I love shooting 800mm. Should I add a used F 800mm f5.6?

[Mark_Laidlaw]

You keep talking about the idea of a "super prime", and in my opinion, the 800PF is already there.
At 800mm, unless you're close in, the atmosphere is probably going make a bigger impact on sharpness and clarity.

Rent it first and see how you feel about it. At $570/week from LensRentals, that's cheap enough to FAFO if you're cool with spending used car money on a lens.

If you do a lot of blind work, maybe it could be good. It'll have better bokeh from not being a PF lens for sure, but the DOF difference between 5.6 and 6.3 I would think is pretty minimal-to-imperceptible if you're within a reasonable range to your subject.

 

[splatbass]

My back is aching just from reading this thread.

 

[wotan1]

The 800 5.6 is a MANLY lens no doubt.

I have some non-photography business to tend to, once that is resolved, which will take a few months, I will take a look at my budget and see what might be possible.

It is either going to be:

1. Keep the 800 PF and get the 800 5.6;
2. Keep the 800 PF and get the 400mm f2.8 tc; or
3. Get the 600mm TC and sell or trade in the 800mm pf.

I have learned to be able to catch birds in flight with the 800mm pf. I may hit only about 25% of what I see, but once I catch them the Z9 with the 800mm PF locks on well, and if I shoot 20fps bursts I am able to harvest a lot of keepers. I am typically shooting with temps in the 30's and 40's perhaps into the low 50's and, depending on the day, sometimes the atmospheric diffraction is not too bad. Where I am shooting the area is surrounded by colder water, temps typically in the low 50's. On many days there are not a lot of temperature differences so the air tends to be more stable.

What I am gleaning from what I have heard from the others is the following:

1. All three of those lenses being considered are listed for very expensive prices, and they make use of glass that is more exotic and more effective than less expensive lenses. As the result all three of those lenses have improvements in sharpness, clarity and light transmission over less expensive optics. While the mid priced Z mounts are excellent lenses, the three exotics still have observable advances in sharpness and overall image quality compared to the mid priced optics.
2. Both the 400 2.8 and 600 f4 also have advantages in that they have a wider maximum aperture which means shallower depth of field and better background rendering. That being said, the 600 f4 advantage over the 800 PF shooting at 800 is only a third of an F stop which is not significant.
3. From all reports I have seen, the F mount 800mm f5.6 is the king of 800mm. No other of these lenses is sharper than it at 800. Further, both lens testing and observations by the few who have handled both, indicate the difference in image quality is noticeable.
4. I am not clear that either the 400 f2.8 or the 600mm f4, when brought out to 800 using TC, have a better image quality than the 800mm f6.3 PF. The 400 and 600 do have a one third F stop advantage. I recall an evaluation by Steve Perry in which he concluded the 800mm pf has a slight advantage in
5. By all accounts the 800mm f5.6 is a beast of a lens. Actually all three of these lenses being considered are beasts but the 800 5.6 is the King of the Beasts. I already use a decent tripod and gimbal with the 800mm pf, I would do the same with ether of these other lenses. I am quite comfortable with use of a tripod and gimbal, and once mounted on a good tripod and gimbal, even the biggest beast is easy tamed.
6. I am able to handhold the 800 PF for brief periods. I suspect I would be able to do the same with the 400mm f2.8. I don't imagine I will do much handholding with the 600 f4 and I don't see any handholding with the 800 f5.6.

The proper way to handle this is to first figure out what I am able and willing to spend for an exotic (or even if I really want one). Once I figure out what I want I will rent one first and make sure I see enough of a difference to justify what will probably be my last major lens purchase in the Z system. I am pretty much well stocked on other focal lengths.

I am however REALLY into sharp sharp lenses.

 

[Lance B]

The 800 5.6 is a MANLY lens no doubt.

I have some non-photography business to tend to, once that is resolved, which will take a few months, I will take a look at my budget and see what might be possible.

It is either going to be:

1. Keep the 800 PF and get the 800 5.6;
2. Keep the 800 PF and get the 400mm f2.8 tc; or
3. Get the 600mm TC and sell or trade in the 800mm pf.

