Songbirds with 800mm PF and Z 1.4 TC

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

EricBowles

Moderator
Staff member
Supporting Member
Marketplace
There have been some questions about sharpness of the Nikon Z 800mm PF with the 1.4 TC. For me, the main reason for getting the lens is not distant subjects - it's for filling small subjects like songbirds. So I spent some time photographing birds at my feeders yesterday with this combination on my Z7ii. Here are a few sample images. All of these are cropped - typically to a around 35% or about half the frame. These edits were just a quick edit using Lightroom Classic - we all know that Topaz Photo AI would add sharpness and improve noise reduction. Subjects were generally just outside of the minimum focus distance for the lens - 16-17 feet. Everything was handheld but supported by the window sill. I was using Dynamic AF for all the images - I needed the precision of a single AF point that I can place on the corner of the eye.


Birds - Test_20230201_379004.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Birds - Test_20230201_378997.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Birds - Test_20230201_379000.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Birds - Test_20230201_379013.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Birds - Test_20230201_379025.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
These look great. Nice captures and presentation to show how good the lens can be. Sharpness looks just fine to me. I just got my lens and am planning to practice on the bird feeders too, except for the sub-zero temps right now.
 
Nice work Eric. The photos reveal the razor thin depth of field at f6.3. As an owner and shooter of the 800PF, I am learning when, where, and how to optimize its capabilities. I have found it difficult to produce super sharp images when shooting over water on frigid (<20 deg F) days. The focal length compresses everything and atmospheric particles are magnified in a way that suggests unsharp images. Of course, when one looks for anything in focus under these conditions, everything appears mushy... A very clear sign of atmospheric distortion.
As for your question Charles, it will depend on how much particulate matter exists in the atmosphere and the terra you are shooting on. If you are shooting over water on a full sun day or over grass on a full sun day, I think you will discover that heat distortion will compromise the lens. To this date, I have a few shots that taken at 50+ yards, and they look good. I have little doubt that the lens will be a great performer in a place like the Tetons where spring through fall bear/elk/wolf/moose photography is often done at these distances.

regards,
bruce
 
photography life is all about writing specs. Paper specs wins over actual human eye tests. I didn’t like the article either. Especially the way the article compares it against the 800/5.6 and the 800/5.6 has a higher image quality. The article has no real evidence to back it up, other than the fact its a PF which is limited - in the articles opinion, and the price. And throughout the article, he mentions more than once that 800 mm is a special focal length, too much atmosphere in the distance, and its reserved for only a handful of photographers who paid the high price for the 800/5.6.

Looks like the 800PF is taking away the attention of the 800/5.6 owners.
 
Yeah, I think that Photography Life article article has stirred up a lot of uncertainty. I think they either had a poor copy of the lens or that the tester maybe wasn't overly epxreeinced with long glass. My experience with the lens mimics yours - it's very sharp and I have zero issue using it.
I think there's some truth to that. The author is primarily a landscape photographer. He did say that they had access to three copies of the lenses and they appeared to be nearly identical. However, that statement seems a little subjective since it was just based on different individuals opinions. I think that only one of the lenses was used in the actual "lab" tests. Nevertheless, he didn't say the lens was bad, just that it wasn't as good as the 800/5.6 which is what I would have expected before reading the article.
 
Last edited:
My take was the images of sandhill cranes were very distant - maybe 300+ yards away - and were in relatively flat light with a high ISO. As a result, they showed very little detail. Without sharp or glancing light it's hard to see detail in a sandhill crane - especially not at that distance. Plus you introduce the additional variable of subject motion.

When I evaluate a lens sharpness I want to see maximum detail in order to see falloff or where detail starts to fade. That's why I was testing at 17 feet - near minimum focus distance for the lens.
 
Nice work Eric. The photos reveal the razor thin depth of field at f6.3. As an owner and shooter of the 800PF, I am learning when, where, and how to optimize its capabilities. I have found it difficult to produce super sharp images when shooting over water on frigid (<20 deg F) days. The focal length compresses everything and atmospheric particles are magnified in a way that suggests unsharp images. Of course, when one looks for anything in focus under these conditions, everything appears mushy... A very clear sign of atmospheric distortion.
As for your question Charles, it will depend on how much particulate matter exists in the atmosphere and the terra you are shooting on. If you are shooting over water on a full sun day or over grass on a full sun day, I think you will discover that heat distortion will compromise the lens. To this date, I have a few shots that taken at 50+ yards, and they look good. I have little doubt that the lens will be a great performer in a place like the Tetons where spring through fall bear/elk/wolf/moose photography is often done at these distances.

regards,
bruce
Bruce would you agree that most any lens in those conditions would yield the same results?
 
