LauraG
Member
Hi Eric, What magnificent images. I have the 800PF on order and can't wait for it to arrive. So good to see it in action. These are, well I said it, magnificent.
500PF 1.4x or 800PF?
- Thread starter Pat Cassity
- Start date
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).
O
Well-known member
Had a look at you Flicker album, excellent collection of works, amazing beautiful birds.
It seems you have a good sample of the 100-400 given the samples attached here in.
The one less nail for me meant, its a plus for the Z9 that handles the TCs a bit better even used on FX glass ? and FX Tcs ?, so its a plus.
I have been deliberating staying with the Z9, that's not saying its bad, its more of what i do or don't do i guess.
For me unless i use the 3d tracking for supper fast moving moments the camera is for most of my needs i feel overkill and requires more concentration or attention to use to its potential, ie i need to think more before i use it fully.
I don't seem to ever need 20 or 30 fps 10-12 is plenty, i don't do video, i don't shoot Raw with it only JPEG fine.
Maybe i need to just tune my mind to a better radio station and be more open minded, i feel the Z8 potentially may be a better option, again for what i do which is not always wild life, my D850 and the occasional hiring of a D6 for extreme shoots does it all for me.
Plus i don't really feel i want to build a whole new suite of Z glass...........
or its just psychosomatic
Only an opinion
Nextlife1
Active member
I have both the Z800 and the Z 1.4 TC used on a Z9. I used it a couple of times when I first got the 800 5-1-22 and it works with no real loss of IQ. I have had the 800 on my Z9 95% of the time and have not used the TC since those first tests in May.Thanks.
I’ll ask you again when you have tried it…………
I find that 800 mm is the sweet spot for me on the Z9 and my bird ID photography and I can go to DX, mode in effect crop 1.5x, in camera or just crop in processing.
I've used the 800mm PF and Z 1.4 TC on the Z7ii. The combination is optically excellent, but it's very hard to avoid heat distortion and other challenges of extremely long lenses. I was photographing the lunar eclipse. I have yet to try it for wildlife.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
fcotterill
Well-known member
@Nextlife1 I have put close to 15000 images through my 800 PF since early April. A fair percentage are with the ZTC14: a few examples shared here, and 1 more below of a Dwarf mongoose, who had been poking his face into cracks and hole in the dead log (hence the cobwebs and debris). This species is about the smallest in the family. So even with a 800mm one has to be fairly close to fill the FX frame: within 10m. And a portrait requires even more reach. This image also emphasizes the very tight DoF even at f10
I've used the ZTC2 much less, and mainly when it's essential. However, it delivers surprisingly well as a 1600 f13.
As with the 800 prime alone, the results with both TC combinations are extremely sensitive to atmospheric conditions. I also have the 400 f4.5S which is an equally excellent optic, and a delight to handhold.
I've used the ZTC2 much less, and mainly when it's essential. However, it delivers surprisingly well as a 1600 f13.
As with the 800 prime alone, the results with both TC combinations are extremely sensitive to atmospheric conditions. I also have the 400 f4.5S which is an equally excellent optic, and a delight to handhold.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Sal Campos
Well-known member
500PF excels IQ better than the 800 6.3....my 2 cents...Gorgeous shots!!! Tack Sharp.I've shot both. I own the 500 + 1.4x TCIII and think it is an amazing combo. I have the 800 f6.3 POF on order.
A good friend lent me his 800 f6.3 PF for over a week and it is an amzing lens also. However, it is only 1/3rd of a stop faster than the 500 + 1.4x TCIII.
I then also wonder why I really need the 800 when I can get results like this from the 500 + 1.4x TCIII.
Best to click on the images to see them at full size.
Z9 + 500 pf + 1.4x TCIII, 1/400s f/8.0 at 700.0mm iso125
Z9 + 500 pf + 1.4x TCIII, 1/500s f/8.0 at 700.0mm iso1000
Z9 + 500 pf + 1.4x TCIII, 1/320s f/8.0 at 700.0mm iso900
Z9 + 500 pf + 1.4x TCIII, 1/640s f/10.0 at 700.0mm iso250
Z9 + 500 pf + 1.4x TCIII, 1/320s f/8.0 at 700.0mm iso220
Z9 + 500 pf + 1.4x TCIII, 1/640s f/8.0 at 700.0mm iso1250
Z9 + 500 pf + 1.4x TCIII, 1/400s f/8.0 at 700.0mm iso3200
Z9 + 500 pf + 1.4x TCIII, 1/400s f/8.0 at 700.0mm iso6400
Z9 + 500 pf + 1.4x TCIII, 1/500s f/8.0 at 700.0mm iso160
There is no doubt that a dedicated lens is better and one without the need of a TC, but I am astounded how good this combo is and the AF works brilliantly.
