Nikon 800PF Review For Wildlife Photographers (Official Discussion Thread)

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).

Member's gallery
RoyC said:
So what. If it is to dark to shoot with the f6.3 early in the morning, when the action is taking place that f6.3 lens might as well still be in its case.

Simple observation, Steve was shooting in central Florida for the two days he had the 800 PF. Sunrise, when not cloudy, means you can start shooting with the 800 10 minutes later. Try that in YNP, in the middle of the Lamar Valley which is wide open except that there is a 10,000 foot mountain range to your east. The big yellow ball shows up and hour later. All the action the people with a 400 f2.8 and 600 f4 are photographing you are watching though you 8X binoculars.

Just something to consider.
Click to expand...
A lot depends on the subject, the lens camera combo ... Yellowstone not my favorite place to shoot, to many people and tripod forests for me ... but I have shot elk in velvet at 9 PM there with a D850 and 500 PF f/5.6 and back lighted wolves that are on my wall in odd low light with the same set up the first afternoon/evening after I picked the 500 pf up. I have shot in a wide range of light conditions on water, on Sage Grouse leks ect. with Nikon D4S and a Sigma 150-600 f/6.3 sport, Nikon D500 and a Tamron 150-600 G2 f/6.3, Tamron 70-200 G3 F/2.8 with and without 1.4 TC and more. My favorite lens for birds in all light is probably my 600 f/4 E but that is for varied reasons not just f/4 ... but in many situations I would prefered to have an 800 PF f/6.3 like the one Steve tested. Being only 10 years into photography my first camera body that made marked difference in low light was my Nikon D4S so it has been a wild ride of camera and lens combos and sometimes light at noon has been as big or bigger challenge than the blue hour times.
 
Member's gallery
Doug Herr said:
I have to wonder why people who say weight isn't a problem are interested in PF lenses.
Click to expand...
I can not speak for others but for me it is because the 800 PF looks like it will be not to light (like my 500 PF can be) and not to heavy which my 600 f/4E may be 10 years from now when I am 83 and I am holding it for 45 minutes waiting for Sharp-tailed Grouse to, jump, fly and dance on a lek a hundred yards away :) Steve said the 800fp is well balanced and quite short and maneuverable for a run and gun 800 mm and a good value for the quality I saw in Steve's videos and comments.
 
Member's gallery
FB101 said:
This is absolutely true and probably why Sony comments popped up. If you went from Nikon to Sony recently and still own Nikon gear, like me, you probably owe it to yourself to consider options and what’s the right system for one’s needs going forward.
‘And that Nikon set-up at $12k makes a very compelling case since it’s the same price as the600 f:4 I am gearing up to buy. Should I run 2 systems (it would be the same price), go back to Nikon or go all-in Sony as I was planning to do before this announcement (well actually the announcement didn’t change my views but Steve’s rave comments had me stop and think).

So I have been pondering for the past few days, helped in that endeavor by catching Covid for the first time and being out of commission for 3 days (when I am not sleeping or coughing my chest out, re-watching all of Steve’s videos has been quite therapeutic too). So hopefully you’ll humor me as I share my fever-induced meandering.

I have decided (i think) to stay my course for now but this reasoning only applies to me - and it boils down to this : I really love the A1, the more I use it, the more right it feels. I started using it (minus the grip) for street photography 2 weeks ago with the baffling Tamron 28-75 f:2.8 G2 and it really has blown me away. The ability to see the effect of my b&w tweaked profile in real time in the viewfinder is truly game changing and being able to use zebras to expose faces right is truly liberating in that kind of use. And the body is as small and light as my Xpro1 while the Tamron zoom is as good as primes from 35mm to 75mm (and really close from 28 to 35mm).
‘I knew the A1 worked great for my wildlife needs but I am shocked by how versatile it is for all my other needs - something the Z9 unfortunately wouldn’t do as well (size, weight, no zebras and the rebranded Tamron zoom is a G1 which is not optically on par). The Z9 ergonomics didn’t work well for me when I tried it but I could live with them for wildlife photography if I had to - but for street photography, the A1 is amazing

I also like the 3rd party lens options for Sony but Nikon has done a great job with their affordable primes so although a factor, it’s not a major one.

My last reason is actually that I have never been comfortable with focal lengths 800mm and up - although Steve’s video makes a very compelling case about the VR performance, I have to wonder how much of his success comes from his being… well, Steve… as opposed to coming from the lens. Finding a small BIF in the sky with an 800mm lens remains a tall order for me, whether PF or not. And the more time goes, the more I like to include environmental elements in my shots. So I am not sure the 800mm lens would actually make me more successful for my type of shots. And in a pinch, the 600 f:4 turns into a handy 840 f:5.6 with hardly any loss.