My take was the images of sandhill cranes were very distant - maybe 300+ yards away - and were in relatively flat light with a high ISO. As a result, they showed very little detail. Without sharp or glancing light it's hard to see detail in a sandhill crane - especially not at that distance. Plus you introduce the additional variable of subject motion.

When I evaluate a lens sharpness I want to see maximum detail in order to see falloff or where detail starts to fade. That's why I was testing at 17 feet - near minimum focus distance for the lens.
I agree Eric. My experience has been when we get out beyond about 200 feet or so (less on some days) atmospheric conditions are nearly as critical as the absolute sharpness of the lens. Pollen, dust, heat shimmer, atmospheric haze, all can do more to create detail issues in an image than the lens (unless the lens is a complete dud and I don't think there are any of those in the current lineup of the major manufacturers).
Jeff
 
My take was the images of sandhill cranes were very distant - maybe 300+ yards away - and were in relatively flat light with a high ISO. As a result, they showed very little detail. Without sharp or glancing light it's hard to see detail in a sandhill crane - especially not at that distance. Plus you introduce the additional variable of subject motion.

When I evaluate a lens sharpness I want to see maximum detail in order to see falloff or where detail starts to fade. That's why I was testing at 17 feet - near minimum focus distance for the lens.
I've been comparing both these Nikkor 800's since July, with the aim to test not only the primes but the "TC-Combo's" at different distances on real subjects. And in conditiosn in which I typically use these lenses: so handholding the 800 PF but 800 f5.6E on a gimbal or otherwise a beanbag (on a firm table). Building up the data has been contingent on time and especially the right time of the day. Unlike inanimate test charts, my key subjects are my three cats (who don't rarely obey me if at all) especially to lie in one position over a period of decent light to change lens, TCs etc.

I also am fortunate to have a flock of Helmeted Guineafowl, whose visits are often ideally timed in the golden light but the shadows are too dark where they choose to sit and preen. It's also rare for one bird to stand in one spot long enough so I can switch the Z9 across lenses etc - let alone stop motionless to get decent images! Getting shutterspeeds faster enough to freeze movement is yet another challenge..... The biggest challenge is keeping ISOs low at this time of day, with high shutter speeds to freeze movement.

However, I've built up a decent series of images from 11 - 50m distances. (And yesterday, my new pair of Nikon 10x50 Laserforce bino's arrived. The integral laser rangefinder is extremely useful to quantify distances.)....So I will share some results soon.

One clear finding is anything further than ~40m for a chicken-sized bird or Felis domesticus is far too far even with 1600mm. This is either at f11 or f13. So I cannot see the point of presenting images of birds - even as large as cranes - taken at extreme distances. It doesn't prove much, except the overwhelming influence of atmospheric conditions (as Bruce and many others have explained). This atmospheric factor is pervasive: across water, including marshes, warming rocks or bare earth etc. However, in favourable conditions on larger mammals, one can use a 800+TC for distances out to 100m or me. But I find this is the exception.

It is beyond doubt the 800 f5.6E FL is the superior prime. As Nasim Mansurov pointed out (in the Socratic dialogues in the above review), we are not surprised. My testing confirms its 1000 f7.1 reach with the bespoke TC125 gives one 2 unique lenses in one. However, the higher optical quality of the ZTC14 and ZTC2 has the advantage over the equivalent F-mount TC's. So it's tricky to draw hard conclusions. Above all, too often atmospherics trash any advantages of any of these combinations. They become basically unusable in these conditions. But in ideal conditions, no other combination can outperform an 800 Nikkor with its TC14.
 
Yeah, I think that Photography Life article article has stirred up a lot of uncertainty. I think they either had a poor copy of the lens or that the tester maybe wasn't overly epxreeinced with long glass. My experience with the lens mimics yours - it's very sharp and I have zero issue using it.
That review doesn't meet scientific standards. The images taken outside are not made under reproduceable conditions, it looks like atmospheric blur plays quite a substantial role there.
The author doesn't give any information about shutter speed used for the MTF measurements, nor how many images were taken. Only one?
Also, he uses VR on a tripod.

If I'd publish data on the base of one measurement, I'd receive my well deserved punishment.

So, nothing to worry about in the first place.
 
