Nikon 800 5.6 vs. 6.3

[padrepaul]

Hi all,

Brought this up in another thread, but curious if anyone has any thoughts on the two 800s in terms of comparing them.

I own the 800 5.6 and also the 500 5.6. I moved over to the Z system over the winter, so traded in/sold the D500, D850 and D6. My intent is to use the longer teles for quite some time.

However, let's say the 800 6.3 is in fact $6,000. I purchased the 5.6 refurbished for $9,900. Now a few years later out of curiosity I checked and a quote on it is about $6 for a trade in at a local shop.

I really do not envision doing this, the thought just crossed my mind in the event I wanted to just be all in on the mirrorless lenses (though the FTZII is great and no big deal to use), but one option would be to sell the 800 and get the new one, and possibly sell the 500 as it's great but I own the new 100-400, and am not finding the need much for specifically 500mm.

Again my plan is to not do anything, as I love my current set up, and even if it's just a third of a stop, a third of a stop is something, and every little bit helps photographing owls at sunrise and sunset. But would there be a scenario where it might make sense to simply get the new lens and sell the other one? I'll be real curious what the charts are and if someone is able to test both lenses side by side. It would be of course nice to have less weight, but I don't mind the weight at all as it's mounted properly on a tripod and wimberely gimbal tripod head. I truly cannot see it being any sharper than the 800 5.6, just much lighter.

Thanks for any input,
Paul

 

[abc123brian]

I cannot speak from any experience with the 800mm lenses, but can share what my thought process would be with it. I wouldn’t expect there to be much difference optically between the two (though I could be wrong) so I would approach it from a usage scenario. This will of course depend on the final specs, but will the 800mm PF allow you to do things better or allow you to do something you are unable to do with the current 800mm. For example, if you typically drive to a destination, setup your camera and lens on a tripod near the car, and stay relatively stationary, I’m not sure there would be much advantage. If you typically go for a mile or more walk down trails looking for wildlife, I would think the new 800mm PF would be worth the change. I’d guess it would be much more difficult to handhold the current 800mm so if you were looking for the ability to be off a tripod or more mobile with 800mm, I’d go with the new lens. With the 500mm PF, the main reason I spent the money on it over my 200-500mm I initially bought was all about mobility and being able to handhold it for a lot longer. I’m now using it with the 1.4x at 700mm, handheld, and even for video, it is fantastic. The downside Is of course the ISO penalty when the light is low, but it is very portable and easy to throw in a backpack and take the bike or walk.

The appeal to the new 800mm PF to me is that I could get 800mm in a fairly light and compact package. While it may not fit into a backpack as easily as my 500mm PF with 1.4x, it would most likely be somewhat manageable. For me, I need to decide if 800mm 6.3 is worth whatever the asking price is compared to my 700mm 8 of the 500mm PF + 1.x and if I’d use it enough to justify it. For you, it would be if there were any advantages to your use cases. I would say if the only advantage to you is no FTZ, I would skip it. If the idea of being able to be more mobile, possibly handholding it, or smaller kit for travel, sounds good, then you need to decide if that makes it worth the swap.

 

[JAS]

Note the 800mm f/5.6 comes with a lens matched 1.25 teleconverter giving you a 1000mm and really high quality optics. There will be some whose needs are met at that level. Then there are the rest of us ...

 

[pwaring]

Hi all,

Brought this up in another thread, but curious if anyone has any thoughts on the two 800s in terms of comparing them.

I own the 800 5.6 and also the 500 5.6. I moved over to the Z system over the winter, so traded in/sold the D500, D850 and D6. My intent is to use the longer teles for quite some time.

However, let's say the 800 6.3 is in fact $6,000. I purchased the 5.6 refurbished for $9,900. Now a few years later out of curiosity I checked and a quote on it is about $6 for a trade in at a local shop.

I really do not envision doing this, the thought just crossed my mind in the event I wanted to just be all in on the mirrorless lenses (though the FTZII is great and no big deal to use), but one option would be to sell the 800 and get the new one, and possibly sell the 500 as it's great but I own the new 100-400, and am not finding the need much for specifically 500mm.

Again my plan is to not do anything, as I love my current set up, and even if it's just a third of a stop, a third of a stop is something, and every little bit helps photographing owls at sunrise and sunset. But would there be a scenario where it might make sense to simply get the new lens and sell the other one? I'll be real curious what the charts are and if someone is able to test both lenses side by side. It would be of course nice to have less weight, but I don't mind the weight at all as it's mounted properly on a tripod and wimberely gimbal tripod head. I truly cannot see it being any sharper than the 800 5.6, just much lighter.

