Nikon 800mm PF - 'long-term' experience

[Marcepan]

Ken,

You are right.
I think about dynamic mode. My bad.
I use 3D tracking on flying bird too, and with busy background too. With almost not issues (Firmware 4.0) like You.
But planes with busy background its another story.
3D tracking is unused.

 

[ajrmd]

ajrmd,

Yes, but I said only about Z9 3D tracking.
On busy background this mode not working completely (like rocks, buildings, and every others multicolors and multi texture objects).
But in another mode - Group AF for example, AF working perfectly.

Thats my observation.

I don’t know of many circumstances where users employ 3D tracking from the outset (as opposed to a handoff) or why it would be needed for planes with rather predictable flight paths. FWIW, I used a C1 custom area and had no difficulty tracking the planes whatsoever. Again this was largely against a featureless sky though even when the planes hit the deck and there were trees, obstructions, etc. the AF tracked perfectly.

 

[Marcepan]

Ajrmd,

yes, I agree with You - planes on the sky, hitting trees, or on the ground - 3D tracking works fine.
But busy background its another story.
Second situation - when plane firing (for example like on the picture) - then
3D tracking getting stupid.
I write all my observation on Z9.
Z8 have a dedicated airplane mode, Z9 does not have it. Im very interested about how this mode working.

Sorry for my language.
I hope its understandable.

EDIT:

Sorry for my off-topic.
This is right for a new thread.

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

 

[ajrmd]

Ajrmd,

Z8 have a dedicated airplane mode, Z9 does not have it. Im very interested about how this mode working.


Sorry for my off-topic.
This is right for a new thread.

You're shooting in some extremely challenging conditions and given that, I wouldn't use 3d as first choice. Given that you're trying to keep the planes in the middle of the frame, I think you would be better off using a wide area mode.

In terms of the Z8 airplane recognition, I was using it in a C1 WAM and it identified the planes every time (with the white tracking box) from helios to props to jets. Very happy with Acquistion and tracking.

Yes, this is a great topic for a new thread. The only reason that I posted anything about an 800/z8 and an airshow is that I was simply amazed that it performed so well.

 

[Ed Bremer]

I've been learning the z9 with the 800mm pf for about 3 months now. I find it's not for everything, but I've used it for flying birds, short-eared owls and, most recently common loons. This does get you up close and personal and I have to say it's been my favorite lens for winter birds and wildlife shooting. I'm attaching a few shots from this year, most of which were shot

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

with Auto AF using Wide small or Wide large. I'm not at all disappointed with this lens, however I will probably put it away for awhile when warbler season starts. The short-eared owls were taken at Killdeer Plains Wildlife Area, just south of Upper Sandusky, Ohio and the loons at Buck Creek State Park near Springfield, Ohio.

 

[Winston Churchill (Sir)]

beautiful!

 

[ARClark]

Ajrmd,

yes, I agree with You - planes on the sky, hitting trees, or on the ground - 3D tracking works fine.
But busy background its another story.
Second situation - when plane firing (for example like on the picture) - then
3D tracking getting stupid.
I write all my observation on Z9.
Z8 have a dedicated airplane mode, Z9 does not have it. Im very interested about how this mode working.

Sorry for my language.
I hope its understandable.

EDIT:

Sorry for my off-topic.
This is right for a new thread.

View attachment 68163

Fabulous shot! Were you in the plane behind him?

 

[Calson]

I found that this lens with the Z9 attached has a balance point about an inch forward of where the foot attaches to the lens body. I removed a 150mm lens plate and replaced the Nikon foot with a Haoge LF-Z48 foot with the Arca-Swiss groves. The Haoge foot is a bit shorter and so the lens fits more easily inside the Nikon carry case.

 

[Ken Miracle]

I found that this lens with the Z9 attached has a balance point about an inch forward of where the foot attaches to the lens body. I removed a 150mm lens plate and replaced the Nikon foot with a Haoge LF-Z48 foot with the Arca-Swiss groves. The Haoge foot is a bit shorter and so the lens fits more easily inside the Nikon carry case.