That review doesn't meet scientific standards. The images taken outside are not made under reproduceable conditions, it looks like atmospheric blur plays quite a substantial role there.
The author doesn't give any information about shutter speed used for the MTF measurements, nor how many images were taken. Only one?
Also, he uses VR on a tripod.

If I'd publish data on the base of one measurement, I'd receive my well deserved punishment.

So, nothing to worry about in the first place.
All I know is that I'm very happy with my 800PF images and in the end that's what matters :)
 
I have shot the 800 PF with and without the 1.4 TC. While I have never owed the 800 F/5.6 lens and can not offer a direct comparison, I am very pleased by the results. Could the 800 F/5.6 provide slightly better resolution on a test chart, perhaps. do i care? NO. the 800 PF is a stellar lens and it seems silly to me compare lenses using a test chart unless that is all you shot
 
I have been playing with my new lens and Z9. Not much because it is quite cold here right now. As noted above, I am seeing the quite shallow DoF at close ranges. Since my hands shake a bit, this points to at least using a monopod with the lens, or a tripod where possible. The ones in focus look great. Now I need a real world test. Thanks for all of the info and comments above. I am not overly impressed with the Photography Life review and tone. We shall see, as the responses they are getting are many, varied and strong.
 
There have been some questions about sharpness of the Nikon Z 800mm PF with the 1.4 TC. For me, the main reason for getting the lens is not distant subjects - it's for filling small subjects like songbirds. So I spent some time photographing birds at my feeders yesterday with this combination on my Z7ii. Here are a few sample images. All of these are cropped - typically to a around 35% or about half the frame. These edits were just a quick edit using Lightroom Classic - we all know that Topaz Photo AI would add sharpness and improve noise reduction. Subjects were generally just outside of the minimum focus distance for the lens - 16-17 feet. Everything was handheld but supported by the window sill. I was using Dynamic AF for all the images - I needed the precision of a single AF point that I can place on the corner of the eye.


View attachment 54195View attachment 54196View attachment 54197View attachment 54198View attachment 54200
Beautiful Eric
 
I have been playing with my new lens and Z9. Not much because it is quite cold here right now. As noted above, I am seeing the quite shallow DoF at close ranges. Since my hands shake a bit, this points to at least using a monopod with the lens, or a tripod where possible. The ones in focus look great. Now I need a real world test. Thanks for all of the info and comments above. I am not overly impressed with the Photography Life review and tone. We shall see, as the responses they are getting are many, varied and strong.
Joe - you raise a really important point. With this kind of focal length for the lens and TC, and a fast moving subject, I was struggling to have enough time to focus for a frame or two. Some birds - like a brown headed nuthatch - are extremely difficult to get a single frame. The bluebirds are among the easiest targets so I have a lot of images.
 
I've had my 800mm pf for 2 days now and I was surprised at the Photography Life review and it's very negative tone. I have a 600mm f4e and thought I'd look at their measurement of it with a 1.4 tc and it turns out that according to their measurements, the 800pf has a little better image quality. For me, being significantly lighter and having much better VR, this handheld lens will actually be out in the field with me and I'll get more keepers than with anything I leave at home.
 
I've a feeling that if the 800 Z weren't that good, there would be cancelled orders galore and plenty of them in stock at retailers. I don't know about cancelled orders, but I don't see them sitting on the shelves in stores!
There are only a few items of camera gear that are so different and so spectacularly good that you have that giddy look on your face and find joy in every subject. For me, the D800E, 600 f/4, the Z6, and now the 800mm PF fall into that category. I clearly remember the first photo or group of photos - and the joy of using the gear for days thereafter.
 
Thank goodness I found this thread. After reading the Photography Life article I was about ready to hang myself. I was thinking if I was THAT wrong about what I've been seeing from the lens I should probably pack it in. Luckily I tend to procrastinate so just didn't yet get around to looking for the rope. Now I can just forget about it. Wow. That was close. :rolleyes:
 
I don't know. I don't have a dog in the fight because I shoot Canon, but I went and read the review to see what the fuss was about. Honestly it seems like a fair review looking at it with no emotion or desire for one to be better and no need to defend a buying decision. The sharpness comparison section especially, not only the objective Imatest scores but the side by side real world shots from the two lenses. The old 800 is clearly clearer. By a small amount, but noticable to my eye when they are side by side. Given the offset in price and weight, I'd say the Z was still a heck of a value, but if sharpness at any cost in money or weight was the only criteria....
 
Back
Top