eaj101
Well-known member
Well, the 80-400 overlapped as well
Though I'm finding the 100-400 a big improvement over the 80-400 (mine arrived last week, at last).
My Estimate of 800 F6.3 PF z Price
- Thread starter RichF
- 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).
Though I'm finding the 100-400 a big improvement over the 80-400 (mine arrived last week, at last).DaveR
Active member
I really hope so as I'm very interested in this lens depending on the weight of it. Given the price and weight of the new Canon 800mm Nikon could have a real winner on their hands. I have already put my name down for one at my dealer but I suspect it will be a long wait until I get one in my hands. Remember the buzz when the 500pf arrived? I was amazed at the price and the weight of that lens and I have really enjoyed using it ever since I got my it. I'm hoping for the same experience with the 800pf which would make an excellent combo with the Z9.
fcotterill
Well-known member
At least 4 factors point to a RRP of approx $7000. My guess is under $8000...
1. A single Phase-Fresnel avoids Expensive Large Fluorite elements, even more so if the optical design positions the PF element back from the widest aperture... As argued last month the two existing PF primes do not have a fluorite element(s), which appears to be a common factor pushing up prices of almost all telephotos: especially wide diameter. Its use in the E FL telephotos is reduced weight and higher refraction - which is also the key attributes of phase-fresnel. Arguably a third factor is the twist-on hood (not the uber expensive carbon item!)
2. Unique Features is yet another factor, and these must be affordable. Dedicated birders and sports pros are more likely to wait for the 600 f4 to use with the Z-TC14, and equally rely on a single 400 f2.8S TC solution with the Z-TC2. Nikon must recognize this risk of buyer dismissals. So they have likely designed this 800 PF with sufficient unique features to stand apart from not only from the Z Telephotos (current+roadmapped) but also the diversity of F-mount solutions. We owners of the 400 f2.8E know this well, as it works really well as a 800 f5.6. Yet more justification to keep the 800 PF price realistic but tempting.
3. Weight (Less) So it will be interesting to learn its actual mass next month (!). The screengrabs show relative novices in a TV studio handling this 800 PF on a Z9 with comparative ease with one hand. Every 100g Nikon has shaved off this prime will sell more them copies - and more cameras. So an unprecedented lightweight 800 is where Nikon is also likely to shake up traditions.
As many of us are saying - rather hoping - a relatively low RRP (i've read comments about 2 * RRP of the 500 f5.6E PF) will net many in the birder flocks
4. The Multiplier Effect is a 3rd factor, and a biggie.... Consider the hypothetical argument that every $1k chopped off the price will also sell at least a 1000 Z9's if not more, and multiple sales of shorter Z optics. These total sales will net from: upgraders from Z6/Z7; adding to/moving from DSLRs; System-switchers. If they price this 800 in the affordable Hobbyist bracket, turnover alone it should earn Nikon far more than a high 5 figure price tag.
In summary, Nikon beancounters must surely recognize this multiplier effect from more hobbyists who buy into the Z system - even by tempted such buyers on first bite with this unique optic(s). It is sure to multiply sell far more new cameras and lenses.... the Z Roadmap invokes enticing foraging.
1. A single Phase-Fresnel avoids Expensive Large Fluorite elements, even more so if the optical design positions the PF element back from the widest aperture... As argued last month the two existing PF primes do not have a fluorite element(s), which appears to be a common factor pushing up prices of almost all telephotos: especially wide diameter. Its use in the E FL telephotos is reduced weight and higher refraction - which is also the key attributes of phase-fresnel. Arguably a third factor is the twist-on hood (not the uber expensive carbon item!)
2. Unique Features is yet another factor, and these must be affordable. Dedicated birders and sports pros are more likely to wait for the 600 f4 to use with the Z-TC14, and equally rely on a single 400 f2.8S TC solution with the Z-TC2. Nikon must recognize this risk of buyer dismissals. So they have likely designed this 800 PF with sufficient unique features to stand apart from not only from the Z Telephotos (current+roadmapped) but also the diversity of F-mount solutions. We owners of the 400 f2.8E know this well, as it works really well as a 800 f5.6. Yet more justification to keep the 800 PF price realistic but tempting.
3. Weight (Less) So it will be interesting to learn its actual mass next month (!). The screengrabs show relative novices in a TV studio handling this 800 PF on a Z9 with comparative ease with one hand. Every 100g Nikon has shaved off this prime will sell more them copies - and more cameras. So an unprecedented lightweight 800 is where Nikon is also likely to shake up traditions.