I have had a Henjar foot NFR-007 first as a prototype in May 2022 and then as a finalized anodized foot on 8-5-22. It balances perfectly and does not raise the center of gravity is well made and it fits with Z9 attached and standard length Zemlin 2 piece hood reversed and Zemlin Snap on Cap in place perfectly in the bag shipped with the Z800.

 

[MatthewK]

I've had mine for almost a year and a half (can't believe it's been that long, feel like I just got it!). Prior to that I was shooting with the ubiquitous D500 + 500PF, and had always wished for a full frame 800mm solution to match the ~750 field of view, but 800mm lenses at the time were ludicrously expensive and heavy, so when the 800PF got announced it was an instant-buy for me. Well, the reality of the situation is that the Z9/Z8 + 800PF is a totally different beast than the D500PF that I had left behind, and I basically had to relearn a new camera+lens, since the Z9 at the time was also a new camera for me.

Apologies in advance if anyone has read my opinion on this lens, I know I don't like reading the same thing over and over, but for the official record: I love the lens, but it isn't my favorite to use for my birding because for me, at least, I find it more challenging to employ effectively at near MFD due to it's 16' MFD, more narrow FOV, and the more shallow DOF enhance the propensity of the AF to miss and latch onto something unintended (usually the background). At farther distances, these things aren't as prevalent, but then you start to run into atmospherics. Trying to fill the frame near MFD is where I want to be while photographing small birds, and the 800PF isn't a lens that you can quickly deploy if a warbler or something suddenly pops into view; I experience a lot of misses with this lens if I'm not very deliberate in prepping for a shot (pre-focusing, setting a focus recall point, making sure there aren't any obstructions in the viewing path, using Single Point AF to ensure the AF point is perfectly over the bird before trying 3D or Auto Area handoff). Again, I know some on here (Ken ) are going to vehemently disagree with me, but that's OK, we're all different and our use cases may not align.

All that to say, unlike the D500PF, for me the 800PF hasn't proven to be the best for ad-hoc, walk-around style of shooting like I thought it was going to be. It's a lens that requires a bit more prep work and forethought in order to get the best results. When I do my part, the lens absolutely shines. It's sharp, renders the background bokehliciously, and is quite nimble when handholding. It can effortlessly create fantastic results, sometimes from out of nowhere when it doesn't look like it would be possible. One of the best lenses I've ever used.

So yeah, that's my 1.5 year review

 

[Ken Miracle]

I've had mine for almost a year and a half (can't believe it's been that long, feel like I just got it!). Prior to that I was shooting with the ubiquitous D500 + 500PF, and had always wished for a full frame 800mm solution to match the ~750 field of view, but 800mm lenses at the time were ludicrously expensive and heavy, so when the 800PF got announced it was an instant-buy for me. Well, the reality of the situation is that the Z9/Z8 + 800PF is a totally different beast than the D500PF that I had left behind, and I basically had to relearn a new camera+lens, since the Z9 at the time was also a new camera for me.

Apologies in advance if anyone has read my opinion on this lens, I know I don't like reading the same thing over and over, but for the official record: I love the lens, but it isn't my favorite to use for my birding because for me, at least, I find it more challenging to employ effectively at near MFD due to it's 16' MFD, more narrow FOV, and the more shallow DOF enhance the propensity of the AF to miss and latch onto something unintended (usually the background). At farther distances, these things aren't as prevalent, but then you start to run into atmospherics. Trying to fill the frame near MFD is where I want to be while photographing small birds, and the 800PF isn't a lens that you can quickly deploy if a warbler or something suddenly pops into view; I experience a lot of misses with this lens if I'm not very deliberate in prepping for a shot (pre-focusing, setting a focus recall point, making sure there aren't any obstructions in the viewing path, using Single Point AF to ensure the AF point is perfectly over the bird before trying 3D or Auto Area handoff). Again, I know some on here (Ken ) are going to vehemently disagree with me, but that's OK, we're all different and our use cases may not align.

All that to say, unlike the D500PF, for me the 800PF hasn't proven to be the best for ad-hoc, walk-around style of shooting like I thought it was going to be. It's a lens that requires a bit more prep work and forethought in order to get the best results. When I do my part, the lens absolutely shines. It's sharp, renders the background bokehliciously, and is quite nimble when handholding. It can effortlessly create fantastic results, sometimes from out of nowhere when it doesn't look like it would be possible. One of the best lenses I've ever used.