Thanks for any input,
Paul

So the advantages for the PF are that it'll be repairable for longer, no FTZ required, likely half the weight of the F-mount 800mm, approx 11cm shorter than an F-mount 800 + FTZ (and can be stored with body mounted in a lot of the more normal camera backpacks that can be used as a carry-on) and that it uses the Z TCs which are known to be excellent. It'll probably have most of the newer lens coatings too.

The known advantages of the F-mount lens are that you already own it, it is a proven lens, it has 1/3 stop extra light potential and a matched TC.

The unknowns (aside from the PF price) are which one is sharper, which has a shorted minimum focusing distance, which one focuses faster and what the compromises will be on the PF lens (worse bokeh or scenarios where it struggles). We also don't know which one will have better VR but the massive weight savings on the PF should make it far easier to handhold.

I suspect the PF will win out on most of the unknowns but who knows about the bokeh or any issues if shooting strongly backlit subjects.

In your position I think you can very comfortably just watch things unfold and continue to enjoy your 800mm lens but with an interest to how well the new lens performs once some proper reviews and comparisons come out. If the weight/size saving strongly appeals to you for any reason then I'd absolutely be thinking about pre-ordering and doing the trade-in.

 

[padrepaul]

So the advantages for the PF are that it'll be repairable for longer, no FTZ required, likely half the weight of the F-mount 800mm, approx 11cm shorter than an F-mount 800 + FTZ (and can be stored with body mounted in a lot of the more normal camera backpacks that can be used as a carry-on) and that it uses the Z TCs which are known to be excellent. It'll probably have most of the newer lens coatings too.

The known advantages of the F-mount lens are that you already own it, it is a proven lens, it has 1/3 stop extra light potential and a matched TC.

The unknowns (aside from the PF price) are which one is sharper, which has a shorted minimum focusing distance, which one focuses faster and what the compromises will be on the PF lens (worse bokeh or scenarios where it struggles). We also don't know which one will have better VR but the massive weight savings on the PF should make it far easier to handhold.

I suspect the PF will win out on most of the unknowns but who knows about the bokeh or any issues if shooting strongly backlit subjects.

In your position I think you can very comfortably just watch things unfold and continue to enjoy your 800mm lens but with an interest to how well the new lens performs once some proper reviews and comparisons come out. If the weight/size saving strongly appeals to you for any reason then I'd absolutely be thinking about pre-ordering and doing the trade-in.

Thanks, weight and size are nice, but frankly the least of my worries. I park my car, get out, and set up; I can hand hold in a pinch, but usually stay put and photograph the owl or warbler. I'll be looking forward to the reports and results of tests coming out later.

 

[DGettisNC]

I expect the PF to be great and I’m going to get one if the price is what I think it is, but that being said I’d be willing to bet the f5.6 will still have the better image as far as sharpness/clarity/bokeh.

being that you got a good deal on it that gives you time to sit back and see, even rent one.

My guess is that the PF will focus faster though. And will take the TCs better if you use them. It’s smaller and much much lighter too, but that doesn’t seem to be an issue for you as you saI’m.

 

[Rassie]

Mark Smith, in one of his reviews, mentioned something that might be worth keeping in mind:
According to him the older F-mount lenses use different focusing motors than the new Z lenses. He believes the Z-mount lenses will focus faster on a Z body than the F-mount lenses. If that is true, it will be a significant advantage for action photography.

 

[TonyF]

I think most of the pros and cons have been covered already but If I were in the same position I would also be thinking about what the 800 / 5.6 will be worth in a couple of years time. There might be a risk it wont be tradable for a $6,000 straight exchange.

 

[padrepaul]

I think most of the pros and cons have been covered already but If I were in the same position I would also be thinking about what the 800 / 5.6 will be worth in a couple of years time. There might be a risk it wont be tradable for a $6,000 straight exchange.

Thanks, it's a bit to think about; it's hard to deny how wonderful the 800 5.6 is; and it has it's own little teleconverter too, not that I use it, but optically it doesn't get much better. Hopefully more info will come out; as it is now were I to get the new 800 6.3 it would almost be a straight up exchange, but then part of me is thinking is that really not smart being a new 800 5.6 is a lot higher in price than the 6.3. Comes down to sharpness and focusing really, weight is just not a factor as nice as the lightness would be.