As many of us are saying - rather hoping - a relatively low RRP (i've read comments about 2 * RRP of the 500 f5.6E PF) will net many in the birder flocks
4. The Multiplier Effect is a 3rd factor, and a biggie.... Consider the hypothetical argument that every $1k chopped off the price will also sell at least a 1000 Z9's if not more, and multiple sales of shorter Z optics. These total sales will net from: upgraders from Z6/Z7; adding to/moving from DSLRs; System-switchers. If they price this 800 in the affordable Hobbyist bracket, turnover alone it should earn Nikon far more than a high 5 figure price tag.
In summary, Nikon beancounters must surely recognize this multiplier effect from more hobbyists who buy into the Z system - even by tempted such buyers on first bite with this unique optic(s). It is sure to multiply sell far more new cameras and lenses.... the Z Roadmap invokes enticing foraging.
Last edited:
DaveR
Active member
I like your thinking and really hope you're right.
One other factor to maybe take into account is the lens looks quite compact. Not that much bigger than the 500pf so just how much more would the manufacturing cost be than the 500?
If they could bring this lens in for 7000 imagine what Canon users would think having been offered an 800mm 5.6 that is basically a 400 2,8 with a 2x tc strapped on the back for just under 20000! Your point about bringing new users in the the Z system would really kick in.
Nikon's really jerking us around getting all this buzz when they could have announced this lens weeks/months ago with the same start of delivery date they will announce in a few weeks.
Darrellhar
Well-known member
I don't begin to know what is going on in the heads of Nikon executives but I would assume they have their reasons for the timing. Development announcement gets them the buzz but doesn't back them into a corner as far as when they need to deliver them. I think they would make more people upset if they set a date and then had to move that date out. They may be waiting to try and get caught up with Z9 orders assuming that announcing a "low" cost 800mm would cause another flood of orders for the Z9 like others have suggested. They may also be trying to build up more stock so that they don't have the outage issues they have with other camera/lens. They may also be waiting for their fiscal year to end so that the bulk of the new sales happen in new year. All speculation of course on our part.
fcotterill
Well-known member
It is a bit longer than the 400 f2.8S TC and close to the 500 f4E FL, which adds all the more intrigue to how much the PhaseFresnel design can cut its weight.
Steelhant
Member
Why announce it...No stock...look at the 400 2.8 S....I sold my 600FL thinking the 400mm was coming soon, at least I have the 500pf and it works very well with Z9 with 1.4 in good light .
Soon and Nikon are not two words that go together lol.
Marketing.
DaveR
Active member
My point wasn't so much about the size, more about the cost of manufacture. Would a 800mm pf cost about twice as much to make as a 500pf? I have no idea but if it did then a price of around 7000 is realistic. Pure guess work on my behalf here lol.
fcotterill
Well-known member
There's so much we don't know. Perhaps some parts of the Z AF are more costly to make - twinned stepper motors etc.
However, in the 2 summary tables of Z-Nikkors in his Z9 e-book (pg 549-550), Thom Hogan ranks this 800 PF as a 'prosumer long telephoto prime', also the 400 PF - in contrast to the Professional label on the fastest primes, and 3 f2.8S Dragons. He ranks the 400 TC as a 'professional telephoto prime'. He also has a consumer category (28 f2.8, 40 f2 etc)
However, in the 2 summary tables of Z-Nikkors in his Z9 e-book (pg 549-550), Thom Hogan ranks this 800 PF as a 'prosumer long telephoto prime', also the 400 PF - in contrast to the Professional label on the fastest primes, and 3 f2.8S Dragons. He ranks the 400 TC as a 'professional telephoto prime'. He also has a consumer category (28 f2.8, 40 f2 etc)
arbitrage
Well-known member
But does Thom really know anything more than we do about the 800PF and 400PF? Somehow I doubt it. So his prosumer ranking is probably just guesswork. I think the 800PF is going to end up being more alike to a professional telephoto prime. But we shall see....
BrianSmall
Active member
I would be interested to hear how those of you who want this lens expect to use it in the field? Do you see it as primarily a bird lens? Mammal lens? Other? Used on a tripod or hand-held mostly? Flight lens?
Both birds and for mammals when I can not get close (Africa, need to stay on the road, don't want to disturb a hunt, ...)