So yeah, that's my 1.5 year review

No vehement disagreement. A lot of different needs and uses.

I shoot for bird ID so no prepping but I seldom have small birds that are less than 20 feet away out here. I also do it a lot and have a lot of experience focusing with my eyes on the bird and bringing the viewfinder to my eye while staring at my target bird. Same technique I used for years for shooting moving targets with a shot gun or sitting ones with a rifle until I switched to camera only

 

[Calson]

The 800mm PF can be used hand held in large part thanks to the excellent subject detection with the Z9 and Z8 cameras. A lens like this on a D5 or D850 would require a tripod to allow for manual override of the autofocus with many subjects. I would expect much the same for those using the 600mm PF lens.

 

[ARClark]

I've had mine for almost a year and a half (can't believe it's been that long, feel like I just got it!). Prior to that I was shooting with the ubiquitous D500 + 500PF, and had always wished for a full frame 800mm solution to match the ~750 field of view, but 800mm lenses at the time were ludicrously expensive and heavy, so when the 800PF got announced it was an instant-buy for me. Well, the reality of the situation is that the Z9/Z8 + 800PF is a totally different beast than the D500PF that I had left behind, and I basically had to relearn a new camera+lens, since the Z9 at the time was also a new camera for me.

Apologies in advance if anyone has read my opinion on this lens, I know I don't like reading the same thing over and over, but for the official record: I love the lens, but it isn't my favorite to use for my birding because for me, at least, I find it more challenging to employ effectively at near MFD due to it's 16' MFD, more narrow FOV, and the more shallow DOF enhance the propensity of the AF to miss and latch onto something unintended (usually the background). At farther distances, these things aren't as prevalent, but then you start to run into atmospherics. Trying to fill the frame near MFD is where I want to be while photographing small birds, and the 800PF isn't a lens that you can quickly deploy if a warbler or something suddenly pops into view; I experience a lot of misses with this lens if I'm not very deliberate in prepping for a shot (pre-focusing, setting a focus recall point, making sure there aren't any obstructions in the viewing path, using Single Point AF to ensure the AF point is perfectly over the bird before trying 3D or Auto Area handoff). Again, I know some on here (Ken ) are going to vehemently disagree with me, but that's OK, we're all different and our use cases may not align.

All that to say, unlike the D500PF, for me the 800PF hasn't proven to be the best for ad-hoc, walk-around style of shooting like I thought it was going to be. It's a lens that requires a bit more prep work and forethought in order to get the best results. When I do my part, the lens absolutely shines. It's sharp, renders the background bokehliciously, and is quite nimble when handholding. It can effortlessly create fantastic results, sometimes from out of nowhere when it doesn't look like it would be possible. One of the best lenses I've ever used.

So yeah, that's my 1.5 year review

I love the lens for most bird photography, but I agree that the 16' MFD can definitely be an issue for shooting birds in situations where they occur in close proximity. There are a couple sunflower/wildflower fields near me in which it's common to walk up on, or have birds fly in closer than 16' (e.g., goldfinches, indigo buntings, blue grosbeaks). There are also butterflies and hummingbirds nearby. The 800 PF can shoot these at a distance, of course, but not close up. A 500 PF on a Z8 or Z9 is much more forgiving, and a long zoom like the 200-500 or 180-600 is even better. But in situations where reach is needed, the 800 PF is hard to beat, especially for its size and weight.

And speaking of reach, the 800 and 1.4x TC offers excellent IQ at 1120mm. Here's an example I shot today and processed lightly with Topaz Denoise Clear. The goldfinch was about 35 to 40 feet away.

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.

 

[nmerc_photos]

I've had mine for almost a year now. It was the main lens that convinced me to switch from Canon to Nikon.

The price to performance ratio on the 800PF is insane.

I found the 800PF comparable, if not better in IQ than my RF 600 + 1.4x was, all while being 2lbs lighter (39%), 5" shorter (41%), and $7000 cheaper (52%).