 

[fcotterill]

It's still early days, but there are no loud complaints using adapted F mount telephotos on the Z9. I've tested 4 E series F-Nikkors and the focus appears to be more precise in some cases. These are all expensive telephotos I'm still using on a well worn D850 and D5. A hybrid system is a huge advantage for those invested in Nikon. This is unique in fact with the industry leading DSLRs.

One of Thom Hogan's hissy fits last year singled out the urgency of AF conversions, but he wasn't clear what this might demand in the engineering. And presumably he's arguing for a one way operation that would lock a converted F-mount lens into Z land forever after.

The Professional's Dilemma | Thom Hogan

The Z9 alone doesn't solve the professional photographer's problem with the Z System

www.zsystemuser.com

Relevance of the above to the 800 Dilemma? The f6.3S PF and f5.6E are specialized so I plan to exploit the lighter 800 PF for longer challenges, which is the 800 Niche. And already have the ZTCs. [EDIT Aug 2022: Nevertheless, nothing rumoured - let alone available - can compete with the 1000 f7.1 in the unique pairing of the bespoke 800TCE125 with its 800 f5.6E; this 800 gets to 1120 f8 with TC14 III. Having added a 800 f5.6E since, its IQ and rendering outperforms the 800 PF ]

Actually the improved IQ with ZTCs is one of the solid arguments for Z instead of F tele lenses, especially if you use a TC2 III. Obviously all this is subject to rigorous testing of the 800 pf with TCs in the future. For many of us it's the double vs half cost is the major argument for the 800 PF. And half the weight is almost top of the list. The 1/3 stop is a trivial difference especially on a Mirrorless camera.

Mark Smith, in one of his reviews, mentioned something that might be worth keeping in mind:
According to him the older F-mount lenses use different focusing motors than the new Z lenses. He believes the Z-mount lenses will focus faster on a Z body than the F-mount lenses. If that is true, it will be a significant advantage for action photography.

 

[fcotterill]

It's hard to believe it's already 5 months since @padrepaul kicked off this thread... Here follows initial feedback on a comparison between 2 supertelephotos; one which was not on my radar a few months ago, not even a blip. So it leads on from an attempt to explain why I value a D6 with a Z9 in a mixed F & Z Nikon system. Owners of key lenses as well as cameras might find the following perspective/initial report interesting as I try and sketch out what can be termed the "800 Niche". This is niche is the native 800 lens and its extended uses with teleconverters...

The reality going forward is a sharp 800mm is a core optic in my Wildlife photography. There's absolutely no doubts the 800 f6.3S PF is the game-changer, as more and more Zed photographers continue to appreciate..... It has changed (rather extended!) the fundamental strategy of my wildlife photography. A major conclusion from thousands of images, accumulating since early May confirms how a 800 prime pushes forward the outermost 'Telephoto Reach' beyond what was previously possible. More specifically, it's the feasibility of sharp images @1120mm (even @1600mm minimal haze permitting). This unprecedented telephoto reach opens up a new world in tactics. A 800 is ideal to capture subjects that are fleeting/rare/hitherto Too-Far/out of range, but it is equally the ideal solution to frame key details in an 'intimate' portrait (eg paws, hooves, tails, a bird's face). As always there's caveat. All these positives are subject to the realities of physics - dreaded heat haze.

IME, the pair of Z Teleconverters, namely ZTC14, stand out among the many great features of the 800Z (so ably reviewed by @Steve ). Prior to release of the 800 PF in early 2022, a 1120, 1600 (equally a 1000m, see below) were for those who could afford the price tag on a 800 f5.6E FL, or perhaps locate a Used copy, but IME these have been very scarce and still expensive. Another option was to extend the reach of a 600 f4 with the trio of F mount TCs: 840 f5.6, 1020 f6.7, 1200 f8. This comes with a caveat; for the 800E FL with a DSLR, f5.6 is the slowest limit with AUTO and 3D AF modes, and f8 with TC14 bumps the ceiling on the realistic limits of Autofocus. 1600 f11 was impracticable, so the work around tactics I've read about is to utilize the D500 crop factor on a 800 f5.6 (or 1000 f7.1), or crop a D850 image.

 

[fcotterill]

To pick up on the physical incompatibility of any "DSLR + Zed Nikkor" pairing [see the current D6 thread], I have found this no go zone with a 800Z rather sad ...... Hypothetically, imagine a 800 PF on a D6 as a thought-experiment? More seriously, the dependency on a 800 also illuminates the risks of accidents and loss working with photography gear far from cities and specifically service centres (let alone recurring delays and shortages of replacements).