I have learned to be able to catch birds in flight with the 800mm pf. I may hit only about 25% of what I see, but once I catch them the Z9 with the 800mm PF locks on well, and if I shoot 20fps bursts I am able to harvest a lot of keepers. I am typically shooting with temps in the 30's and 40's perhaps into the low 50's and, depending on the day, sometimes the atmospheric diffraction is not too bad. Where I am shooting the area is surrounded by colder water, temps typically in the low 50's. On many days there are not a lot of temperature differences so the air tends to be more stable.

What I am gleaning from what I have heard from the others is the following:

1. All three of those lenses being considered are listed for very expensive prices, and they make use of glass that is more exotic and more effective than less expensive lenses. As the result all three of those lenses have improvements in sharpness, clarity and light transmission over less expensive optics. While the mid priced Z mounts are excellent lenses, the three exotics still have observable advances in sharpness and overall image quality compared to the mid priced optics.
2. Both the 400 2.8 and 600 f4 also have advantages in that they have a wider maximum aperture which means shallower depth of field and better background rendering. That being said, the 600 f4 advantage over the 800 PF shooting at 800 is only a third of an F stop which is not significant.
3. From all reports I have seen, the F mount 800mm f5.6 is the king of 800mm. No other of these lenses is sharper than it at 800. Further, both lens testing and observations by the few who have handled both, indicate the difference in image quality is noticeable.
4. I am not clear that either the 400 f2.8 or the 600mm f4, when brought out to 800 using TC, have a better image quality than the 800mm f6.3 PF. The 400 and 600 do have a one third F stop advantage. I recall an evaluation by Steve Perry in which he concluded the 800mm pf has a slight advantage in
5. By all accounts the 800mm f5.6 is a beast of a lens. Actually all three of these lenses being considered are beasts but the 800 5.6 is the King of the Beasts. I already use a decent tripod and gimbal with the 800mm pf, I would do the same with ether of these other lenses. I am quite comfortable with use of a tripod and gimbal, and once mounted on a good tripod and gimbal, even the biggest beast is easy tamed.
6. I am able to handhold the 800 PF for brief periods. I suspect I would be able to do the same with the 400mm f2.8. I don't imagine I will do much handholding with the 600 f4 and I don't see any handholding with the 800 f5.6.

The proper way to handle this is to first figure out what I am able and willing to spend for an exotic (or even if I really want one). Once I figure out what I want I will rent one first and make sure I see enough of a difference to justify what will probably be my last major lens purchase in the Z system. I am pretty much well stocked on other focal lengths.

I am however REALLY into sharp sharp lenses.

Very good evaluation of the dilemma you have and to a degree I also had, although I was never considering the 800 f5.6E as it was just too heavy to be an option in my book.

I did have the 800PF and the 400 f2.8E FL VR at the same time. I never took them both into the field simply because having them both in the backpack was going to be 1) very heavy to transport and 2) Would require a huge backpack! I only ever took them out individually or if I did take the 800PF out it was with the 180-600 or 100-400. If I took the 400 f2.8E FL VR, it was usually by itself and the 1.4x TCIII and 2x TCIII.

I ended up getting a great trade-in deal with a bricks and mortar store backed by Nikon Aust for the 400f2.8E FL VR and 800PF to the point I only needed about AU$5,000 (US$3,000) to make up the difference on a 600TC, or about AU$3000 (US$1800) on a 400 TC. As I would be trading my 800PF, I went with the 600TC as it was a better bet at 800mm than the 400 at 800mm. To be honest, I only factored in the 800PF as a trade-in because they gave me enough trade-in so as I could get the 600TC. I was also swayed by the 600TC simply because I am mostly shooting small birds and small birds at distance and medium to large birds also at distance. In other words, I was mostly always at 600mm or 800mm. I rarely shoot animals as we have very few large animals here in Australia.

Like you, I like really sharp lenses and the 600TC delivers. It was why I had the fabulous 400 f2.8E FL VR. However, I do not miss the 400 f2.8E FL VR one bit, the 600TC is a worthy replacement and ends up 1kg lighter when you factor in the heavy 400 f2.8 lens hood, FTZ and 1.4x TCIII. The 600TC is quite easy handholdable and for me for a reasonable length of time, I never shoot on a tripod or monopod. Yes, the 400TC would be slightly easier, but I would definitely miss the slightly higher quality of the 600TC at 840mm using the 1.4x internal TC compared to the 400TC + 2x TC or external and internal 1.4x TC. I shoot at 800/840mm quite a lot.