It's an absolute bargain for the money. The images are sharp. Contrast is great. AF is fast. It makes a fantastic walk around or hiking lens and excels for bird photography. I've yet to use it on large mammals, but I'll be taking it to Yellowstone in October to test that.

I think the only real con people experience is the MFD. I've not had an issue with it, but I know many who have. The solution to that is pretty easy, by pairing it with a 400 4.5, 100-400, or 180-600.

 

[ajrmd]

I've had mine for almost a year now. It was the main lens that convinced me to switch from Canon to Nikon.

The price to performance ratio on the 800PF is insane.

I found the 800PF comparable, if not better in IQ than my RF 600 + 1.4x was, all while being 2lbs lighter (39%), 5" shorter (41%), and $7000 cheaper (52%).

It's an absolute bargain for the money. The images are sharp. Contrast is great. AF is fast. It makes a fantastic walk around or hiking lens and excels for bird photography. I've yet to use it on large mammals, but I'll be taking it to Yellowstone in October to test that.

I think the only real con people experience is the MFD. I've not had an issue with it, but I know many who have. The solution to that is pretty easy, by pairing it with a 400 4.5, 100-400, or 180-600.

Precisely, and is it ideal for the situation a fleeting warbler pops out on a branch in front of you? Of course not, and that’s the role of a second body attached to a shorter FL and MFD lens. This weekend, while walking in the woods I ad no trouble with framing and capturing blue jays, tit-mouse, woodpeckers, cardinals, and other passerines, while it was perfect for the GBH, waterfowl, and Osprey when I reached the lake. Best lens in my Nikon TP collection.

 

[MatthewK]

Precisely, and is it ideal for the situation a fleeting warbler pops out on a branch in front of you? Of course not, and that’s the role of a second body attached to a shorter FL and MFD lens. This weekend, while walking in the woods I ad no trouble with framing and capturing blue jays, tit-mouse, woodpeckers, cardinals, and other passerines, while it was perfect for the GBH, waterfowl, and Osprey when I reached the lake. Best lens in my Nikon TP collection.

Glad the 800PF works well for you and you're able to get the shots you want with it. Judging by your photos in the 800PF thread, it seems to be a perfect fit Personally, I just don't find it as wieldy and easy to use, especially compared to my previous D500+500PF

 

[Ken Miracle]

Glad the 800PF works well for you and you're able to get the shots you want with it. Judging by your shots in the 800PF thread, it seems to be a perfect fit Personally, I just don't find it as wieldy and easy to use, especially compared to my previous D500+500PF

We are blessed with a variety of gear to fit a wide range of users. I have images on my wall taken with 500pf on D500 and D850 both with battery grips and large D6 Z9 batteries. I found the 500 pf to light on the front end and harder to pan with. My wife found the 500pf heavy on her D500 and she struggled to take off the hood. Since I use target rifle hold with the lens foot resting in the palm of my hand I also prefer a "barrel heavy" set up same as the target rifles I used to shoot that helps with stability.

 

[fcotterill]

There's not much more to update since my post #5 above, 8 months ago. I've been photographing small birds more frequently since November, and each day I appreciate the well known positives of this light super telephoto. (Previously, I'd relied on a 400 f2.8E FL with TC2 III to get to 800.)

If I can use a support, it's the 800 f5.6E instead with its bespoke TC125 (=1000 f7.1); but the combined weight with a Z9 is always a challenge (plus the liability of an accidental rig fall). These differences reinforce the advantages of the 800 PF, for which the ZTC14 is a very useful accessory to tighten framing with 1120mm (bearing in mind the restrictions of f9).

Sometimes I use a 400 f4.5S instead with ZTC14, or the 500 PF, but it's too short on most subjects better framed with a '800 Reach'.

Each of Nikon's four PhaseFresnel lenses is a Game changer in its own right. The 800 PF has a special status, not least for freeing up the 800mm niche for many more photographers - better affordability and ergonomics.

The 800 PF is without doubt superb for bird photography, and there're always opportunities with mammals that benefit from the tighter framing and/or longer reach.

 

[wotan1]

I love this lens.

The longer the focal length of the lens the more atmospheric conditions or slight movements in the camera or the subject can rob an image of sharpness. Eight hundred millimeters is the longest focal length for commercially available FX lenses that I am aware of.

