lens advice sought

[Ken Miracle]

Thanks very much! I really enjoy the lens and use it a lot. As you point out, the maximum f/6.3 is a bit of a limitation. However, keep in mind that it's almost as fast it gets for 800mm and is priced below and/or is lighter than its competition. This would include the 800 f/5.6 F mount, 600mm f/4 F and Z mounts with 1.4x TCs (f/5.6), 400mm f/2.8 F and Z mounts with 2x TCs (f/5.6), 500mm f/4 with 1.7x TC (f/6.7). I'll also include a 500mm f/4E with 1.4x TC. It's only 700mm, but IQ is excellent and it's f/5.6.

To me, a bigger limitation is the 16' MFD. Granted, it can deliver good closeups, but it's from quite a distance. And the long MFD precludes shots of birds that come in closer. So for a single walkabout birding/nature telephoto, a zoom would be better. But for intermediate and long-range shooting, it's really excellent.

I have used my Z 800mm pf on my Z9 constantly for wandering around bird ID photos since 5-1-22 and the number of times that the MFD has been an issue out here is less than I can count on my 10 fingers

 

[ARClark]

You have me thinking i want one and with a Tc, may rent one rather than buy due to infrequent use in my situation, but a dame good tool, Love it.

Only an opinion

Be careful with a rental. It might grow on you.

 

[ricardo00]

Beautiful Excellent outcome and perfect example of a very good lens and someone who knows how to use it.

I have heard nothing but good things about this lens, Eric Loves his.
I hear it works very well even for subjects close as well as you can fill the frame.

I would assume its vulnerability is lower light and pressuring ISO levels, making it at times a fair weather lens ?

Only an opinion

One can often use a slower shutter speed and/or noise reduction software? When we saw this serval out (they are usually out at dusk) it was already quite dark so decreased the shutter speed as much as I could and shot with the 800mm (also took a few shots with my 400mm f/4.5 but liked the 800mm shots better):

https://flic.kr/p/2pi2aDe

The same serval shot with the 400mm f/4.5:

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

 

[Cameron T]

One can often use a slower shutter speed and/or noise reduction software? When we saw this serval out (they are usually out at dusk) it was already quite dark so decreased the shutter speed as much as I could and shot with the 800mm (also took a few shots with my 400mm f/4.5 but liked the 800mm shots better):

https://flic.kr/p/2pi2aDe

Yep. I don't think 'lower light' is a weakness of a lens these days. The issue will be on the camera body side, and even then we have ways to cope with lower light. Even then, to be honest, I don't think one and a third stops from the 800 6.3 to a 600f4 will make that much of a difference either (for example). Modern sensors handle higher ISO well, and unless you're trying to really catch fast moving action one stop is going to make no real world difference in settings.

 

[ARClark]

I have used my Z 800mm pf on my Z9 constantly for wandering around bird ID photos since 5-1-22 and the number of times that the MFD has been an issue out here is less than I can count on my 10 fingers

I could see that. Of course it depends on what and where one shoots. I live in a fairly developed area. Some of my favorite places to shoot are local sunflower field with blue grosbeaks, indigo buntings and goldfinches. Close encounters (less than 16') with birds in such situations, not to mention butterflies, are not unusual. There's also a small lake nearby with wading birds that can also come in too close. And then there are natural areas with woods and meadows with wildflower and butterfly/hummingbird opportunities in addition to birds. Preferring to shoot with one long lens these days on my walks, I consider my options and goals before going out. Sometimes it's the 800 PF, while other times it's the 500 PF, 200-500 or 100-400. But, where possible, I do prefer the 800mm. It's fun and capable of great images.

 

[Ken Miracle]

I could see that. Of course it depends on what and where one shoots. I live in a fairly developed area. Some of my favorite places to shoot are local sunflower field with blue grosbeaks, indigo buntings and goldfinches. Close encounters (less than 16') with birds in such situations, not to mention butterflies, are not unusual. There's also a small lake nearby with wading birds that can also come in too close. And then there are natural areas with woods and meadows with wildflower and butterfly/hummingbird opportunities in addition to birds. Preferring to shoot with one long lens these days on my walks, I consider my options and goals before going out. Sometimes it's the 800 PF, while other times it's the 500 PF, 200-500 or 100-400. But, where possible, I do prefer the 800mm. It's fun and capable of great images.

Yup that is why my first comment was that @EricBowles was right not all bird photography is the same.

I live in a Sage Steppe area with canyonlands and high alpine all within a 1 hour or less drive. I also walk from my apartment here in Boise to a lot of birding at a creek, a large pond and the Boise River. In all these spots most birds will be at 20 feet or further. I have more times where too far is the issue rather than to close because of atmospheric distortion setting in.

 

[EricBowles]

Thanks for all the comments they are helpful.

