Nikon Z 800mm f6.3 PF lens announcement

[Whiskeyman]

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.

At 800mm, it's going to take great technique to even find the subject in the viewfinder, especially with a DX sensor camera.

 

[Whiskeyman]

Ain’t that da truth.

The older I get, the stronger gravity seems to be...

 

[arbitrage]

We have an 800 f/5.6 that retails for $16K....we are losing 1/3 stop from that and making it PF (not sure if that would make a difference either way for cost). I just can't imagine how losing just 1/3 stop is going to drop the price of the lens to levels people seem to think it will. If this lens is under $10K that would be impressive.

Granted, the 800E seems way overpriced for what it is. So it may not be the best price to compare to.

 

[thelordofthelight]

Between the 400G and 400 E FL there was a significant reduction in weight. I'm not sure if Nikon would be able to bring in a similar difference between the 400E and the 400S, considering the S version has an inbuilt TC in it. I feel they'll try hard to still keep it somewhere between 3 to 3.2 Kgs.

Now when we look at the roadmap, the 800PF looks smaller than the 400 2.8 overall. Slightly shorter length and much slimmer profile compared to 400S. So I'm guessing it should weigh between 2.5 to 2.8 Kgs. I will be pleasantly surprised if they price it at 8K but I'm guessing 8-10k. I'm sure the Z9 pricing and all the crazy demand would've sent a clear message to Nikon so we can expect aggressive pricing going forward.

 

[thelordofthelight]

But the 300 PF weighs just 755 grams vs the lens it replaced i.e the 300 f4D AF-S that weighed 1.44 KGs. That's about 48% weight savings including the addition of VR mechanism.

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.

 

[DaveR]

Nikon is really killing it with lens innovations and, ultimately, that may be the deciding factor for many when shooing a system.

I think you have hit the nail on the head here.

So far we have only two of the Z long lens line up announced and both have been innovative and exciting. The 400 f2.8 with built in TC and now a 800mm PF. We still have a 400 PF, a 600 f4 and a 200-600 zoom. to come! I'm really interested in what they can achieve with the 600mm. Imagine if they can bring the weight down significantly from the rival Sony and Canon offerings which have been on the market for some time now. It might even have a built in TC. The other feature that these lenses will have is the programable function ring which will be perfect for EV compensation.

If this line up performs as well as other Z mount S series lenses and work well with the Z tc's I can't see how any serious wildlfe or bird photograher would be using anything other than a Z9 or one of the upcoming Z Nikon cameras.

I have a feeling my wallet is going to be a lot lighter next year.

 

[fcotterill]

But the 300 PF weighs just 755 grams vs the lens it replaced i.e the 300 f4D AF-S that weighed 1.44 KGs. That's about 48% weight savings including the addition of VR mechanism.

We discussed the weight guesstimate yesterday in the longer 800 PF thread - so won't repeat the data and scaling etc off the graphic. I used the larger ratio of 300 PF @ 89 x 148 mm, 0.755kg [58% of the 1.295kg 300 f4AFD = lens mass without tripod collar] ....

we should well prepared and brace for more surprises from Nikon, as they continue to grow out the Z System. This is not far off a total of 40 optics by the end of 2022. Back to PF Nikkors, the optical engineers may have overcome challenges in either manufacturing the extra large dia. Phase fresnel elements ie ø 127mm or it's equally likely they have placed a smaller PF element further back in the design of the 800 PF... Intriguing idea, which expands the design universe of this lens.

 

[fcotterill]

To underscore what @EricBowles and others are concluding, it is clear Nikon recently has decided to implement shrewd tactics in its overarching strategy: "how do we migrate DSLR Nikon owners into Z AND attract newcomers into the Z System?" They prioritized the trinity of f2.8 zooms as the core, to work with the excellent Z cameras. Ticks key boxes for most genres
the Zfc with budget DX lenses etc are well received and growing the emerging investors. Add the FX compacts in dual roles for light FX kit as well as DX - plus easy migration built in to an FX Zed as you next camera.

In formulating their strategy some years earlier to enhance the appeal of the Z system, Nikon must have seen the obvious that many existing users consider their E FL F-mount telephotos "good enough", in fact excellent. So why buy a Z telephoto? The other fixed constraint is equally obvious; many existing Nikon shooters would demand a reliable FTZ adapter.