Thank you it really does illustrate the depth of field issue and of course even more so with the 1.4TC .... there are times whenb eye tracking is not a plus. On long billed or long nosed subjects I usually want to focus somewhere on the muzzle or beak not on the eyes and this one might not have made a difference. One of the reasons I do not use the TC is the DOF issue and need for smaller apertures and even more stops of light lost.
Fascinating thread especially as my ordered 800PF is in stock for me in UK. I ordered it on the morning of release. I am swithering as to what to do. I am in a postion to defray the cost by selling other items (camera equipment and a tasty guitar, that I am happy to let go), and go for it, but have been struck by the lovely images from 500PF + 1.4 TC posted here. There is also the 4.5 400 Z/S lens with a TC of course.
I would be using it with Z7ii for smallish birds in the often poor light of Scotland and also seabirds both in clifftop breeding sites and waders on the shore. Currently I use 300PF + 1.4 TC which is wonderfully portable of course, either on the Z7ii, or with D500 if I feel nervous re BIF! I often walk by my local river, too, with the birdlife on the other side...can't easily close in on the birds!!
Any further thoughts?
I would be using it with Z7ii for smallish birds in the often poor light of Scotland and also seabirds both in clifftop breeding sites and waders on the shore. Currently I use 300PF + 1.4 TC which is wonderfully portable of course, either on the Z7ii, or with D500 if I feel nervous re BIF! I often walk by my local river, too, with the birdlife on the other side...can't easily close in on the birds!!
Any further thoughts?
I did not find that with my copies and hence why I sold the 500 pf but I am a small bird specialist. I got very nice images with both lenses. I did not shoot that many images with the 500pf on my Z9 compared to the number I have with the 800 so fewer to compare to. For me the 500 worked better with the 1.4TC on the Z's than it did on the D850 but still short of the focal length I wanted and not any better IQ than the 800 f/6.3 ... what little pixel peeping I did gave an edge to the 800 over the 500 and for real world field use in the way I photograph birds in the wild it was not even close with the 800pf way ahead.
Barn Swallows Z9 and Z800 pf ... I have not found a better all around lens for small birds but I am always on the move mostly hiking and searching our birds along river corridors, sage steppe, mountains, canyons and even sand dunes where the swallows were. Since I am constantly on the move in all types of habitat being able to hand hold is important for me. I so my SUV as a rolling blind.
I do not have a Z7II only a Z6II which I have not used for BIF since I got the Z9 and have never used the Z800 on it.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Nextlife1
Active member
Just curious what you base that statement on since I don't see the 800mm PF on your equipment list?
Gov
Active member
I'm getting confused with all the comments on heat distortion and the 800 lens, even after watching Steven's video on the subject. Is the issue with heat distortion more about the distance between the camera and the subject or with the length of the lens? Is it the case when photographing a subject 50 yards away across a hot road, a 400 lens will yield less heat distortion on the image than an 800? And if you crop the 400 image so the subject is the same size as the 800, it would still have less heat distortion than the 800? Steve does say its more of a problem with long lenses. I've enjoyed your explanations on other issues and hope you (or Steve) can set me straight on this one.
ccyeung
Active member
My exact thoughts!Hmm. I have the 100-400 and I borrowed the 400 f4.5 for a week to try it out and took a few thousand images with it The 400 f4.5 is definitely a great lens and very sharp with wonderful IQ, but the 100-400 is definitely *not* soft even for a Z lens. At this stage, I am not getting the 400 f4.5 and sticking with my 100-400 and 500 pf combo and maybe add the 800 PF (which is on order).
How sharp do you need it to be. Z 100-400 shots:
It is not heat distortion but atmospheric distortion and it can happen at any temperature. @Steve has some good video's on the subject. Anytime there is a temperature difference between the surface (ground, snow, water etc.) and the air above it you can have atmospheric distortion from the movement of the air waves. The larger the temperature difference the more the distortion.
I shot a Parasitic Jaeger this month over a body of water that was quite a bit warmer than the cool morning air (about 43F) recently and the distortion within the first 10 feet or so of the air column was signficant. So blurry photos on the water or just above but good images when the bird was in flight chasing gullls etc. closer to the shore and higher.
The longer focal length of the 800mm can allow you to have more of a bird in the frame from a longer distance than a 600, 500 or 400mm so you are more likely to have more air "atmosphere" between you and the subject. The more air between you and the subject the more refraction of light and swirling movement of the air molecules, moisture, dust, pollen etc. And and even swarms of small flying insects can have an impact.