Anyways, Nikonland offers a solution, particularly with the swelling rush since ~2020 to migrate 'upgrade?' from DSLRs to Mirrorless. The used market not only keeps serving up bargains in Pro DSLRs, but also E type F Nikkors. Since 2021, we are seeing an unprecedented pulse in not only copies of the 180-400 TC14 but even a surprising number of the 800 f5.6E FL. So much so, after dwelling over the options for weeks, I recently sold on my 400 f2.8E FL with mixed feelings. The main reason is the flexibility and IQ of the 180-400 TC14 (a MILC tradein victim, so radically discounted). This had pushed the 400 prime into a 800 f5.6 role, latterly eclipsed by the 800 PF....

Long story short, its sale has enabled replacing it with a Used 800 f5.6E FL + bespoke TC125..... The shop mentioned lack of interest had forced un heard of prices across several F mount telephotos.... so this 800E is yet another MILC victim Interesting times these.... Ah well, Call me old fashioned, but this decision was not based in nostalgia nor rushed.
Here follow some thoughts and initial findings owning both 800's:

• Image Quality. My initial comparisons photographing small birds with the Z9 across both lenses confirms the 800E FL (800E hereafter) wins out on overall image quality. Mine seems to be slightly sharper - Just - than the 800Z, but I still plan more controlled tests on targets. But my take is the 800E advantage is not one to lose sleep over. Moreover, both primes are impressively sharp at full open aperture. However, the bokeh of the 800E is right up there in 400 f2.8E quality, possibly even better. Nevertheless, quality of bokeh is subjective, although everyone tends to recognize when they see it;
• Two Primes and More. A 1000 f7.1 is the major difference between the 800E FL and 800Z. This feature is unique to the 800E. The bespoke TC125E punches high above its dinky size. At least I see it this way, others may not. Yes, the independent reports about the 800E, and this review, couldn't state the benefits better - 2 Super Telephotos in 1 hefty unit! I find my 800E copy also works well with TC14 III on a DSLR and equally well on the Z9 (probably even better with precision on-sensor AF - my initial take as this requires controlled tests to reveal properly;
• TC2E III / ZTC2 As with the 800Z, I also find pairing the TC2 III on the 800E is more of a emergency solution. Image quality takes a hit. In any case, a Fmount 1600 f11 is only feasible on the Z9 with MILC AF, so advantage 800Z even though this = 1600Z f13 versus 1600E f11;
• Weight...Ergonomics. Another Big Yes on the heftiness - or rather a Clear No. The heft of the 4.59kg 800E and length stand out compared to its E FL cousins: 700g heavier than the 400E (600E is also almost 3.8kg). On a D6 this weighs up out at just over 6kg (almost same mass on a Z9 with FTZ II). Having learnt to handhold a 400E on a gripped DSLR, I can handhold the 800E rig: but not for long. (I often had a 330g TC2 II on the 400, so 5.6kg net mass with a D6.) There are very real limits to handling the extra 400-750g of the 800E, let alone the extra length. I find this is 1-2 minutes handholding at very most, possibly compounded by the 800E being 10cm longer. A 800E rig works much better on at least 1 leg (monopod), better on 3 legs for steadying with slower shutterspeeds; even better to support the rig on a beanbag in a hide or car.
• VR-Image Stabilization. In addition to being shorter and lighter, the synchro VR of the Z9 and 800 PF is another major advantage over the 800E on a DSLR. The slowest I've taken the 800 PF so far is 1/200 with stunning results, although I try and keep the shutter to 1/800 and faster. Nevertheless, the best of VR mechanisms in a super telephoto cannot cope with another reality of physics: magnified image movement.
• 800E Owners, obviously, have the advantage of leveraging the unique features of this supertelephoto on the Z9. And the corresponding slightly faster (f5.6) lens speed might be an advantage, but only 1/3 stop. I still plan to compare IQ with these primes with their respective F and Z TCs properly.

To try and summarize the ramble above. This comparison is perhaps more relevant for those of us who continue to enjoy complimentary features of both the DSLR and MILC systems. This is despite the realities of the Mirrorless Revolution but I see the Z cameras as rapidly evolving products. Suffice to say, since Z Day (Aug 2018) I've invested more than enough testing the 45mp MILCs (ie Z7). The long awaited Z9 has excellent strengths but there is the certainly still the vacant niche space for at least another Pro Z MILC. (Perhaps a Z8 with stacked 24 or 30mp sensor to pair with the Z9 - the Pro options to the Z6 - Z7 pairing. One can speculate.... )

 

[fcotterill]