Or maybe it’s the fever making me delirious and tomorrow I’ll wake up having placed orders for all Nikon gear and not remembering it at all (maybe I can use that excuse to order the 600GM right now…)
Click to expand...

I think you will be happiest sticking with Sony given what you've written above.

You may even want to give consideration to the 400GM over the 600GM if 800mm is a rare thing for you. You can still get to 800 with the 400 if you need to...no it won't be as good at 800 as the 600/1.4TC or the 800PF but from what I've seen and heard it is still really good.

The benefits of the 400GM will be a little bit lighter, smaller to pack, better balanced due to the shorter lens and a closer MFD for more magnification at equivalent focal lengths to the 600GM or the 800PF.

I think an un-gripped A1 and 400GM with 2xTC will be lighter and balanced as well (if not better) than a Z9/800PF. Plus way more versatile.

But the 600GM is also a great option if you have no use for the 400 f/2.8 end.
 
Member's gallery
NorthernFocus said:
Not sure how/why but like most equipment related threads this one turned into a Sony discussion. But since we're there I have to point out that the above comparison doesn't take into account a real world/all in cost of ownership, particularly of switching systems. From a Nikon perspective in USD the economics are more like:

1) purchase Z9 = $5500
2) some months later purchase 800mm PF = $6500

All in cost = $12k spread over several months

Comparable Sony kit:

1) purchase Sony a1, 600mm f4, 1.4x TC = $20,550
2) some months later forfeit half of personal net worth

All in cost = half personal net worth plus $20.5k

It is true that the Sony kit does have the benefit of 5 percent more reach, 1/3 stop of light, and almost certainly quicker delivery. :)
Click to expand...

That comparison is only valid if you are only looking for an 800mm solution. The extra cost gets you a 600 f/4. When Nikon releases the 600S it will be every bit as expensive as the Sony 600GM and the Nikon 400S TC. If the 600S has TC then it will be more expensive than the 400S TC.

And even though the Z9 is an excellent camera, you do get your extra $1000 worth IMHO in the A1. Of course the Z9 does have some features the A1 lacks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hut
Member's gallery
arbitrage said:
I think you will be happiest sticking with Sony given what you've written above.

You may even want to give consideration to the 400GM over the 600GM if 800mm is a rare thing for you. You can still get to 800 with the 400 if you need to...no it won't be as good at 800 as the 600/1.4TC or the 800PF but from what I've seen and heard it is still really good.

The benefits of the 400GM will be a little bit lighter, smaller to pack, better balanced due to the shorter lens and a closer MFD for more magnification at equivalent focal lengths to the 600GM or the 800PF.

I think an un-gripped A1 and 400GM with 2xTC will be lighter and balanced as well (if not better) than a Z9/800PF. Plus way more versatile.

But the 600GM is also a great option if you have no use for the 400 f/2.8 end.
Click to expand...
I can attest that the 400GM is great to hand-hold and on-par with the 800PF and Z9 - and the entire rig might be a but lighter too. It's nicely hand-holdable considering the size.

However, I in my so far limited use, I've found that while the 2X can be sharp with it, AF doesn't seem super consistent. It's not bad, but often AF seems to wader just a bit forward or back. I find this happens a bit with the 600GM too, the 2X works well bur AF isn't as consistent as it is with the bare lens or 1.4.
 
Member's gallery
Steve said:
I can attest that the 400GM is great to hand-hold and on-par with the 800PF and Z9 - and the entire rig might be a but lighter too. It's nicely hand-holdable considering the size.

However, I in my so far limited use, I've found that while the 2X can be sharp with it, AF doesn't seem super consistent. It's not bad, but often AF seems to wader just a bit forward or back. I find this happens a bit with the 600GM too, the 2X works well bur AF isn't as consistent as it is with the bare lens or 1.4.
Click to expand...
I see the same thing with the 2x on the 600. I don’t even use it anymore as I find it too inconsistent for my technique. It can produce good IQ but it is hard to realize especially because I prefer to handhold everything. I do have my reservations about how the 400 will do with the 2x. My dealer still says I’ll get one in April so I should find out soon enough. If the 400/2x is good I may sell the 600. Otherwise I’ll keep both.
 
Member's gallery
arbitrage said:
I think you will be happiest sticking with Sony given what you've written above.

You may even want to give consideration to the 400GM over the 600GM if 800mm is a rare thing for you. You can still get to 800 with the 400 if you need to...no it won't be as good at 800 as the 600/1.4TC or the 800PF but from what I've seen and heard it is still really good.