As Lensrentals often state... It takes a few years to optimize a new lens into a production ready state. It follows Nikon had already decided before announcing the Z7 in 2018 to concentrate on lighter and/or innovative high quality telephotos. This coincided with Nikon's stated policy 5 years ago to shift to higher priced products - lenses and cameras. The Z strategists clearly itemized 'differentiators', including an exotic fast tele prime comes with its integral bespoke TC. They took the bet on PF primes becoming sirens, which many cannot of us resist for obvious reasons...

Now we are seeing the rollout from this strategy, including innovative telephotos to enhance the diversity of the Greater Nikon Ecosystem with irresistible features etc. The 80-400 G was a solid seller, so Nikon upgrades it into a much better Z-mount optic, which balances better... an leverages its appeal with a pair of TC's, So sure... let's add the long awaited 400 f4 PF but restrict this to Z-mount, which also should work well as a 560 f5.6.... Again they put out Z mount teleconverters - improved over the F-mount TC's....which were relatively simpler to release with the very first Z mount telephoto (70-200 f2.8S).

As we all know, pre Z9 the AF etc of Z cameras were not quite up to standards for action and especially fast moving subjects etc. So the telephotos were held back until the Z9 is released. An unexpectedly lower RRP of the Z9 is another tactic to increase investment in the Z system....

It is also quite possible they were waiting to see responses in orders for the Z9 at its lowered RRP, as to which telephotos to bet on. Consider the real possibility that a significant proportion of Z9 buyers who already own a 600 f4E, 400 f4E etc. Couple this situation with the proven success of the 300 PF and 500 PF. Now the Z9 is reaching the Nikon ecosystem, Nikon seem to have decided another high end PF telephoto will be welcomed (selling at a higher RRP than the 200-600!), and there is likely to be demand for 400 f2.8S TC14.

It will be interesting to see next year what other tactics Nikon will use to leverage Z9 demand to increase lenses sales, including high end Z Nikkors.

Damn it Nikon - wrecking havoc on our budgets and bank balances. I need not only a Z9 to shoot the 800 PF but this makes a Z kit unavoidable: so it's also a 100-400 S or 400 S, plus the pair of Z-TCs... and so what the hell: plan for a 24-120 f4S and UWide zoom, eventually... Relentless

 

[BLev65]

We have an 800 f/5.6 that retails for $16K....we are losing 1/3 stop from that and making it PF (not sure if that would make a difference either way for cost). I just can't imagine how losing just 1/3 stop is going to drop the price of the lens to levels people seem to think it will. If this lens is under $10K that would be impressive.

Granted, the 800E seems way overpriced for what it is. So it may not be the best price to compare to.

It is also worth noting that the 800mm f/5.6 includes a custom TC1.25x converter designed specifically for the 800, and independently calibrated for each specific lens. While not thousands of dollars, it would not surprise me if the inclusion of the converter adds a $1000 premium to the price. As for the final price of the 800mm f/6.3PF, the more I think about it, the more expensive the lens becomes. At first I predicted $7200, then $7200-$9000, I'm now revising this to $9500-$10,999.
There are a lot of well-healed birders willing to pay a premium for a lens like this. I think that the target market is for this group and maybe the small number of surf and downhill ski shooters who benefit from the focal length.
Interestingly, Morten Hilmer was using the FLE 800mm lens w/ the Z9 during his trip to Svalbaard. He typically uses your preferred optic (600mm f/4) with and without a 1.4x converter. It appeared that he benefited from the increased focal length, but it was definitely unwieldy as he tried to close the gap between himself and a polar bear... not sure if even a guy like him, who has to deal with distant subjects, would be willing to push all of that money into a lens with such a narrow field of view.

regards,
bruce

 

[fcotterill]

Yah Bruce, Your reasoning makes sense following what little is know how Nikon have constructed and maintained the quality of the their current exotic, indeed infamous, telephotos in Otawari or maybe it is still located within the Sendai factory. I've read several accounts of how the top end E FL primes are hand assembled in Japan, and the 800 f5.6E FL has to be matched and tuned etc by an expert in tandem with its bespoke TC125.
Back in 2018 at a talk by a Nikon ambassador, he described some feedback from his visit to Nikon Japan, where he met and thanked the elderly gentleman who had assembled and quality-checked his 600 f4 E FL. He described how each lens can be traced by its Serial No to one of a very few highly experienced technicians who build these optics based on fulfilling global orders.