To continue on previous post in 800mm comparisons, the Greater Nikon Ecosystem has evolved to an intriguing state, which the market options in telephotos highlights rather well. The Used market presents unprecedented options (net result of migrations to MILC). Previously unaffordable F mount gear, especially Pro DSLRs and lenses, are selling at bargain prices. Equally Nikon is rapidly growing up the options in Z telephotos [see recent Brad talk].
As many are saying, the 800 PF is one unique lens that compliments the F system. Arguably it's responsible for the 'Democratization of the 800 Niche'. Nevertheless, the major bonus persists - the best of F mount glass works seamlessly on a Z camera. So my 500 PF and 70-200 f2.8E FL stay with the 180-400 f4 TC14, now expanded with the 800 f5.6E FL. These choices are highly personal, including monetary. They boil down to what gear one really needs. As summarized wrt investing in the D6.... and How I photograph wildlife, Where and When, my priorities are:

• The cameras that optimize the image quality of the best lenses I can afford. The Z9 ticks many boxes, more than a D850 which remains an impressive versatile camera nonetheless. Where the priority is bullet proof simplified AF-in-clutter and/or lowlight situations, well this where the D5 and D6 are in their own league (a forthcoming Pro Z MILC may change this advantage);
• And lens system with the range and flexibility especially in challenging situations. The deal Kit IME is 3 ILCs with full coverage of heavier faster telephotos from 70mm to 1120mm (max 1600mm with greatest reach), but here be challenges in carrying and flying outside of using one's own vehicle (!)
• I often carry a Portable, Compact MILC 'Commando Kit' of 1 camera and 3 or more lenses. Personal choices: 14-30 f4S, 24-120 fS, 800 f6.3S+ZTC14, 500 PF or 400 f4.5S. A Z kit packs and travels smaller and lighter in most scenarios;
• Redundancy is a major factor: at least a 2nd camera and overlapping coverage in lenses. Especially in Africa, gear frozen, fried, dropped or stolen = a disaster, which is typically compounded by delays with repairs / insurance. Bottom line is having a backup(s) lens at hand is a big factor. I have learnt the hard way to strive to cover the 300-500 niche, but now there's this 800 Niche to try and cover!

 

[Bruce]

Mark Smith, in one of his reviews, mentioned something that might be worth keeping in mind:
According to him the older F-mount lenses use different focusing motors than the new Z lenses. He believes the Z-mount lenses will focus faster on a Z body than the F-mount lenses. If that is true, it will be a significant advantage for action photography.

I have The 500PF with adapter on Z9. Recently acquired the S100-400 lens. My experience, using mostly Dynamic M, is that the 100-400 is "stickier" when it grabs the wrong thing (doesn't want to budge), regardless of the setting for how long to hold photos before refocusing. Haven't had this problem with the 500PF. Perhaps just my technique or lack thereof.

 

[Lance B]

For me, the lightness and portability of the 800 f6.3 PF is just a no-brainer. I can hand hold it for hours and swing it around like it is a 300 f2.8 with no issue. If I were to take the 800 f5.6E out, it would be just that lens only as there would be little room left in a bag and the weight would mean only that lens. Not only that, but I would need a tripod or at least a monpod for extended use. With the 800 PF, I can take it and a number of other lenses and you only lose 1/3rd of a stop of light. If you have a Z9, the 800 PF is the answer.

 

[Butlerkid]

For me, the lightness and portability of the 800 f6.3 PF is just a no-brainer. I can hand hold it for hours and swing it around like it is a 300 f2.8 with no issue. If I were to take the 800 f5.6E out, it would be just that lens only as there would be little room left in a bag and the weight would mean only that lens. Not only that, but I would need a tripod or at least a monpod for extended use. With the 800 PF, I can take it and a number of other lenses and you only lose 1/3rd of a stop of light. If you have a Z9, the 800 PF is the answer.

Unless you are like me and the 500 PF seems too heavy to handhold very long! LOL!

 

[padrepaul]

It's hard to believe it's already 5 months since @padrepaul kicked off this thread... Here follows initial feedback on a comparison which was not on my radar a few months ago, not even a blip. The following leads on from an attempt to explain why I value a D6 with a Z9 in a mixed F & Z Nikon system. Owners of key lenses as well as cameras might find the following perspective/initial report interesting as I try and sketch out what can be termed the "800 Niche". This is niche is the native 800 lens and its extended uses with teleconverters...