The benefits of the 400GM will be a little bit lighter, smaller to pack, better balanced due to the shorter lens and a closer MFD for more magnification at equivalent focal lengths to the 600GM or the 800PF.

I think an un-gripped A1 and 400GM with 2xTC will be lighter and balanced as well (if not better) than a Z9/800PF. Plus way more versatile.

But the 600GM is also a great option if you have no use for the 400 f/2.8 end.
Click to expand...

‘I have actually been wondering the same (400 vs 600) but I couldn’t find much useful comparison so I am eagerly waiting to see what you think of the 400... 400 with 2x TC vs 600 with 1.4x TC would be interesting for those rare cases when I need 800mm but for me the real question would be 400 + 1.4x TC vs 600mm. I wouldn’t want to lose much in sharpness and AF performance.
 
Member's gallery
Steve said:
I can attest that the 400GM is great to hand-hold and on-par with the 800PF and Z9 - and the entire rig might be a but lighter too. It's nicely hand-holdable considering the size.

However, I in my so far limited use, I've found that while the 2X can be sharp with it, AF doesn't seem super consistent. It's not bad, but often AF seems to wader just a bit forward or back. I find this happens a bit with the 600GM too, the 2X works well bur AF isn't as consistent as it is with the bare lens or 1.4.
Click to expand...
Thanks Steve, very useful perspective. I’ll probably stick with the 600mm idea as I do use >600mm for warblers (not my preferred subject but it’s not like I can be picky in central Indiana). If I lived year round in Florida, the 400mm would be tempting but since retirement isn’t around the corner quite yet, the 600 is probably my better bet.
 
Member's gallery
arbitrage said:
I see the same thing with the 2x on the 600. I don’t even use it anymore as I find it too inconsistent for my technique. It can produce good IQ but it is hard to realize especially because I prefer to handhold everything. I do have my reservations about how the 400 will do with the 2x. My dealer still says I’ll get one in April so I should find out soon enough. If the 400/2x is good I may sell the 600. Otherwise I’ll keep both.
Click to expand...

For me, I look at it as a two lens setup. I'm happy with the 400 for when I need 400 (or 560). However, after that I'll turn to the 600mm :) It's nice to have both and I ahh a pair of a1s, so I'm pretty much ready for anything - as long as I have both cameras. Now, if I'm hiking, choices must be made :)
 
Member's gallery
FB101 said:
Thanks Steve, very useful perspective. I’ll probably stick with the 600mm idea as I do use >600mm for warblers (not my preferred subject but it’s not like I can be picky in central Indiana). If I lived year round in Florida, the 400mm would be tempting but since retirement isn’t around the corner quite yet, the 600 is probably my better bet.
Click to expand...
FL is one of the reasons I sprung for it. There are a lot of times I'm just too close with the 600mm and, at the same time, I'm hiking around. So, the 400mm is a nice choice. It certainly won't be my most used lens, but it'll be one of those things that I'll be glad to have when I need it :)
 
Member's gallery
arbitrage said:
That comparison is only valid if you are only looking for an 800mm solution. The extra cost gets you a 600 f/4. When Nikon releases the 600S it will be every bit as expensive as the Sony 600GM and the Nikon 400S TC. If the 600S has TC then it will be more expensive than the 400S TC.

And even though the Z9 is an excellent camera, you do get your extra $1000 worth IMHO in the A1. Of course the Z9 does have some features the A1 lacks.
Click to expand...
I guess my attempt at humor was too subtle judging by the rebuttals from you and @Hut2 . Or maybe you guys are single? At any rate sorry to have bothered you :(
 
Member's gallery
fcotterill said:
fyi

Natural Art Images: Voice: Brad Hill Blog

The Blog of Brad Hill, wildlife photographer. Cameras, lenses, camera gear, field tests, conservation, photo tours, and other bits of questionable wisdom from a young-at-heart nature photographer!
www.naturalart.ca www.naturalart.ca
Click to expand...
Thanks for sharing. I think his point on why the 800pf is not for him is very well taken and everybody should take that 2mn pause for introspection. The 800pf is such an attractive package at a market changing price that it’s easy to jump to the conclusion that it’s the lens one has been waiting for their whole life. In many cases it will be but not everyone needs 800mm as their base lens.
‘I truly love the video he did where he explains how he thinks about various compositions, and that idea of animalscape truly hit the nail on the head for me. That’s where I had been progressively headed and he really helped define it for me.
 