This lens natively has really high IQ and does an excellent job of detuning backgrounds from the main subject. What this means in practice is that I have considerable ability, shooting at 800mm, to go DX or crop significantly to gain additional reach. I almost never bother using a tc with this lens.

I frequently shoot using techniques recommended on this site to combat the issues that tend to rob an image of sharpness. These include stabilizing the camera, shooting in 20 fps bursts and at higher shutter speeds than with shorter focal length lenses.

What this means in practice is that I have a huge ability to crop for subjects that do not fill the frame at 800mm.

What this means in practice is that I discover all sorts of keepers for the first time when I review the images in post.

Just yesterday I was shooting at a Heron rookery with the 800/z9. The hardest part was to get the moving birds into the frame. But once I got one the Bird subject detection took over and, shooting at 20 fps I was able to capture a string of images. The autofocus worked really well with this combination and many of those images were focused they way I wanted.

Going through those images in post I discover things about the image I could not possibly see while I was shooting. On one occasion the heron had landed on the ground in a patch of trees and undergrowth. I had a string of keeper images of the bird taking flight in among the foliage. On another series I had not appreciated the beauty of this flying heron's plumage until I got the image into post. In yet another image I was able to find out a feeding duck in the process of eating a small crab.

This is a fun lens with great creative potential.

 

[ARClark]

I love this lens.


What this means in practice is that I discover all sorts of keepers for the first time when I review the images in post.

Just yesterday I was shooting at a Heron rookery with the 800/z9. The hardest part was to get the moving birds into the frame. But once I got one the Bird subject detection took over and, shooting at 20 fps I was able to capture a string of images. The autofocus worked really well with this combination and many of those images were focused they way I wanted.

Going through those images in post I discover things about the image I could not possibly see while I was shooting. On one occasion the heron had landed on the ground in a patch of trees and undergrowth. I had a string of keeper images of the bird taking flight in among the foliage. On another series I had not appreciated the beauty of this flying heron's plumage until I got the image into post. In yet another image I was able to find out a feeding duck in the process of eating a small crab.

This is a fun lens with great creative potential.

I've experienced the same with lenses from 500mm and up, but especially with this 800mm and 800/TC combo. The naked eye can't see the details, with images often revealing surprises when viewed on a large screen. Yes, it's a fun lens.

 

[ChrisM]

I have no business posting in this thread as I have no 800PF or any other Nikon lens. The last I had was the 500PF which I loved to use on the D500.
But the Z800PF continues to intrigue me, I follow image threads on this lens, and there is something about the rendering that has me hooked.
I have the Sony A1 with the 600GM and the 1.4TC. I like to shoot small birds, but also a lot of wading birds and waterbirds. Where I live, I never see anything land near MFD, so that would not be an issue.
I went the Sony route when the Z9 was a big no-no for me regarding size and weight. But now that the Z8 is here, I find that I would prefer to shoot Nikon for birding and wildlife. The Sony combo is great, and technically very good, but I simply prefer the smooth Nikon rendering with the beautiful colors and contrast. This is a bigger thing for me than I thought, and I am still debating a switch to a Nikon Z8 with Z800PF and Z600PF, although man, do I wish the 600PF had been f5.6 for the separation.

Apart from the 600PF being f6.3, which would make the 800PF my main birding lens for the separation, there is still one thing holding me back: the multitude of reports on sensitivity to atmospheric distortions with the 800PF. I shoot a lot of wading birds and migrating shore birds, and have been bitten before when I had the Canon 400DOII+1.4TC, that turned many images to mush in bright daylight.
Now I know that many will say that it is due to the focal length of 800mm, but I shoot the Sony 600GM+1.4TC a lot too in the daytime, and I cannot say that it does worse than the bare lens at 600mm, which is to say: very good. It does better with TC at 840mm in this regard than the 500PF did at 500mm, and better than the Sony 200-600G at 600mm, so the 800mm story doesn't really ring true to me. I sort of expect a high end lens to deliver and not augment atmospheric influences on AF and sharpness.