The reality going forward is a sharp 800mm is a core optic in my Wildlife photography. There's absolutely no doubts the 800 f6.3S PF is the game-changer, as more and more Zed photographers continue to appreciate..... It has changed (rather extended!) the fundamental strategy of my wildlife photography. A major conclusion from thousands of images, accumulating since early May confirms how a 800 prime pushes forward the outermost 'Telephoto Reach' beyond what was previously possible. More specifically, it's the feasibility of sharp images @1120mm (even @1600mm minimal haze permitting). This unprecedented telephoto reach opens up a new world in tactics. A 800 is ideal to capture subjects that are fleeting/rare/hitherto Too-Far/out of range, but it is equally the ideal solution to frame key details in an 'intimate' portrait (eg paws, hooves, tails, a bird's face). As always there's caveat. All these positives are subject to the realities of physics - dreaded heat haze.

IME, the pair of Z Teleconverters, namely ZTC14, stand out among the many great features of the 800Z (so ably reviewed by @Steve ). Prior to release of the 800 PF in early 2022, a 1120, 1600 (equally a 1000m, see below) were for those who could afford the price tag on a 800 f5.6E FL, or perhaps locate a Used copy, but IME these have been very scarce and still expensive. Another option was to extend the reach of a 600 f4 with the trio of F mount TCs: 840 f5.6, 1020 f6.7, 1200 f8. This comes with a caveat; for the 800E FL with a DSLR, f5.6 is the slowest limit with AUTO and 3D AF modes, and f8 with TC14 bumps the ceiling on the realistic limits of Autofocus. 1600 f11 was impracticable, so the work around tactics I've read about is to utilize the D500 crop factor on a 800 f5.6 (or 1000 f7.1), or crop a D850 image.

Time flies. For me I ended up doing an even exchange on the 800s - watching Steve's video and using it, I'm very happy with how it's performed; I can't prove it, but it seems to just focus even slightly faster than the 800 5.6 did on the Z9. A sharp 800 is the core of my photography too; birds are what I do the most, and even with mammals they are bigger, but I'm shooting at a distance.

The only question for me going forward is what to do if a 600 f4 with a 1.4 built in TC is released; I could not envision parting with the 800 as it is so easy to hand hold. That said, how light would the new 600 be and how long could you hand hold it? Flexibility is nice, but I'd likely be shooting with the TC engaged most of the time, however for owl photography the extra light would be nice. The huge cost though gives one pause as I'd surely have to finance it and not sure I "need" it when I have a great lens in the 800 and you can do so much with noise reduction, or of course set up on a tripod with the 800 and simply shoot a little longer exposure for a perched owl; the key moments are in flight shots, but the best ones are when the sun is on them at your back. Exciting times for lenses for sure.

 

[RichF]

The only question for me going forward is what to do if a 600 f4 with a 1.4 built in TC is released; I could not envision parting with the 800 as it is so easy to hand hold. That said, how light would the new 600 be and how long could you hand hold it? Flexibility is nice, but I'd likely be shooting with the TC engaged most of the time, however for owl photography the extra light would be nice. The huge cost though gives one pause as I'd surely have to finance it and not sure I "need" it when I have a great lens in the 800 and you can do so much with noise reduction, or of course set up on a tripod with the 800 and simply shoot a little longer exposure for a perched owl; the key moments are in flight shots, but the best ones are when the sun is on them at your back. Exciting times for lenses for sure.

The cost. weight, and size or at least what I expect a Z 600 F/4 TC to be, makes the lens very unattractive to me. 600 + 1.4 is 840. Already have 800 PF, though 1/3 stop slower. 400 F/4.5 + TC is 560 at F/6.3 vs F4. This is hard choice on paper until I think of cost and weight. If Nikon ever makes a light weight 600 either PF or like the F/4.5 I will buy it quickly. Also wonder if Nikon will make 180-400 F/4 replacement in the Z mount. The 200-600 could be interesting but I don't think it will have the "S" build.

 

[agrumpyoldsod]

Time flies. For me I ended up doing an even exchange on the 800s - watching Steve's video and using it, I'm very happy with how it's performed; I can't prove it, but it seems to just focus even slightly faster than the 800 5.6 did on the Z9. A sharp 800 is the core of my photography too; birds are what I do the most, and even with mammals they are bigger, but I'm shooting at a distance.

The only question for me going forward is what to do if a 600 f4 with a 1.4 built in TC is released; I could not envision parting with the 800 as it is so easy to hand hold. That said, how light would the new 600 be and how long could you hand hold it? Flexibility is nice, but I'd likely be shooting with the TC engaged most of the time, however for owl photography the extra light would be nice. The huge cost though gives one pause as I'd surely have to finance it and not sure I "need" it when I have a great lens in the 800 and you can do so much with noise reduction, or of course set up on a tripod with the 800 and simply shoot a little longer exposure for a perched owl; the key moments are in flight shots, but the best ones are when the sun is on them at your back. Exciting times for lenses for sure.

