses, other than specialized occasions, I think the 800PF is too long for me. If Nikon had made a 500 f5.6 in Z-mount, I'd buy it in a heartbeat... for now, I have my eyes on the 400mm f2.8 w/ converter.

BTW... I purchased this hood from Zemlin... it is more like the hood you have on your 800PF lens: https://www.zemlinphoto.com/product...rue&sa=false&sbp=false&q=false&category_id=82

Yup the 800 is a pretty specialized lens and great for those of us who always found 600mm to short many times My hurry up and wait at the moment is as mentioned above the Z600 and/or Z200-600.

Way to go with your ongoing conservation efforts.

My face book and "conservation" card motto "Shoot, Share and Conserve" I have been involved in conservation efforts for many years. I was a Field and Stream Hero of Conservation in 2014 when a pro from Philadelphia came out here and shot the image I have here as my profile photo. I still do a lot of volunteer work for and financially support many local groups Boise River Enhancement Network, Golden Eagle Audubon Society, The Nature Conservancy of Idaho, The Land Trust of the Treasure Valley, Intermountain Bird Observatory etc. etc. Many of the relatively few landscape, scenic and technical images I shoot or have shot are for one of these entities.