Anyway, perhaps I will get down to taking the plunge, or just save up longer and add a Z8 and Z800PF to prevent the risk of being stranded when it does not work out.
I will say though that I feel Nikon is now the best system for wildlife overall, the Z400TC and Z600TC images are spectacular with the most amazing and natural colors and contrast possible, and I envy that from the Sony side, even though others may disagree.
Sony is superb in technology, but the better Nikon wildlife images just wow me in a way that Sony's technical prowess fails to deliver by itself. The camera raw output will play a role as well.
That Nikon wow sensation goes for the Z800PF too.

 

[Ken Miracle]

I have no business posting in this thread as I have no 800PF or any other Nikon lens. The last I had was the 500PF which I loved to use on the D500.
But the Z800PF continues to intrigue me, I follow image threads on this lens, and there is something about the rendering that has me hooked.
I have the Sony A1 with the 600GM and the 1.4TC. I like to shoot small birds, but also a lot of wading birds and waterbirds. Where I live, I never see anything land near MFD, so that would not be an issue.
I went the Sony route when the Z9 was a big no-no for me regarding size and weight. But now that the Z8 is here, I find that I would prefer to shoot Nikon for birding and wildlife. The Sony combo is great, and technically very good, but I simply prefer the smooth Nikon rendering with the beautiful colors and contrast. This is a bigger thing for me than I thought, and I am still debating a switch to a Nikon Z8 with Z800PF and Z600PF, although man, do I wish the 600PF had been f5.6 for the separation.

Apart from the 600PF being f6.3, which would make the 800PF my main birding lens for the separation, there is still one thing holding me back: the multitude of reports on sensitivity to atmospheric distortions with the 800PF. I shoot a lot of wading birds and migrating shore birds, and have been bitten before when I had the Canon 400DOII+1.4TC, that turned many images to mush in bright daylight.
Now I know that many will say that it is due to the focal length of 800mm, but I shoot the Sony 600GM+1.4TC a lot too in the daytime, and I cannot say that it does worse than the bare lens at 600mm, which is to say: very good. It does better with TC at 840mm in this regard than the 500PF did at 500mm, and better than the Sony 200-600G at 600mm, so the 800mm story doesn't really ring true to me. I sort of expect a high end lens to deliver and not augment atmospheric influences on AF and sharpness.

Anyway, perhaps I will get down to taking the plunge, or just save up longer and add a Z8 and Z800PF to prevent the risk of being stranded when it does not work out.
I will say though that I feel Nikon is now the best system for wildlife overall, the Z400TC and Z600TC images are spectacular with the most amazing and natural colors and contrast possible, and I envy that from the Sony side, even though others may disagree.
Sony is superb in technology, but the better Nikon wildlife images just wow me in a way that Sony's technical prowess fails to deliver by itself. The camera raw output will play a role as well.
That Nikon wow sensation goes for the Z800PF too.

Read/watch what @Steve has written and recorded about atmospheric distortion if you have not.

I have photographed birds, little birds, shore birds, big birds, swimming birds, flying birds, running birds yup a wide variety in tough and great atmospheric conditions for some time now. I have used a lot of Nikon camera and lens combinations including the 500pf on a D500 and a 600 f/4E on D850 and D6 and many more combos. I have been using the Z800 on a Z9 since 5-1-2022.

There can be quality levels of coatings that reduce glare etc. and if you start with a "softer lens at distance" if there was no atmospheric distortion you would have that added to the atmospheric distortion when it is present. I have never used the Canon lens you mentioned and honestly do not know anything about it.

I would say no lens is more or less sensitive to atmospheric distortion but issues mentioned above could be a factor in results.

The distance to the target, the atmospheric conditions in the air column above the surface you are shooting over is what determines the amount of atmospheric distortion the further away the target is the more atmosphere you are shooting though.

I have never run into anyone who was shooting two lenses side by side at the same time at exactly the same target and distance.

One of the best ways to see the impact with and without distortion is to photograph a target on the water or sand or just above it when there is atmospheric distortion and then the same or similar target when it moves much higher up and out of the major distortion column.

Many of the reports on sensitivity I have followed had no information other than a comment. Sometimes when I and others followed up with a commenter they were by individuals who had never had anything longer than 400 or 500 mm and who were attempting to photograph targets at distances they never had before (hence a lot more atmosphere).