In my case it would be almost exclusively a bird lens. Used with a tripod/monopod/beanbag. But it would also be useful for marine mammals. As intriguing as this lens sounds the 600mm f4 makes more sense due to being more versatile. In the end much will depend on price and how small/light it actually turns out to be.
The appeal is that it is a very long lens (focal length wise) that is highly portable. It would primarily be a lens for smaller birds. The problem is that I find it rare that a focal length like 800mm is satisfactory for all of my photos in the field. Just about always I use shorter focal lengths, as well, even if we are talking 600mm. I would have to have two lenses at the ready, and probably two cameras. This is why a lens like the M43 150-400 (really 500) zoom is so useful and attractive; it covers nearly all of the focal lengths I feel likely to use in bird photography in the field.
Steelhant
Member
Would use it mostly for birds, the only issue would be iso ...when you shoot in low light, even during the day when birds like to hide under the canopy of leaves and you need shutter speed with little birds "warblers ..light weight is a plus, but maybe the 600mm s when ever that happens would for me the one .
eaj101
Well-known member
I'm 'interested' in an 800PF... but I have reservations. An 800mm lens is a big cannon. VR, IBIS, and pixie dust notwithstanding, keeping vibration under control with a lens that long is going to be a real challenge. Classically you would have stuck it on a big heavy tripod with a top quality rigid gimbal.
I think the comments we've seen about the 500PF indicate that people are far too casual about handling long lenses (I include myself in this at times). I suspect a lot of grumbles about long lens IQ are more a product of technique than technology. It's a subject of contention, but Steve has seen fit to do a number of articles on long lens and tripod use, as have others.
I suspect that a lot of 800PF customers are going to think they've gotten a bad copy.
I think the comments we've seen about the 500PF indicate that people are far too casual about handling long lenses (I include myself in this at times). I suspect a lot of grumbles about long lens IQ are more a product of technique than technology. It's a subject of contention, but Steve has seen fit to do a number of articles on long lens and tripod use, as have others.
I suspect that a lot of 800PF customers are going to think they've gotten a bad copy.
BrianSmall
Active member
You've kind of touched on what would be my concern with a lens like this. I've owned a couple of 800's in my life time and with film I think it was easier to control a lens like this. With mirrorless and high MP sensors I think it may be a concern...............but as you say, perhaps VR, IBIS, etc can help. Will be interesting to see what folks say after really putting it through its paces. Hand holding 800mm is tough..............my 600 & 1.4 combo really need good light to shine when I attempt to hand hold them.I'm 'interested' in an 800PF... but I have reservations. An 800mm lens is a big cannon. VR, IBIS, and pixie dust notwithstanding, keeping vibration under control with a lens that long is going to be a real challenge. Classically you would have stuck it on a big heavy tripod with a top quality rigid gimbal.
I think the comments we've seen about the 500PF indicate that people are far too casual about handling long lenses (I include myself in this at times). I suspect a lot of grumbles about long lens IQ are more a product of technique than technology. It's a subject of contention, but Steve has seen fit to do a number of articles on long lens and tripod use, as have others.
I suspect that a lot of 800PF customers are going to think they've gotten a bad copy.
I loved the Nikon 500 PF when I was shooting Nikon but 800mm feels like a different animal altogether.................I hope the Nikon shooters are happy with this very interesting lens.
abc123brian
Well-known member
I've been shooting the 500mm PF with a 1.4x TC handheld for the last month. That is 700mm F/8 and haven't had any issues at all. Shooting video I cannot keep it perfectly still so have to stabilize in post, but I'm surprised by how easy it has been. I think the 800mm PF would be similar. It will likely be a bit heavier and larger, but should have better stabilization to counter it. For still, being a little faster should only make it easier. In the photos, it looks incredibly small and light for an 800mm.
fcotterill
Well-known member
I often shoot my 400 f2.8E with TC2 III, as the image quality is excellent, provided none if only minimal cropping and correct exposure. And many of these events demand handholding for < 1 min... shorter the better as shake creeps in. Any longer duration needs a monopod or the Steadify (hip-monpod).
Handholding a heavy rig works better with the D5 or the gripped D850, because these improve the balance. Actually compared to using the 3.8kg 400 f2.8 (since mid 2018), I find it harder to steady end-heavy telephotos such as the 300 f2.8G or the 200-500 f5.6E, even if these are 1kg lighter!