Well the z600/4TC is almost certainly coming [soon] and it will cost 15% more than the Z400/2.8TC -- so the first question is whether or not you can face spending say $10k more on this lens over the 800/6.3PF. Then YES one needs to consider how it will be used and portability. I made the following based on my analysis of the Z and F mount lenses.
All Items in Salmon Pink are imputed. [Start with existing Z and AF-S E-FL / E lenses - add flange depth, make weight savings based on 400/2.8TC vs F, compare PF lenses. Assume no other significant lens design changes.

 

[fcotterill]

For me, the lightness and portability of the 800 f6.3 PF is just a no-brainer. I can hand hold it for hours and swing it around like it is a 300 f2.8 with no issue. If I were to take the 800 f5.6E out, it would be just that lens only as there would be little room left in a bag and the weight would mean only that lens. Not only that, but I would need a tripod or at least a monpod for extended use. With the 800 PF, I can take it and a number of other lenses and you only lose 1/3rd of a stop of light. If you have a Z9, the 800 PF is the answer

I agree fully, Lance. (Actually you are one of the primary 'culprits' why I selected my 400 f2.8E FL back in late 2017/early 2018 (not a 500 f4E FL nor 600 f4E FL) ! Never regretted my decision, which is why it took some time to reach the decision vs the benefits of the telephoto zoom - 180-400 f4E TC14 which basically superseded it for almost every situation.

But as I tried to explain above, the 400 f2.8E stayed in its bag for 5 weeks unused, sadly. In my case the unique situations demanding extra tight DOF/low light are rare, and my other lenses cope, indeed deliver well.

Back to the 800's - with the 800 f6.3S, this has become my primary walkaround lens on the Z9, with sometimes the 70-200 f2.8E+TC14 or 500 PF in a pouch/small pack (+TC's). This is what I describe above as my core "Commando Kit" to borrow Brad Hill's distinction which is where my own strategy has converged.... In this case it will be even better when/if Nikon put out a 70-200 f4S or dinky 70-300 Z mount: these should be half the weight of the a 70-200 f2.8 / 100-400 S, and still weigh less than the 400 f4.5S.

OTHH, the 800 f5.6E FL is the sine qua non of a "Destination Kit", restricted to boat, car, hide and ferrying between; and flying with such a 'thing' is always a challenge. The exception in dedicated hikes carrying the 6kg rig in a Lowpro LensTrekker of similar pack to stake out a leopard kill (from some discrete distance) or likely hotspot where it can be set up on 1 or 3 Legs of stable support.

 

[fcotterill]

It is remarkable how fast lens choices have expanded/improved over the past decade: 300 PF (2014), with the E FL primes starting in May 2013 (800 f5.6E), the 400 f2.8E in May 2014, and the 500 f4E and 600 f4E mid 2015.

The 500 PF arrived in 2018. The 180-400 f4E TC14 was also released in August 2018 - following the 70-200 f2.8E FL (2017). The 120-300 f2.8E SR was the most recent F-mount Tele. This trio of Tele-zooms changed the dogma that a zoom couldn't match a prime in optical quality.

The latest telephotos released over the past year are extraordinary in quality and raising the bar: 800 PF, 100-400 S, 400 f4.5S !!

Less than 9 years ago, interview late 2013 (final set of questions), Nikon engineers emphasized they had come to prioritize weight reduction - ironically with the 800 f5.6E FL, latterly ranked too heavy on today's standards! However Nikon was surprised by high demand for this exotic, including in Japan; so familiar story - the 800 f5.6E FL was backordered for months - familiar situation ?

They also explain why they selected fluorite elements at very high cost in the E FL exotics,and also the lighter magnesium chassis and the E type aperture. Today we continue to reap the benefits.