I have counseled many who want to get an 800mm lens and tell me it is because they can not get a clear image with their 600 mm accross the lake they shoot at. They have posted images or shared them with me privately and invariably they have been soft because of atmospheric distortion. When I tell them about it and link them to Steve's information about it and ask them about the water and air temps they learn that at the same distance and conditions the target will fill more of the frame with the 800 over the 600 but will have the same amount of atmosphere.

 

[ssheipel]

I was out on my property yesterday with the 800mm PF lens and photographing small birds. I was reminded how light the lens feels with a Z9 and I do not feel the need to use a lens carry strap with the Z9 body. Very different than using the 180-400mm lens that weighed 7.7 lbs and where I used a tripod 100% of the time.

I do wish someone would make a less tall replacement foot for the lens but it is a niche market with few players.

Even my 600f4TC feels light compared to my 180-400TC LOL

 

[Ken Miracle]

I have no business posting in this thread as I have no 800PF or any other Nikon lens. The last I had was the 500PF which I loved to use on the D500.
But the Z800PF continues to intrigue me, I follow image threads on this lens, and there is something about the rendering that has me hooked.
I have the Sony A1 with the 600GM and the 1.4TC. I like to shoot small birds, but also a lot of wading birds and waterbirds. Where I live, I never see anything land near MFD, so that would not be an issue.
I went the Sony route when the Z9 was a big no-no for me regarding size and weight. But now that the Z8 is here, I find that I would prefer to shoot Nikon for birding and wildlife. The Sony combo is great, and technically very good, but I simply prefer the smooth Nikon rendering with the beautiful colors and contrast. This is a bigger thing for me than I thought, and I am still debating a switch to a Nikon Z8 with Z800PF and Z600PF, although man, do I wish the 600PF had been f5.6 for the separation.

Apart from the 600PF being f6.3, which would make the 800PF my main birding lens for the separation, there is still one thing holding me back: the multitude of reports on sensitivity to atmospheric distortions with the 800PF. I shoot a lot of wading birds and migrating shore birds, and have been bitten before when I had the Canon 400DOII+1.4TC, that turned many images to mush in bright daylight.
Now I know that many will say that it is due to the focal length of 800mm, but I shoot the Sony 600GM+1.4TC a lot too in the daytime, and I cannot say that it does worse than the bare lens at 600mm, which is to say: very good. It does better with TC at 840mm in this regard than the 500PF did at 500mm, and better than the Sony 200-600G at 600mm, so the 800mm story doesn't really ring true to me. I sort of expect a high end lens to deliver and not augment atmospheric influences on AF and sharpness.

Anyway, perhaps I will get down to taking the plunge, or just save up longer and add a Z8 and Z800PF to prevent the risk of being stranded when it does not work out.
I will say though that I feel Nikon is now the best system for wildlife overall, the Z400TC and Z600TC images are spectacular with the most amazing and natural colors and contrast possible, and I envy that from the Sony side, even though others may disagree.
Sony is superb in technology, but the better Nikon wildlife images just wow me in a way that Sony's technical prowess fails to deliver by itself. The camera raw output will play a role as well.
That Nikon wow sensation goes for the Z800PF too.

I forgot to mention for anyone that does not know @Steve has a great video on testing and comparing 500 pf, Z180-600, Z600 TC, 800 pf and more.

Nikon 180-600mm Sharpness & AF Speed Tests! - Backcountry Gallery

In this video, we’ll do some tests to discover how sharp the Nikon 180-600 is – pitting it against six popular contenders. We’ll compare the Nikon 180-600mm against the Nikon 100-400mm, Nikon 400mm F/4.5, Nikon 800PF, Nikon 500PF, Nikon 600mm TC And Sony 200-600! Will it impress? Will it...

backcountrygallery.com

For some who may not know @Steve has and does use the Sony A1.