The issue is with the more extreme distance to the subject. Heat distortion is probably the number one issue when you are photographing distant subjects with a long lens. It's an issue at 500-600mm, but the lens is somewhat limiting. When you add a 1.4 TC to those lenses, you can have distortion with subjects over longer distances - particularly 200 yards away or longer or if you are photographing over beaches, snow, rooftops, or roadways. Sometimes you encounter it over water. With the 800mm lens, you can be tempted to try photos that might otherwise not be possible - sometimes at extremely long distances. This is on top of typical issues like vibration and lens movement. I was testing this lens at a distance of more than a half mile. Add a TC and you are at a ridiculous distance - 1120mm equivalent before any cropping - or 1600mm with a 2x TC.
The extent of the issue depends on where you photograph, your typical subjects, and the time of day. Starting early in the morning, you might have some fog or low lying mist but no heat. As the sun rises the sand and pavement start to absorb heat and get a heat shimmer. At that point you might as well photograph something else - it's like shooting through a windshield or worse. It's normally not an issue at closer distances.
Cropping does not matter other than the fact that any detail you have or lose is magnified. If you crop a subject impacted with slight heat distortion, you are magnifying the distortion. The only workarounds are to get closer and remove or reduce the source of distortion.
As Ken points out, any atmospheric issue can create distortion. You can have distortion in sub-zero temperatures. And there are different types of atmospheric distortion related to heat, moisture, humidity, etc.
O
Well-known member
There has been a lot of good information expressed by experienced people using long lenses or even with Tcs,
Atmospheric effects while it can be vary real, it doesn't have to be a deal breaker, i mean on certain days or conditions i come across it at 500mm 600mm shooting on the coast but not always.
Its like cropping very hard or cropping to a reasonable level, knowing the boundaries or meeting expectations is what counts.
Cropping say a 20mp image versus a 45mp image there will be a limit to what works for you.
Shooting at something on the other side of the lake that's small achieves what ? pass on that shot is the easy answer.
If we get a 600mm we want to add a TC, if we get a 800mm we want to add a TC if we get a 1100mm we want to try a tc........!!!!! and then we still want to corp !!!
Light, focusing, stability, is important and the vulnerability for any lens especially long hand held.
How and what you want to shoot is what matters, using the 800 will give you new opportunities and new perspectives, if you get a 800mm you will love it, just use it properly and while you can because it fits don't use a TC if you can help it.
The 800mm, It will change in the way you shoot, it will be excellent used the right way, if you don't like it you can always sell it.
Things are not an issue till they become one..........There is no magic bullet.
At times I use a 600 F4 and only at times i may use a TC 1.4 in good light, it works well because its a F4.
When i compare the images from a 600mm F4 taken at F5.6, and crop it to that size of a image at 840mm (600 x1.4) taken at F6.3 on a D850 it becomes very interesting.
Get your 800mm adapt to it, let it take you in closer than before for that in close compressed shot, but pass on the sparrow in the bush on the other side of the river if you know what i mean, it will only disappoint you.
Go and pick up your 800mm and enjoy the experience.
Only an opinion
Gov
Active member
Thanks! The issue is the distance to subject. If that's the case, the possibility of this kind of distortion should not cause someone to avoid buying an 800, except that it might, as you say, tempt a person to shoot a subject farther away (but that's not a flaw of the lens). It just seems that the issue of distortion is brought up more with the 800 than with other long lenses and that doesn't seem right, when the issue is really subject distance. I photograph a lot of birds, many of them small, and I struggle to fill the frame even with the 800. I enjoy the extra mm and relatively light weight, and don't want to worry I'm increasing the chances of distortion by using that particular lens.
Plenty sharp enough for just about anything…and the flexibility of the zoom is what convinced me to not order the 400 to test…and the 800 is way to expensive for the amount of use I would get from it. If one shoots lots and lots of small birds…the 800 would make photo but not necessarily dollar sense.