ニコンが考える“レンズの味”とは? AF-S NIKKOR 58mm F1.4 Gの設計に見るレンズ計測装置「OPTIA」の活躍

既報の通り、 ニコンが交換レンズのすべての収差を測定できるという計測装置「OPTIA」（Optical Performance and Total Image Analyzer）と画像シミュレーターの連携運用を開始した。これにより「“レンズの味”と収差の対応関係を明らかにできる」というが、実際にはどういった計測が行なわれ、どのようにレンズ開発に活かされているのだろうか? 今回は、同社のレンズ設計部門責任者、レンズ設計者とOPTIAの開発支援担当者に話を伺った。（本文中敬称略）

dc.watch.impress.co.jp

 

[fcotterill]

Brad Hill's comparison /summary is useful here describing his own "Commando" and "Destination" Kits. Nikon's recent releases provide us with new choices to select Big, Fast vs Slow, Smaller. EDIT see updated Gear Summaries

Natural Art Images: Brad Hill: Stuff I Use Part II: Lenses

Camera gear and related accessories regularly used by Brad Hill in the field. Part II - Lenses I currently use or have used.

www.naturalart.ca

The options today (so many choices) confer immense benefits to tailor make one's Lens System(s)

[from about 39:00 >> summarised in his slides that follow ]

 

[RichF]

Well the z600/4TC is almost certainly coming [soon] and it will cost 15% more than the Z400/2.8TC -- so the first question is whether or not you can face spending say $10k more on this lens over the 800/6.3PF. Then YES one needs to consider how it will be used and portability. I made the following based on my analysis of the Z and F mount lenses.
All Items in Salmon Pink are imputed.

View attachment 45818

Like the table but would like to to understand how the salmon colored rows were calculated (imputed). SWAG, PUOMA, ???

 

[Calson]

For me it is all about the weight. My 600mm f/4 weighed over 11 lbs and was replaced with the 600mm f/4 that is nearly 3 lbs lighter. Same with the 3.2 lb 500mm PF lens that is the size and weight of a 70-200mm f.2,8 lens. Now I have the 800mm PF which is even lighter and I can use it with the Z9 without a tripod and for shorter periods without a monopod.
Not needing a tripod is why I would often grab the 80-400mm with a TC-14 instead of the 600mm f/4 lens and a tripod in places like Yellowstone.

I have two quick leveling tripods and so I can adjust them so I am shooting at eye level with my subjects but as a practical manner I do not do this nearly as much as I should. No such issues with my 100-400mm and 500mm PF lenses, and the 800mm PF is great on a monopod with only one leg to adjust.

I also think in terms of a combo setup with two lenses and two cameras available. In the past it was the 80-400mm and the 600mm f/4. Then it was the 80-400mm and the 500mm PF most of the time. Now it is the 100-400mm and the 800mm PF. But the view angle is much too restrictive with the 800mm lens in many situations (such as shooting from a small boat) and so I have kept the 500mm PF lens.

Zero problems with having the 500mm PF, 800mm PF, and 100-400mm in my 32L backpack for air travel.

 

[Lance B]

I agree fully, Lance. (Actually you are one of the primary 'culprits' why I selected my 400 f2.8E FL back in late 2017/early 2018 (not a 500 f4E FL nor 600 f4E FL) ! Never regretted my decision, which is why it took some time to reach the decision vs the benefits of the telephoto zoom - 180-400 f4E TC14 which basically superseded it for almost every situation.

But as I tried to explain above, the 400 f2.8E stayed in its bag for 5 weeks unused, sadly. In my case the unique situations demanding extra tight DOF/low light are rare, and my other lenses cope, indeed deliver well.

Back to the 800's - with the 800 f6.3S, this has become my primary walkaround lens on the Z9, with sometimes the 70-200 f2.8E+TC14 or 500 PF in a pouch/small pack (+TC's). This is what I describe above as my core "Commando Kit" to borrow Brad Hill's distinction which is where my own strategy has converged.... In this case it will be even better when/if Nikon put out a 70-200 f4S or dinky 70-300 Z mount: these should be half the weight of the a 70-200 f2.8 / 100-400 S, and still weigh less than the 400 f4.5S.

OTHH, the 800 f5.6E FL is the sine qua non of a "Destination Kit", restricted to boat, car, hide and ferrying between; and flying with such a 'thing' is always a challenge. The exception in dedicated hikes carrying the 6kg rig in a Lowpro LensTrekker of similar pack to stake out a leopard kill (from some discrete distance) or likely hotspot where it can be set up on 1 or 3 Legs of stable support.

My 400 f2.8E FL VR rarely comes out theses days either and hence why I think I will sell it. The only reason is the weight and size as it takes up more room *and* weight in the bag which leaves little room for other lenses due to the weight, less so the room. I just found myself throwing in the 500 PF more often as I could fit many other lenses in as well. Like you, the shallow DOF and low light ability are not such a big thing for me. However, every time I use it I just go *WOW*, the IQ is simply stunning. This is why it is such a difficult decision to sell it, but realities do take over.

My long lens kit is the Z100-400 and 500 PF (+1.4xTCIII) and in future, the 800 PF as well.