 

[wotan1]

I have no business posting in this thread as I have no 800PF or any other Nikon lens. The last I had was the 500PF which I loved to use on the D500.
But the Z800PF continues to intrigue me, I follow image threads on this lens, and there is something about the rendering that has me hooked.
I have the Sony A1 with the 600GM and the 1.4TC. I like to shoot small birds, but also a lot of wading birds and waterbirds. Where I live, I never see anything land near MFD, so that would not be an issue.
I went the Sony route when the Z9 was a big no-no for me regarding size and weight. But now that the Z8 is here, I find that I would prefer to shoot Nikon for birding and wildlife. The Sony combo is great, and technically very good, but I simply prefer the smooth Nikon rendering with the beautiful colors and contrast. This is a bigger thing for me than I thought, and I am still debating a switch to a Nikon Z8 with Z800PF and Z600PF, although man, do I wish the 600PF had been f5.6 for the separation.

Apart from the 600PF being f6.3, which would make the 800PF my main birding lens for the separation, there is still one thing holding me back: the multitude of reports on sensitivity to atmospheric distortions with the 800PF. I shoot a lot of wading birds and migrating shore birds, and have been bitten before when I had the Canon 400DOII+1.4TC, that turned many images to mush in bright daylight.
Now I know that many will say that it is due to the focal length of 800mm, but I shoot the Sony 600GM+1.4TC a lot too in the daytime, and I cannot say that it does worse than the bare lens at 600mm, which is to say: very good. It does better with TC at 840mm in this regard than the 500PF did at 500mm, and better than the Sony 200-600G at 600mm, so the 800mm story doesn't really ring true to me. I sort of expect a high end lens to deliver and not augment atmospheric influences on AF and sharpness.

Anyway, perhaps I will get down to taking the plunge, or just save up longer and add a Z8 and Z800PF to prevent the risk of being stranded when it does not work out.
I will say though that I feel Nikon is now the best system for wildlife overall, the Z400TC and Z600TC images are spectacular with the most amazing and natural colors and contrast possible, and I envy that from the Sony side, even though others may disagree.
Sony is superb in technology, but the better Nikon wildlife images just wow me in a way that Sony's technical prowess fails to deliver by itself. The camera raw output will play a role as well.
That Nikon wow sensation goes for the Z800PF too.

I do not think the 800mm pf is any more susceptible to atmospheric disturbance than any other lens shooting at or near 800mm. I think it is state of the art at that focal length and the only Nikon lens I am aware of to rival it is the F mount 800mm f5.6 which is/was the most expensive Nikon lens ever. Not to mention extremely heavy and difficult to maneuver.

You might get lenses that rival its performance at 800mm but you will find none better.

Now if you had the Z 600mm f5 tc vr s you might prefer to use that lens, and many do. It is pretty close to equal with the 800mm f6.3 in performance, plus you have the luxury of getting a subject in frame at 600mm then flipping the lever to continue shooting at 840. Given how expensive the 600mm f5 is, you may want to sell the 800 to help you afford to make the big purchase. Many do.

Combining the 600mm pf and 800mm pf is a questionable decision. I know because I tried it.

I started going from 70-200 by adding the 400mm f4.5. When the 600mm pf came out i was an early purchaser. Later someone persuaded me to try the 800mm pf and I found a used one in good condition, bought on this forum.

If you have both the 600mm pf and the 800mm pf you are not going to want to use the 600mm pf with a 1.4x tc. I have compared the two lenses side by side and the 800 is simply sharper. In addition when you add the 1.4x tc to the 600 you are now out at F9. By contrast the 800mm is at f6.3. Moreover with the 800mm you can crop or go dx for more reach and you are still at f6.3. The 600mm does not crop as well, and if you go to the 2x tc with that lens you are now out to F13.

Shooting at 800mm a maximum F stop of 6.3 is quite good. In addition the 800mm does an excellent job with background separation.

I found with the three-lens combination of the 400, 600mm pf and 800mm pf the 600mm did not get used all that much. It is only better than the other two lenses at 600mm. You can't use it for anything shorter and you won't want to use it beyond 600.

By contrast, the 400mm f4.5 is a great lens to use in combination with the 800mm pf. The 400 is super sharp and works well with tc's. with that lens you can cover anything from 400 out close to 800.

I ended up selling my 600mm pf. Not worth investing that much money in a lens I would hardly ever use.

Now when I go to shoot birds my first choice is the 800. If something shorter is needed i bring out the 400 with or without 1.4x tc.

To me the 400 and 800 is a magic combination.