This is my reason for going the 600TC, but it may not be what you require. I just thought I would share my story as it might help you with your decision one way or the other.

 

[wotan1]

Very good evaluation of the dilemma you have and to a degree I also had, although I was never considering the 800 f5.6E as it was just too heavy to be an option in my book.

I did have the 800PF and the 400 f2.8E FL VR at the same time. I never took them both into the field simply because having them both in the backpack was going to be 1) very heavy to transport and 2) Would require a huge backpack! I only ever took them out individually or if I did take the 800PF out it was with the 180-600 or 100-400. If I took the 400 f2.8E FL VR, it was usually by itself and the 1.4x TCIII and 2x TCIII.

I ended up getting a great trade-in deal with a bricks and mortar store backed by Nikon Aust for the 400f2.8E FL VR and 800PF to the point I only needed about AU$5,000 (US$3,000) to make up the difference on a 600TC, or about AU$3000 (US$1800) on a 400 TC. As I would be trading my 800PF, I went with the 600TC as it was a better bet at 800mm than the 400 at 800mm. To be honest, I only factored in the 800PF as a trade-in because they gave me enough trade-in so as I could get the 600TC. I was also swayed by the 600TC simply because I am mostly shooting small birds and small birds at distance and medium to large birds also at distance. In other words, I was mostly always at 600mm or 800mm. I rarely shoot animals as we have very few large animals here in Australia.

Like you, I like really sharp lenses and the 600TC delivers. It was why I had the fabulous 400 f2.8E FL VR. However, I do not miss the 400 f2.8E FL VR one bit, the 600TC is a worthy replacement and ends up 1kg lighter when you factor in the heavy 400 f2.8 lens hood, FTZ and 1.4x TCIII. The 600TC is quite easy handholdable and for me for a reasonable length of time, I never shoot on a tripod or monopod. Yes, the 400TC would be slightly easier, but I would definitely miss the slightly higher quality of the 600TC at 840mm using the 1.4x internal TC compared to the 400TC + 2x TC or external and internal 1.4x TC. I shoot at 800/840mm quite a lot.

This is my reason for going the 600TC, but it may not be what you require. I just thought I would share my story as it might help you with your decision one way or the other.

I appreciate the point of view.

I guess the difference I note for myself is that I only rarely shoot at 600 almost all of my bird photography is at 800mm.

At the same time my pattern might change. Currently I have not paid much attention to mammals (or dinosaurs for that matter) but that could change. I may be planning a road trip or three next year. Options include Yellowstone, the Canadian Rockies or bear country in British Columbia. in addition Hurricane Ridge in Washington offers great possibilities, I may be headed back there in June. If I did more mammals shorter focal length would work. I am already set up for the shorter stuff with the 70-200 f2.8 zoom and the 400mm f4.5. Those lenses might work out fine, since I would not have to crop much I don't need the maximum in lens sharpness if I am shooting on a 45 mp sensor.

Of course, 800mm or longer is useless for chasing down birds if there is much atmospheric diffraction. But when conditions are OK I find myself pushing the envelope of what is possible for reach. With the 800 PF I am always chasing the limit. A lot of that is cropping and that ultimately is why I prefer super sharp prime lenses. Sharpness and a big full frame sensor matter if you need to crop.

The 800mm f5.6 is apparently the king of long reach and it rules 800mm in terms of IQ apparently. Plus you have that bespoke 1.25 tc that is matched to your lens. Will that give me enough punch that I can take a step farther?

I have been a long distance cyclist. Some years ago I got a custom carbon fiber frame. That frame was so good that I found I could hold a bigger gear than I could on other bikes.

Will the 800mm f5.6 give me a bigger gear of reach that I could achieve beyond what I have or can get with anything else.

Fortunately I don't have to decide any of this for a few months. I also have to consider that the Z9ii may be coming and I might have to factor the cost of a body upgrade into the equation. If I did that I would probably trade in or sell one of my Z9's so the cost of upgrade might not be that prohibitive, certainly nothing like buying a 600mm f4 tc. Of course even after it is released I might not be able to get a Z9ii for a long time unless Nikon has improved its supply chain.

 

[Lance B]

I appreciate the point of view.

I guess the difference I note for myself is that I only rarely shoot at 600 almost all of my bird photography is at 800mm.