I suggest we need to consider that Nikon makes the 500 PF differently, otherwise the expert labour would push up costs: probably robotic tools etc, which can include instruments to validate optical quality in alignments etc. "All" the 800 PF has to do is match the optical quality of the 500 PF shot wide open, and equally perform well with both Z-TCs. These are not unreasonable expectations, and we can expect Nikon to do this, and arguable on the Z system they may well deliver an even better prime. To speculate further, another factor in cost effective production is how to scale up a 500 PF ( 106-237mm) to a 800 PF of 313 x140mm with sufficient chassis rigidity?

However, as we keep seeing don't underestimate Nikon engineering: perhaps casting a honeycombed MgAl chassis is feasible and cost effective (?) Speculating further (!), someone posted somewhere (maybe on NikonGear) that the 800 PF optical design may position the Phasefresnel element further back >> so it can be smaller diameter. Again, speculation extrapolating from on what we know about the 500 PF. We do know that already over 3 years ago, that robots had taken over 75% of the tasks in assembling the Z7, which entailed many intricate precision processes.

Anyways, it will be very interesting to see what eventuates next year. Somehow I have to find the means to pay the RRP, a loan if needs be. I have found I use 800mm a great deal, as not only birds are 'too far' for a 500 or 600, let alone 400, but mammals are shy or simply too far from a vehicle/hide where a closer stalk is impossible. I also like to seek out tight framing of subjects in addition to shooting animal-scapes and environ-scapes.

It is also worth noting that the 800mm f/5.6 includes a custom TC1.25x converter designed specifically for the 800, and independently calibrated for each specific lens. While not thousands of dollars, it would not surprise me if the inclusion of the converter adds a $1000 premium to the price. As for the final price of the 800mm f/6.3PF, the more I think about it, the more expensive the lens becomes. At first I predicted $7200, then $7200-$9000, I'm now revising this to $9500-$10,999.
There are a lot of well-healed birders willing to pay a premium for a lens like this. I think that the target market is for this group and maybe the small number of surf and downhill ski shooters who benefit from the focal length.
Interestingly, Morten Hilmer was using the FLE 800mm lens w/ the Z9 during his trip to Svalbaard. He typically uses your preferred optic (600mm f/4) with and without a 1.4x converter. It appeared that he benefited from the increased focal length, but it was definitely unwieldy as he tried to close the gap between himself and a polar bear... not sure if even a guy like him, who has to deal with distant subjects, would be willing to push all of that money into a lens with such a narrow field of view.

regards,
bruce

 

[arbitrage]

Yah Bruce, Your reasoning makes sense following what little is know how Nikon have constructed and maintained the quality of the their current exotic, indeed infamous, telephotos in Otawari or maybe it is still located within the Sendai factory. I've read several accounts of how the top end E FL primes are hand assembled in Japan, and the 800 f5.6E FL has to be matched and tuned etc by an expert in tandem with its bespoke TC125.
Back in 2018 at a talk by a Nikon ambassador, he described some feedback from his visit to Nikon Japan, where he met and thanked the elderly gentleman who had assembled and quality-checked his 600 f4 E FL. He described how each lens can be traced by its Serial No to one of a very few highly experienced technicians who build these optics based on fulfilling global orders.

I suggest we need to consider that Nikon makes the 500 PF differently, otherwise the expert labour would push up costs: probably robotic tools etc, which can include instruments to validate optical quality in alignments etc. "All" the 800 PF has to do is match the optical quality of the 500 PF shot wide open, and equally perform well with both Z-TCs. These are not unreasonable expectations, and we can expect Nikon to do this, and arguable on the Z system they may well deliver an even better prime. To speculate further, another factor in cost effective production is how to scale up a 500 PF ( 106-237mm) to a 800 PF of 313 x140mm with sufficient chassis rigidity?

However, as we keep seeing don't underestimate Nikon engineering: perhaps casting a honeycombed MgAl chassis is feasible and cost effective (?) Speculating further (!), someone posted somewhere (maybe on NikonGear) that the 800 PF optical design may position the Phasefresnel element further back >> so it can be smaller diameter. Again, speculation extrapolating from on what we know about the 500 PF. We do know that already over 3 years ago, that robots had taken over 75% of the tasks in assembling the Z7, which entailed many intricate precision processes.

