Nikon 800mm PF - 'long-term' experience

[ricardo00]

I was able to obtain my 800mm PF in Jan, 2023. Since then I have used it for birds as well as other wildlife. In fact, often I have used it with the 1.4TC. For nests where one can't get close as well as other wildlife that gets easily spooked, it has been fantastic. For me, it is a bit heavy for hiking very far as well as to hold up for a fair amount of time so use it with a tripod about 50% of the time. I do think about getting the 600mm PF but have a 400mm f/4.5 which with the 1.4TC, is almost the same. So for now, have been using the 800mm and 400mm as a great pair and even if I get the 600mm PF, I would keep my 800mm for the really distant subject.
PS. I put my photos with the 800mm PF in an album on flickr if interested:

Nikon 800mm PF lens

Explore this photo album by ricardo00 on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

 

[MatthewK]

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.

My experience has been a little different in regards to the 600PF vs. 800PF… my 600PF is the sharpest lens I’ve used to date, a little sharper than the 800PF, and equal to to the 800PF when equipped with the 1.4 TC. I’ve done a good number of tests, both controlled and not, and the results are consistent.

My 600PF is also leagues sharper and clearer than my 400 4.5 + 1.4TC could ever have hoped to be. However, bare 400 4.5 was magnificent, and I’ve recently contemplated getting another one to pair with my 600PF, and to also see if my first copy just didn’t play well with my 1.4TC.

It sounds like I’m crashing the 800PF party here, but that’s far from my intention. It’s a stellar lens! Mine gets paired with the 180-600, making for a pretty much bulletproof birding kit for this upcoming Spring migration. More than anything, I think I need a second body so that I’m not bogged down by switching lenses in the field, but man that’s shaping up to be one heavy set of gear to lug into the field.

And that’s where my 600PF comes into play, it’s the lens I use the most now, and am assessing whether or not it could be my sole lens going forward, a la living life like I did when I only shot the D500PF. May take a year or two to decide, and I’ll get a better idea of that here in a couple of months.

Anyways, I’ll see myself out now

 

[ricardo00]

My experience has been a little different in regards to the 600PF vs. 800PF… my 600PF is the sharpest lens I’ve used to date, a little sharper than the 800PF, and equal to to the 800PF when equipped with the 1.4 TC. I’ve done a good number of tests, both controlled and not, and the results are consistent.

My 600PF is also leagues sharper and clearer than my 400 4.5 + 1.4TC could ever have hoped to be. However, bare lens was magnificent, and I’ve recently contemplated getting another one to pair with my 600PF, and to also see if my first copy just didn’t play well with my 1.4TC.

It sounds like I’m crashing the 800PF party here, but that’s far from my intention. It’s a stellar lens! Mine gets paired with the 180-600, making for a pretty much bulletproof birding kit for this upcoming Spring migration. More than anything, I think I need a second body so that I’m not bogged down by switching lenses in the field, but man that’s shaping up to be one heavier set of gear to lug into the field.

And that’s where my 600PF comes into play, it’s the lens I use the most now, and am assessing whether or not it could be my sole lens going forward, a la living life like I did when I only shot the D500PF. May take a year or two to decide, and I’ll get a better idea of that here in a couple of months.

Anyways, I’ll see myself out now

At least to me, it is nice to hear other views. I may very well get the 600mm PF for hikes but often when I go out, light is low so shoot the 400mm without the TC and add it later when the sun comes up or in the evening, go out with the TC on and take it off as the sun sets. That is something I can't do with a 600mm. And although I do have a second body, I don't usually go out with two bodies with two lenses.

 

[MatthewK]

At least to me, it is nice to hear other views. I may very well get the 600mm PF for hikes but often when I go out, light is low so shoot the 400mm without the TC and add it later when the sun comes up or in the evening, go out with the TC on and take it off as the sun sets. That is something I can't do with a 600mm. And although I do have a second body, I don't usually go out with two bodies with two lenses.

That sounds like a simple, no nonsense way to go about a day of shooting. Makes me want to re-retry the 400 4.5 even more now.

 

[ricardo00]

That sounds like a simple, no nonsense way to go about a day of shooting. Makes me want to re-retry the 400 4.5 even more now.