At the same time my pattern might change. Currently I have not paid much attention to mammals (or dinosaurs for that matter) but that could change. I may be planning a road trip or three next year. Options include Yellowstone, the Canadian Rockies or bear country in British Columbia. in addition Hurricane Ridge in Washington offers great possibilities, I may be headed back there in June. If I did more mammals shorter focal length would work. I am already set up for the shorter stuff with the 70-200 f2.8 zoom and the 400mm f4.5. Those lenses might work out fine, since I would not have to crop much I don't need the maximum in lens sharpness if I am shooting on a 45 mp sensor.

Of course, 800mm or longer is useless for chasing down birds if there is much atmospheric diffraction. But when conditions are OK I find myself pushing the envelope of what is possible for reach. With the 800 PF I am always chasing the limit. A lot of that is cropping and that ultimately is why I prefer super sharp prime lenses. Sharpness and a big full frame sensor matter if you need to crop.

The 800mm f5.6 is apparently the king of long reach and it rules 800mm in terms of IQ apparently. Plus you have that bespoke 1.25 tc that is matched to your lens. Will that give me enough punch that I can take a step farther?

I have been a long distance cyclist. Some years ago I got a custom carbon fiber frame. That frame was so good that I found I could hold a bigger gear than I could on other bikes.

Will the 800mm f5.6 give me a bigger gear of reach that I could achieve beyond what I have or can get with anything else.

Fortunately I don't have to decide any of this for a few months. I also have to consider that the Z9ii may be coming and I might have to factor the cost of a body upgrade into the equation. If I did that I would probably trade in or sell one of my Z9's so the cost of upgrade might not be that prohibitive, certainly nothing like buying a 600mm f4 tc. Of course even after it is released I might not be able to get a Z9ii for a long time unless Nikon has improved its supply chain.

It's a decision that only you can make. We others that have given our 2c worth can only advise what has worked for us and which may, in some way, help you to your goals.

 

[wotan1]

Thanks everyone for your thoughtful and considerate responses.

I love this forum.

 

[fcotterill]

Good summary

The 800 5.6 is a MANLY lens no doubt.

I have some non-photography business to tend to, once that is resolved, which will take a few months, I will take a look at my budget and see what might be possible.

It is either going to be:

1. Keep the 800 PF and get the 800 5.6;

Yes! Whatever way you decide, I strongly advise not to sell the 800 PF

2. Keep the 800 PF and get the 400mm f2.8 tc; or
3. Get the 600mm TC and sell or trade in the 800mm pf.

Trickier decision, but bear in mind the 600 TC is almost 1kg heavier than the 800 PF

I have learned to be able to catch birds in flight with the 800mm pf. I may hit only about 25% of what I see, but once I catch them the Z9 with the 800mm PF locks on well, and if I shoot 20fps bursts I am able to harvest a lot of keepers. I am typically shooting with temps in the 30's and 40's perhaps into the low 50's and, depending on the day, sometimes the atmospheric diffraction is not too bad. Where I am shooting the area is surrounded by colder water, temps typically in the low 50's. On many days there are not a lot of temperature differences so the air tends to be more stable.

What I am gleaning from what I have heard from the others is the following:

1. All three of those lenses being considered are listed for very expensive prices, and they make use of glass that is more exotic and more effective than less expensive lenses. As the result all three of those lenses have improvements in sharpness, clarity and light transmission over less expensive optics. While the mid priced Z mounts are excellent lenses, the three exotics still have observable advances in sharpness and overall image quality compared to the mid priced optics.

Yip

2. Both the 400 2.8 and 600 f4 also have advantages in that they have a wider maximum aperture which means shallower depth of field and better background rendering.

Depends on subject distance. The 800 f5.6 has the same DOF as 400 f2.8 at double the subject distance - both wide open., and scales accordingly with a 1000 f7.1 or 1120 f8 with a TC on the 800. The Bokeh and rendering of these fast exotics are basically indistinguishable IME

Is telephoto “fast glass” worth it?

I totally get the concept of “fast glass”, but how much of a difference does it really make for shooting wildlife with super telephotos? I completely understand that IQ may be superior, and that subject isolation and Bokeh are better than equivalent length lenses with smaller apertures. But, on...

bcgforums.com

Graphical illustration of the same DoF data

500mm vs 600mm

The other issue in your example would be a shorter focal length already at infinity with subject at 50 feet and background 20 feet behind that the depth of field for a Z 50 mm f/1.8 or Z14-30 f/4 is signficantly different than a Z800 f/6.3 pf or even a Z600 f/6.3 .... those are radical...

bcgforums.com

See

The Fast Glass TRAP - Don't Make This Mistake!