Gov
Active member
As the OP of this thread I really appreciate all of the comments, pictures, and opinions. I made the decision last week to purchase the 400 4.5 instead of waiting for the 800, which I will probably cancel before it arrives. i have decided that my 500 pf plus the 1.4x is all I need at the moment. So far, I couldn’t be happier with the 400 4.5 and I’m really enjoying 2/3 stop increase over my 500. The images produced by the 400 are very similar to the 500 and (IMOP) contain significantly more detail than my 100-400. After going through my Lightroom catalogs I determined that the majority of my shots were in the 400 to 700mm range. So, although the 800 would be a great addition and would eliminate quite a bit of cropping, it’s just not something I NEED to drop $7000 on at the moment. The 400 hasn’t left my camera since receiving it on Friday and as I mentioned before, I am extremely happy. To those that suggested the 100-400 is soft, I would say that it’s not. However, I would also suggest that there is a special ‘clarity‘ of an image produced by a prime lens that can’t be produced by a zoom. I am happier with the few shots I’ve got from the 400mm, that I’ve only owned for a few days than the majority of shots from the 100-400 that I have owned since January. Thanks again for everyone’s input.
Last edited:
Thank you very much, Sal. Much appreciated!
I wouldn't say the 500PF was better or worse than the 800PF, they are both superb lenses given their size, weight and price. I haven't used the 800 enough to say categorically which is best, but it is irrelevant to me as they are different lenses for different purposes. I would say the 800PF is better than the 500PF + 1.4x TCIII but may not be better enough for many people to justify the outlay on an 800PF.
O
Well-known member
Most likely a good decision.
As I mentioned earlier my wife loves her Z 400 f/4.5 on Z50. I have never even gotten try it
You may very well not have a lot of use for a Z800 and so not worth the investment.
Use what gets you the shots you want and you enjoy using.
My LR catalog has by far the most images taken at 600mm and more with a Tamron 150-600 G2 than any other lens. Of course I had 150-600, 50-600 or 600 mm lenses a lot longer than my Z800. Many at 600mm were on a crop DX format D500 so essentially 900mm equivalent field of view.
I also have some great images taken with my 500pf ... most without the 1.4 TC on D500, D850, and Z6II and many quite heavily cropped.
Now most in my catalog are with my Z800mm Z9 combo and some of the smallest birds at the longer distances with Z9 in DX mode so essentially 1200mm equivalent.
The Z800mm is the least "versatile" lens I own but fits far more of the photography I do than any of my other lenses.
My photography is heavily weighted to bird identification images taken on foot and on the move in a wide range of terrain and lighting with a need to isolate the bird from habitat the inside of a bush etc.. For that special niche the Z800 is the best lens I have used.
The Z800mm is definitely not for everyone and I might well not have invested in one if I was more of a generalist. I also prefer not to use an FTZ adapter or TC to keep things simpler and more compact and to fit my personal preference.
O
Well-known member
I think Ken makes a hell of a lot of sense, and i have mentioned before its not to get a sparrow in a bush on the other side of the river LOL
Alternately a Polar bear in the distance works, or a moose without getting to close.
Its to get in close to a subject and fill the frame, this also needs to go hand in hand with a camera that also has excellent VR, focus, speed and above all great ISO.
The Z9 ticks the boxes here with the exception to high ISO, a Z6 is not out of the question here.........and i have seen lots of brilliant examples of spectacular wild life shots at 12800 and even above, for the ISO king i love the D6 but doesn't fit on Z glass.............. yet !!!!! i feel once the migration process form DSLRS to Mirror less has peaked Nikon may release an adapter to sell some Z glass to the die hard's, wouldn't that be nice.
I would rather carry a Z6 LOL, its an extremely underrated camera with stunning image files, and if you up in the ISO 12 bit is fine at 14 fps.
I hardly use 3 D Tracking and rely on keeping the cross hairs on the subject.
If i am in close on a bird about to dart off then yes the better tracking on the Z9 helps, but generally that's a rare occasion for what i do.
So yes if the 800 is fit for the purpose for what you do just put it into gear and go for it.
Only an opinion
Alternately a Polar bear in the distance works, or a moose without getting to close.
Its to get in close to a subject and fill the frame, this also needs to go hand in hand with a camera that also has excellent VR, focus, speed and above all great ISO.
The Z9 ticks the boxes here with the exception to high ISO, a Z6 is not out of the question here.........and i have seen lots of brilliant examples of spectacular wild life shots at 12800 and even above, for the ISO king i love the D6 but doesn't fit on Z glass.............. yet !!!!! i feel once the migration process form DSLRS to Mirror less has peaked Nikon may release an adapter to sell some Z glass to the die hard's, wouldn't that be nice.
I would rather carry a Z6 LOL, its an extremely underrated camera with stunning image files, and if you up in the ISO 12 bit is fine at 14 fps.
I hardly use 3 D Tracking and rely on keeping the cross hairs on the subject.
If i am in close on a bird about to dart off then yes the better tracking on the Z9 helps, but generally that's a rare occasion for what i do.
So yes if the 800 is fit for the purpose for what you do just put it into gear and go for it.
Only an opinion