I am finding myself frequently short of reach even with the 600mm and a 1.4x tc. I also have found that even though I can hand hold I find the tripod and gimbal gets better results.

Two days ago I was in a great area. There were many cruising predators including eagles, harrier falcons and owls. Plus flying swans and flocks of ducks and snow geese.. It seemed that all the action however was too far away to be able to fill the screen with flight. I am beginning to wonder whether I should add the 800mm pf to the mix. I could also have brought out the 2x tc on the 600 pf.

There are two photographers I know that use a 2x TC on a 600mm or longer lens on a regular basis. Arthur Morris uses the 2x TC on his Sony 600mm f/4 - but he also uses the 1.4 and the 200-600 quite a bit. His field technique is excellent - and he is very willing to work to approach a subject. He also recognizes situations where he simply can't get close enough - and moves on.

The other is Nikon Ambassador Michelle Valberg. She's using it handheld from a canoe. She told me her hit rate was very low, but it does allow some true winners with reclusive subjects. By staying back and using the 2x, she gets more time with her subjects and the increased opportunities pay off. She is minimally cropping when using the 2x - and not trying to capture subjects in flight. Field of view is just too narrow for flight.

 

[ARClark]

Yep. I don't think 'lower light' is a weakness of a lens these days. The issue will be on the camera body side, and even then we have ways to cope with lower light. Even then, to be honest, I don't think one and a third stops from the 800 6.3 to a 600f4 will make that much of a difference either (for example). Modern sensors handle higher ISO well, and unless you're trying to really catch fast moving action one stop is going to make no real world difference in settings.

Granted that modern sensors and AI software have made shooting in lower light with "slower" lenses much more feasible. I've gotten some nice high ISO photos with a cooperative subject and minimal cropping using a Z9. And it's great being able to autofocus easily at maximum apertures smaller than f/8, the previous limit with my Nikon DSLRs.

However, in general, when shooting birds, I like to shoot at a reasonably fast shutter speed to minimize movement blur and a lower ISO to better preserve feather detail, especially if any cropping is needed (which it usually is). So here's an example of a situation one can easily encounter while shooting near dusk. Say you're trying to shoot a twitchy songbird in fading light with the 600 f/4, and it requires a shutter speed of 1/500 sec and 5000 ISO. If you replaced the 600 f/4 with the 600 f/6.3, you're then faced with more than doubling the ISO to over 10,000 to maintain the shutter speed, reducing the shutter speed to less than 1/250 sec to maintain the ISO, or making appropriate adjustments in shutter speed and ISO to achieve the same exposure. This can still be done, but the odds of the bird's movement at the slower shutter speed and/or the loss of feather detail is increased. Similar situations also occur when shooting birds in flight in marginal light. It's a judgment to call to be sure as to whether these types of situations are encountered enough to justify purchasing an exotic prime. For me, I encounter them enough that I've kept a 500 f/4E alongside an 800 PF and 100-400 for those occasions. But each person's budget and shooting needs are different.

 

[EricBowles]

To me, a bigger limitation is the 16' MFD. Granted, it can deliver good closeups, but it's from quite a distance. And the long MFD precludes shots of birds that come in closer. So for a single walkabout birding/nature telephoto, a zoom would be better. But for intermediate and long-range shooting, it's really excellent.

Nikon designs all of it's long lenses for a magnification ratio of around 1:6 - 1:6.5 at minimum focus distance. You can increase that with a teleconverter or extension tubes, but they are all in the same range.

Probably the bigger issue is differences as you move a modest amount beyond MFD - to the 20-30 foot range. There you see the longest lens/Lens+TC versions providing more magnification.

 

[ARClark]

Nikon designs all of it's long lenses for a magnification ratio of around 1:6 - 1:6.5 at minimum focus distance. You can increase that with a teleconverter or extension tubes, but they are all in the same range.

Probably the bigger issue is differences as you move a modest amount beyond MFD - to the 20-30 foot range. There you see the longest lens/Lens+TC versions providing more magnification.

I get it, but that doesn’t address the matter of subjects closer than the 16’ MFD. It’s a great lens for mid to long range subjects, but based on my experience, it’s not as suitable as a walkabout for general nature photography as it eliminates the ability to shoot subjects closer than 16’.

 

[Ken Miracle]

I get it, but that doesn’t address the matter of subjects closer than the 16’ MFD. It’s a great lens for mid to long range subjects, but based on my experience, it’s not as suitable as a walkabout for general nature photography as it eliminates the ability to shoot subjects closer than 16’.

16.5' where you live that is an issue where I live it is not.

 

[wotan1]

Thanks everyone for your helpful advice.

The bottom lie is I have decided to add the Z800mm pf.

I paid for the order today and should get it hopefully sometime next week.