Sports VR is useful here and a shutter speed of 1/800 as minimum...the Faster the better. I'm awaiting this 800 PF with greatest interest
Handholding a heavy rig works better with the D5 or the gripped D850, because these improve the balance. Actually compared to using the 3.8kg 400 f2.8 (since mid 2018), I find it harder to steady end-heavy telephotos such as the 300 f2.8G or the 200-500 f5.6E, even if these are 1kg lighter!
Sports VR is useful here and a shutter speed of 1/800 as minimum...the Faster the better. I'm awaiting this 800 PF with greatest interest
Last edited:
Interesting conversation, this.
As my friend is one of those blessed with the ownership of one of these 800 f/5.6 jewels, the interesting questions will be:
If Nikon goes this way, this will finally push the prices for used 800 f5.6 to a level, where I could think of getting one as soon as I have the financial plannung safety of getting a new job.
As my friend is one of those blessed with the ownership of one of these 800 f/5.6 jewels, the interesting questions will be:
- How many people will actually have the need for an 800mm lens in times, where you can shoot a 45MP sensor in DX mode and still have roughly the same or even more resolution than the single digit pro bodies, which were the cutting edge for the wildlife photographers for ages.
- How many people of those actually using an 800m lens are willing to swap their 800 f/5.6 for a 800 f6.3 PF just for size and weight, because after having seen images made with a Z9 and the 800 f5.6 via FTZ, IQ can by no means be the reason for a change - just as it was for swapping the 500 f4G for the E version.
- Didn't perhaps the earings from selling relatively high numbers of the 500PF with a smaller margin come out better than having half the units sold wigh a slightly higher margin. I know this sounds agressive against the elitary approach of some of the gold ring club members, but in other industries this often made a big difference - right up to a decision pro or con a particular system, platform or manufacturer.
If Nikon goes this way, this will finally push the prices for used 800 f5.6 to a level, where I could think of getting one as soon as I have the financial plannung safety of getting a new job
.
All of those who adhere to the philosophy that you can never have too much lens (hand raised).
Unfortunately that philosophy is often accompanied by its cousin "you can never afford enough lens" :(ChrisM
Well-known member
I am reading here and there that Nikon under priced the 500PF, and fail to see sense in that statement. Is it perhaps the same poster spreading this news (opinion, fairytale)?
In any case, I used the 500PF for two years, and although a superb lens for its tiny size, that is still what it is: tiny, with a flimsy plastic hood and a failed design on the flimsy tripod foot, and a plastic lens cap.
I paid 4000,- euros for the lens new, and never felt it was a bargain.
The fact that it produces very good image quality perhaps carries some people away.
Actually, I now use the Sony fe200-600mm, and paid 1900 for that lens new.
Although the 500PF arguably has better image quality, with better contrast and clarity, I would sooner say that these lenses are very different, than calling one superior to the other. The 500PF gave me very good images on the D500, the 200-600 gives me very good images on the A1, with that noticeable bit of extra reach.
Is the 500PF built twice as good as the 200-600G? I don't see it, the 200-600 is heavier, but not built less well as far as I can see.
Does the 500PF has twice better AF than the 200-600G? Not that I have been able to detect, the 200-600 has fast and accurate AF on the A1, similar to the 500PF on the D500, only more consistent.
The 500PF is already twice the price of the Sony 200-600G, but is not twice as good in any way. To say that it is underpriced is really stretching it.
I would sooner say that the Sony 200-600G is priced too low.
In any case, I used the 500PF for two years, and although a superb lens for its tiny size, that is still what it is: tiny, with a flimsy plastic hood and a failed design on the flimsy tripod foot, and a plastic lens cap.
I paid 4000,- euros for the lens new, and never felt it was a bargain.
The fact that it produces very good image quality perhaps carries some people away.
Actually, I now use the Sony fe200-600mm, and paid 1900 for that lens new.
Although the 500PF arguably has better image quality, with better contrast and clarity, I would sooner say that these lenses are very different, than calling one superior to the other. The 500PF gave me very good images on the D500, the 200-600 gives me very good images on the A1, with that noticeable bit of extra reach.
Is the 500PF built twice as good as the 200-600G? I don't see it, the 200-600 is heavier, but not built less well as far as I can see.
Does the 500PF has twice better AF than the 200-600G? Not that I have been able to detect, the 200-600 has fast and accurate AF on the A1, similar to the 500PF on the D500, only more consistent.
The 500PF is already twice the price of the Sony 200-600G, but is not twice as good in any way. To say that it is underpriced is really stretching it.
I would sooner say that the Sony 200-600G is priced too low.