Anyways, it will be very interesting to see what eventuates next year. Somehow I have to find the means to pay the RRP, a loan if needs be. I have found I use 800mm a great deal, as not only birds are 'too far' for a 500 or 600, let alone 400, but mammals are shy or simply too far from a vehicle/hide where a closer stalk is impossible. I also like to seek out tight framing of subjects in addition to shooting animal-scapes and environ-scapes.

There is certainly no reason the PF element has to be the larger front element or even the same size (yet set further back). Below is the Canon 400DOII diagram showing the DO element much smaller than the 100mm front element. Also an interesting diagram Canon published for the original 400DO showing what they theoretically saved going DO over traditional. And the 500PF diagram showing the PF is 3rd in line but seems to be as large as the front elements (500/5.6)

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

 

[thelordofthelight]

If PF glass is significantly lighter than the normal glass shouldn't they use it in one of those first bigger front elements in order to reduce the weight?

 

[fcotterill]

Nikon admitted to production challenges with the 500 PF, with 90mm window. If this constraint still applies to manufacturing, a a phase-fresnel element will be even more challenging for a lens with a 127mm; hence the speculation Nikon may position this PF element further back to keep it smaller.

If PF glass is significantly lighter than the normal glass shouldn't they use it in one of those first bigger front elements in order to reduce the weight?

Interesting how both solutions shortened and slimmed the 400 f4 by a similar amount
thanks for sharing.
A review of the 300 f4E PF claimed the Nikon elements uses refraction unlike diffraction in the Canon element, but Nikon confirmed the 300 PF element is diffractive using a blazed diffractive optical element combining two types of optical resin.
Flurorite is another solution to trim weight, particularly if used for at least one of the largest front elements.

There is certainly no reason the PF element has to be the larger front element or even the same size (yet set further back). Below is the Canon 400DOII diagram showing the DO element much smaller than the 100mm front element. Also an interesting diagram Canon published for the original 400DO showing what they theoretically saved going DO over traditional. And the 500PF diagram showing the PF is 3rd in line but seems to be as large as the front elements (500/5.6)
View attachment 28791
View attachment 28792
View attachment 28793

 

[fcotterill]

It's worth reading the Japanese interview with the engineers who designed the 300 f4E PF - link in previous post.
They explain why the PhaseFresnel element collapses the overall length of the lens; the corollary is the compact design reduces materials overall. This "PF Allometric Effect" can be seen in the silhouette (parallel thread showing Z Roadmap group portrait) because the 800 PF is even shorter than the 400 f2.8S (okay it's got its internal TC14, but equally impressive if Nikon have shortened this fast exotic to less the the E FL prime)....
A PF up front also reduces weight as you say but the Discussion on this page is suggesting Nikon may have positioned this Blazed-PF element further back in the optical formula, similar to the Canon DO primes.

If PF glass is significantly lighter than the normal glass shouldn't they use it in one of those first bigger front elements in order to reduce the weight?

 

[markymark]

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.

Just a question Steve, but would you consider doing away with your 600mm f/4E lens which I know you love?
The reason I ask is that I’ve ordered one & am starting to question my choice as was going to pair it up with the Z9 (once the hype has died down!)

 

[Steve]

Just a question Steve, but would you consider doing away with your 600mm f/4E lens which I know you love?
The reason I ask is that I’ve ordered one & am starting to question my choice as was going to pair it up with the Z9 (once the hype has died down!)

Nope. Not even close - The 600mm is way more versatile and while I do find myself adding TCs, I also use the lens bare quite a bit, so I need that focal length.

 

[RichF]

I think you have hit the nail on the head here.

So far we have only two of the Z long lens line up announced and both have been innovative and exciting. The 400 f2.8 with built in TC and now a 800mm PF. We still have a 400 PF, a 600 f4 and a 200-600 zoom. to come! I'm really interested in what they can achieve with the 600mm. Imagine if they can bring the weight down significantly from the rival Sony and Canon offerings which have been on the market for some time now. It might even have a built in TC. The other feature that these lenses will have is the programable function ring which will be perfect for EV compensation.

If this line up performs as well as other Z mount S series lenses and work well with the Z tc's I can't see how any serious wildlfe or bird photograher would be using anything other than a Z9 or one of the upcoming Z Nikon cameras.

I have a feeling my wallet is going to be a lot lighter next year.