With a bad knee and back, I try to go with minimal gear. And often light is limiting when the best stuff happens. If I was a Sony shooter, the 300mm f/2.8 would be very tempting since things like owls and badgers come out after it is dark:

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

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

 

[Ken Miracle]

Christopher Balmer is a pro who owns camera stores in West Yellowstone, MT and Idaho Falls, ID. He leads trips to Africa, Alaska and other places around the world. He has his choice of lenses and bodies. What does he head into Yellowstone Park and go to Africa with a couple of Z9's, a Z8 converted to infra red, Z24-120 and Z100-400, Z800 pf. No TC's if needed he crops in camera. On quick trips into Yellowstone and just out and about around the area he takes a Z9 with Z100-400 mounted and in the bottom of a Think Tank Digital Holster 150 with a towel over it is the Z24-120 and that is in the passenger seat of his vehicle if alone or in the back seat if someone is with him.

 

[fcotterill]

When present, bad atmospherics will trash the image quality of any telephoto rig, all 800's inclusive.

For MILC owners, it appears the f5.6 threshold is more a psychological perception, possibly it reflects the dominating constraint of DSLR AF. This is the very real impact on the majority of DSLR phase detect AF systems across f5.6.

Judging from my long term testing of the 800 f5.6E and 800 PF, the 1/3 stop difference between f5.6 and f6.3 has very little discernable influence on rendering - if any. The 800E has the distinctly smoother bokeh but only just wins out.

Telephotos designed for mirrorless cameras are no longer constrained by the "f5.6 AF threshold", which has aided Nikon's success in engineering their novel lighter and smaller designs. A very real example of these benefits is the 1/3 stop narrowing (from f5.6) of window aperture of the 800 PF and 600 PF. This tightened the lens diameter from 143 to 127cm, and 107 to 95cm, respectively.

 

[fcotterill]

Useful summary

Clearing Up Aperture Confusion | Cameras and Photography Explained | Thom Hogan

All about apertures and what the maximum aperture implies

www.bythom.com

 

[ChrisM]

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.

Thanks, it is good to know that perhaps the 800PF has attracted users that have no experience with thermal distortion and make the problem bigger than it actually is i.e. shoot in circumstances that I know I would avoid anyhow.

I would choose the combination of 800PF and 600PF, because birds and wildlife are always distant where I live, so 400mm on full frame is far too wide.
The 600PF is meant as a replacement for the ultra portable 500PF on the D500, the 800PF for the "serious" work.

Edit: I think I will take the option of stepping into the Nikon system with a Z8 and 180-600mm.
This is usefull for me since I have a trip to Costa Rica planned, where a lens like the 180-600 will be very useful.

I can understand it may come across a bit strange: why not just get a 200-600G instead, but what I like so much about the new Nikon Z system for wildlife, is the very natural rendering and colors. The 180-600 should be a ticket to getting to know whether I will want the full system switch.

 

[Ken Miracle]

Thanks, it is good to know that perhaps the 800PF has attracted users that have no experience with thermal distortion and make the problem bigger than it actually is i.e. shoot in circumstances that I know I would avoid anyhow.

I would choose the combination of 800PF and 600PF, because birds and wildlife are always distant where I live, so 400mm on full frame is far too wide.
The 600PF is meant as a replacement for the ultra portable 500PF on the D500, the 800PF for the "serious" work.

Edit: I think I will take the option of stepping into the Nikon system with a Z8 and 180-600mm.
This is usefull for me since I have a trip to Costa Rica planned, where a lens like the 180-600 will be very useful.

I can understand it may come across a bit strange: why not just get a 200-600G instead, but what I like so much about the new Nikon Z system for wildlife, is the very natural rendering and colors. The 180-600 should be a ticket to getting to know whether I will want the full system switch.

I have the Z180-600 as a back up to my Z800 or when I want variable focal length it is not a Z800 but is a great value and quite capable.

Just in case you have not checked out @Steve test with it compared to other lenses here is the link. https://backcountrygallery.com/nikon-180-600mm-sharpness-af-speed-tests/

 

[ajrmd]

I have the Z180-600 as a back up to my Z800 or when I want variable focal length it is not a Z800 but is a great value and quite capable.

Just in case you have not checked out @Steve test with it compared to other lenses here is the link. https://backcountrygallery.com/nikon-180-600mm-sharpness-af-speed-tests/

It is, but not perfect in all settings. For example, I was at Stick Marsh recently and all I had was the 70-180 f/2.8 and 186. While the FL was perfect for the 186, the early dawn light called for faster lenses. A f/4 or better yet f/2.8 lens would have made the difference (100-300 f/2.8, 300 f/2.8, 400 f/4.5). As the sun came up, the 186 was perfect for this application. The 100-400 would not have offered any benefit b/c it's at f/5 by 190 mm and given that the FL's necessary were in the 300-500 range the 186 is at f/6 and the 100-400 is at/near f/5.6. Now, if Nikon decides to release a faster mid-range zoom, I'd be really interested in picking one up for those situations.