Member's gallery
FB101 said:
Thanks for sharing. I think his point on why the 800pf is not for him is very well taken and everybody should take that 2mn pause for introspection. The 800pf is such an attractive package at a market changing price that it’s easy to jump to the conclusion that it’s the lens one has been waiting for their whole life. In many cases it will be but not everyone needs 800mm as their base lens.
‘I truly love the video he did where he explains how he thinks about various compositions, and that idea of animalscape truly hit the nail on the head for me. That’s where I had been progressively headed and he really helped define it for me.
Click to expand...
No surprises there - Brad seems to like wider stuff (and has some beauties to show for it) and often photographs larger mammals. That's not really where this lens shines. For me, this is more for birds, medium to small mammals, and tighter shots of big game (I can't help it, I like tight shots sometimes - I think there's room for a bit of everything :) ).
 
Member's gallery
fcotterill said:
fyi

Natural Art Images: Voice: Brad Hill Blog

The Blog of Brad Hill, wildlife photographer. Cameras, lenses, camera gear, field tests, conservation, photo tours, and other bits of questionable wisdom from a young-at-heart nature photographer!
www.naturalart.ca www.naturalart.ca
Click to expand...
FB101 said:
Thanks for sharing. I think his point on why the 800pf is not for him is very well taken and everybody should take that 2mn pause for introspection. The 800pf is such an attractive package at a market changing price that it’s easy to jump to the conclusion that it’s the lens one has been waiting for their whole life. In many cases it will be but not everyone needs 800mm as their base lens.
‘I truly love the video he did where he explains how he thinks about various compositions, and that idea of animalscape truly hit the nail on the head for me. That’s where I had been progressively headed and he really helped define it for me.
Click to expand...
I've got a feeling that a couple of years down the road there are going to be quite a few 800 PF lenses available on the used market from those who jumped too quickly.

Steve said:
No surprises there - Brad seems to like wider stuff (and has some beauties to show for it) and often photographs larger mammals. That's not really where this lens shines. For me, this is more for birds, medium to small mammals, and tighter shots of big game (I can't help it, I like tight shots sometimes - I think there's room for a bit of everything :) ).
Click to expand...
For some of us, you can never have too much lens :)
 
Member's gallery
Steve said:
No surprises there - Brad seems to like wider stuff (and has some beauties to show for it) and often photographs larger mammals. That's not really where this lens shines. For me, this is more for birds, medium to small mammals, and tighter shots of big game (I can't help it, I like tight shots sometimes - I think there's room for a bit of everything :) ).
Click to expand...
For sure there is. It wasn’t a judgement at all. If I could do tight shots like yours I’d be doing it all day 😁 but it’s something I have been noticing in everything I shoot, I am converging more towards an environmental reportage style, whether for street, wildlife or even macro. It’s just my bias. I guess it goes back to when I was shooting weddings - I was never happier than when the bride allowed me to mingle and shoot the wedding party reportage-style from within with a 28mm or 35mm prime, instead of using the 70-200 from a distance.
 
Member's gallery
Steve said:
No surprises there - Brad seems to like wider stuff (and has some beauties to show for it) and often photographs larger mammals. That's not really where this lens shines. For me, this is more for birds, medium to small mammals, and tighter shots of big game (I can't help it, I like tight shots sometimes - I think there's room for a bit of everything :) ).
Click to expand...
Ditto for me the Z100-400 is my "animal scape" lens but since 90% of my photography is birds of all sorts and usually when running and gunning in all sorts of habitat and terrain the 800pf does seem like the lens I have dreamed about.
 
Member's gallery
I too would love to see a comparison between the 800PF and the 500PF + TC14EIII + FTZII on Z9 camera.

500mmPF + TC14EIII + FTZII = Already own: 700mm, f8, ~1lb lighter, can be used as 500mm VS 800mmPF = 800mm f6.3, $6,500. What I don't know is how they compare in terms of focus capabilities and optically.

I have preordered the 800PF from my favorite brick and mortar camera store and received NPS priority on the order, but I'm still on the fence. I'm hoping to make up my mind before 800mmPF arrives at the camera store. My camera store is sympathetic to my situation and is happy to sell 'my' 800mm to next person in line if I don't buy it.

I should add that I am a retired professional photographer and although I am not a 'birder' but I do enjoy casually photographing birds for my own enjoyment. The cost of the 800mm is not a major concern, but I'd hate to buy one and then let it sit in a closet collecting dust.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
Another advantage to shooting longer glass that hasn't been mentioned(or I missed it) is that angles are reduced. Shooting moving targets from farther away are easier to track due to lower relative speed. And perched or grounded birds can be shot from farther away therefore at flatter angles. I'm looking forward to the flatter angles shooting marine mammals from my boat. Assuming I'll be able to keep them in the FOV :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top