Will the 600 F4 have a built in TC. May depend upon if the 400 TC is well received. 400 F2.8 w/ TC is a 400 F2.8 and 560 F4. Nikon does not need to make a 500 F4. A 600 TC becomes 600 F4 and 840 F5.6 . Similarly the 800 F5.6 is not needed in lens line up.

Wonder if Nikon has plans for 100-400 in an Z mount w/ built in TC, S line, and fixed aperture?

 

[Ken Miracle]

Not sure if or when this one would get my attention. I use my 600 f/4E far more than my 500 pf. The 1.4TC works great on the 600 f/4E and from what I saw from some of the preproduction tests even better on the Z9. I hand hold both and find the 500 as I have said a bit to whippy. But as I get older sooner or later and then I have tripods, monopods and heads sitting in the closet ready and waiting. I have a Tamron 100-400 and a 150-600 G2 (have not used since I got the 600 f/4E but can not get myself to part with it ) that work great on my D850 and bought a wide angle z mount 14-30 for my wife and I to share. I have Tamron 24-70 an 70-200 f/2.8 and a Tamron 1.4 TC that works great with those on my D850. So with the FTZ I have a lot of focal lengths covered. Most intriguing z mount might be a 200-600 or the 400 f/2.8 with built in TC.

 

[Patrick M]

Will the 600 F4 have a built in TC. May depend upon if the 400 TC is well received. 400 F2.8 w/ TC is a 400 F2.8 and 560 F4. Nikon does not need to make a 500 F4. A 600 TC becomes 600 F4 and 840 F5.6 . Similarly the 800 F5.6 is not needed in lens line up.

Wonder if Nikon has plans for 100-400 in an Z mount w/ built in TC, S line, and fixed aperture?

I hope not!I want it to take the 2xTc … I got that with the z 70-200 as a stop-gap until a longer lens appears. It works with the 100-400 now as well….

 

[RichF]

I hope not!I want it to take the 2xTc … I got that with the z 70-200 as a stop-gap until a longer lens appears. It works with the 100-400 now as well….

I think I can put an external TC on my 180-400 so I suspect that I will be able to do the same 400 TC and 600 TC if the later is made. With the Canon 200-400 I used external TCs, either 1.4 w/ the internal 1.4, external 2.0 w/o the internal TC and even tried external TCs with internal in place. Worked well but not great.

 

[Roy]

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.

I'm keeping my 600mm f4 only because its an f4.
Apart from cameras like the Z9 most cameras AF is compromised beyond f5.6...

 

[RoyC]

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.

I am sure a 2.5 - 3. Kg lens can be shot from the hand by many, but how many can hold a 800mm steady?
Of course there is the fact that camera shake is a random event and I guess at 30 fps an odd one here or there will be tack sharp.

 

[RoyC]

I think I can put an external TC on my 180-400 so I suspect that I will be able to do the same 400 TC and 600 TC if the later is made. With the Canon 200-400 I used external TCs, either 1.4 w/ the internal 1.4, external 2.0 w/o the internal TC and even tried external TCs with internal in place. Worked well but not great.

Yes you can. I have AF fine tuned and tested the 180-400 TC +1.4II TC and I have never used that combo since.

 

[RoyC]

Will the 600 F4 have a built in TC. May depend upon if the 400 TC is well received. 400 F2.8 w/ TC is a 400 F2.8 and 560 F4. Nikon does not need to make a 500 F4. A 600 TC becomes 600 F4 and 840 F5.6 . Similarly the 800 F5.6 is not needed in lens line up.

Except you are not covering the 800 @ f5.6, 1000 @ f7.1, 1120 @ f8 or 1600 @f11. The last one I will give a try when the Z9 arrives.

 

[Woodpecker]

Having had the privilege to use the 800 f5.6 FL of my friend, I am excited to see more about this new Z lens. After with the Z's the AF system limitations we know from the DSLRs are mostly gone, the only issue I see with f/6.3 is object isolation, so I am interested to read one day what @Steve says about it compared to the 800 f/5.6 FL. As we all know he puts fiar amount of focus on object isolation.

For me the availability of this kind of lens with the expected handling could be the point to do the step towards mirrorless - if I am able to afford spending a large amount of money for camera gear at that time. I never had it on the radar, but the time seems to come closer where also I start to worry about the weight of the equipment I have to carry ...