Think your F/2.8 lens is always the best choice for wildlife photography? Think again. In my latest video, I’m uncovering common mistakes many photographers make when reaching for that fast glass. Wait until we get into Depth of Field and ISO - it's shocking how most photographers get this...

bcgforums.com

That being said, the 600 f4 advantage over the 800 PF shooting at 800 is only a third of an F stop which is not significant.
3. From all reports I have seen, the F mount 800mm f5.6 is the king of 800mm. No other of these lenses is sharper than it at 800. Further, both lens testing and observations by the few who have handled both, indicate the difference in image quality is noticeable.
4. I am not clear that either the 400 f2.8 or the 600mm f4, when brought out to 800 using TC, have a better image quality than the 800mm f6.3 PF. The 400 and 600 do have a one third F stop advantage. I recall an evaluation by Steve Perry in which he concluded the 800mm pf has a slight advantage in

Probably the 800 PF pulls ahead at longer distances, where IQ penalty with the TC drops off beyond 40m IME - but depending on atmospherics of course.
But admittedly I've mo experience with the internal Z TC's

5. By all accounts the 800mm f5.6 is a beast of a lens.

It weighs 4.65 kg. The minimal rig weight is 5.8kg assuming a ~1kg Z8 with FTZ, and obviously more with 1.34kg Z9

On hikes, I regularly handheld my 3.8kg 400 f2.8E FL + 330g TC2 III on a gripped D850 or 1.45kg D5 = 5.2 - 5.58 kg total
Counter intuitively, substituting the 400 with a 3kg 300 f2.8G VRII was harder to handhold, because the lighter lens is end heavy.

The decisive difference is the rig with its weight concentrated to the rear is far less exhausting on the arms and back. The key difference is Balance - the equally important variable. This is why a gripped camera balances a telephoto better.

The 800E is extra long , and even longer with attached hood. The extra 10cm compared to a 400 f2.8 compounds the weight difference noticeably.
It needs extra diligence managing on a support, especially when attaching/ detaching from the gimbal clamp. I always use a safety lanyard on the tripod and monopod clipped on to a strap fixed into the lens collar.

Actually all three of these lenses being considered are beasts but the 800 5.6 is the King of the Beasts. I already use a decent tripod and gimbal with the 800mm pf, I would do the same with ether of these other lenses. I am quite comfortable with use of a tripod and gimbal, and once mounted on a good tripod and gimbal, even the biggest beast is easy tamed.
6. I am able to handhold the 800 PF for brief periods. I suspect I would be able to do the same with the 400mm f2.8. I don't imagine I will do much handholding with the 600 f4 and I don't see any handholding with the 800 f5.6.

I handhold my 800 PF almost entirely, unless for focused subjects, when I usually put it on a light monopod.

The proper way to handle this is to first figure out what I am able and willing to spend for an exotic (or even if I really want one). Once I figure out what I want I will rent one first and make sure I see enough of a difference to justify what will probably be my last major lens purchase in the Z system. I am pretty much well stocked on other focal lengths.

I am however REALLY into sharp sharp lenses.

Incurable condition

 

[Roy]

I currently use the Nikon Z 800mm f6.3 PF.

I shoot 800mm a lot and love the 800mm. PF.

The F mount 800mm f5.6 was the super prime 800mm lens, the most expensive lens Nikon ever produced.

They can now be found used for around 6 grand.

Am I silly or should I consider adding one of those beasts to my arsenal. Is it that much better than the 800mm pf to justify spending 6 grand to get one?

I had the 800mm AFS lens - recently sold it.
Its bloody heavy and needs a tripod.
The new PF 800 is another beast - you can even hand hold it for video.
We often dont appreciate how small and light PF lenses are....

 

[mdirvin]

I currently use the Nikon Z 800mm f6.3 PF.

I shoot 800mm a lot and love the 800mm. PF.

The F mount 800mm f5.6 was the super prime 800mm lens, the most expensive lens Nikon ever produced.

They can now be found used for around 6 grand.

Am I silly or should I consider adding one of those beasts to my arsenal. Is it that much better than the 800mm pf to justify spending 6 grand to get one?

seriously??