StefanSC
Well-known member
Keep in mind that Nikon publishes theoretical MTFs (as in "our design software said this is the MTF") not measured MTFs (as in "we put the lens on a test bench and did the measurements").
Nikon 800PF Review For Wildlife Photographers (Official Discussion Thread)
- Thread starter Steve
- 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).
ChrisM
Well-known member
In one of the Canon forums I read someone calling Nikon PF glass as "cheap" because apparently this person read some article where P on the PF meant PLASTIC
Get off it! The things they come up with on the Canon forums..
Luckily we all know that "PF" stands for purple fringing
Seriously though, one of them claimed to have "done his research" and was able to tell that with PF elements 1/3 of plastic is molded on.
thelordofthelight
Well-known member
It is easy to do a research these days . So i just did my 2 min research over at wikipedia and found this:
en.wikipedia.org
. So i just did my 2 min research over at wikipedia and found this:
Fresnel lens - Wikipedia
Get off it! The things they come up with on the Canon forums..
Luckily we all know that "PF" stands for purple fringing
Seriously though, one of them claimed to have "done his research" and was able to tell that with PF elements 1/3 of plastic is molded on.
ChrisM
Well-known member
It is easy to do a research these days
Fresnel lens - Wikipedia
I believe that poster on canonrumors meant to say that he had actually researched Nikon PF elements, but whatever the case, they now seem to believe that Nikon users will be paying 6500,- for a plastic lens, while they at least have the option to get an 800mm f5.6 lens with only glass in it.
I had the 500PF for two years, and it was the second best lens I have owned yet, behind only the Canon 400DOII, which is a ........ DO lens. I guess I payed for plastic with that lens too...
fcotterill
Well-known member
Apparently the manufacture utilizes a thin layer of moulded resin with the glass. The chemistry of the "resin(s)" is the subject of speculation, but to work in practice the set resin assumes a glass state i.e. an amorphous solid. I've read several times all aspherics are moulded from optical resins - a process licensed by the major optical companies, apparently. Ironically, the ultimate determinants of the glass phase still presents fundamental mysteries challenging modern physics.In one of the Canon forums I read someone calling Nikon PF glass as "cheap" because apparently this person read some article where P on the PF meant PLASTIC
Nikon's process is patented so the details are obscure. But they let out some interesting details after the 300 f4E PF was released - "... blazed diffraction optical element is formed from two types of optical resin...." Much of Nikon's glass know-how is classified, but it is complex. 2 articles fyi
Glass for geeks: An in-depth tour of Nikon’s Hikari Glass factory
I've been on a lot of factory tours with various camera and lens manufacturers before, but had never had a chance to see how the optical glass was made that goes into the lenses we use every day. So I was really happy to receive…
www.imaging-resource.com
Manufacturing glass that grows like a lifeform | Stories | Nikon About Us
Synthetic fused silica glass is utilized for the lenses of Nikon's semiconductor lithography systems. Discover the technology behind this glass that provides such outstanding optical performance.
www.nikon.com
thelordofthelight
Well-known member
I totally get it. In fact as a customer i just don't care if it is plastic or glass or metal. All that matters is how good it is optically and what 'extra' benefits does it (PF technology) bring to the table. So I find it funny when folks try to get too technical and read between the lines to conclude. I'm sure these kind of technical know-hows are super confidential and all we get to see is probably 2% of all the technical data so it's just pointless debating.
When Canon launched their RF 400/600, those lenses looked like canon glued the EF to RF adapter permanently on to the lens and also did a silver paint job towards the mount as if it wasn't obvious otherwise. With the 800/1200 RF, they went one step ahead and added a 2X TC to the EF 400/600 glass which is now being criticised. But when i think of it now, how does it matter as long as the lenses perform great. Maybe canon did a lot of RnD with their EF 400/600 that they didn't have anything meaningful to be done with the RF mount glasses. The one thing that is ridiculous though is the pricing of those lenses. They should've/could've passed on the RnD savings to the customers and priced those lenses aggressively.
In case of Nikon, they built the 800PF from the scratch and still priced it so well.Most importantly, with the 800PF it seems Nikon has managed to iron out some of those teething issues that were reported with the 300/500PF; things like VR issues at certain shutter speeds, Bokeh issues when shooting against harsh lights, foreground to subject to BG transitions etc. I don't believe someone like Steve Perry would just go out and call a lens "ground breaking" otherwise.
When Canon launched their RF 400/600, those lenses looked like canon glued the EF to RF adapter permanently on to the lens and also did a silver paint job towards the mount as if it wasn't obvious otherwise. With the 800/1200 RF, they went one step ahead and added a 2X TC to the EF 400/600 glass which is now being criticised. But when i think of it now, how does it matter as long as the lenses perform great. Maybe canon did a lot of RnD with their EF 400/600 that they didn't have anything meaningful to be done with the RF mount glasses. The one thing that is ridiculous though is the pricing of those lenses. They should've/could've passed on the RnD savings to the customers and priced those lenses aggressively.
In case of Nikon, they built the 800PF from the scratch and still priced it so well.Most importantly, with the 800PF it seems Nikon has managed to iron out some of those teething issues that were reported with the 300/500PF; things like VR issues at certain shutter speeds, Bokeh issues when shooting against harsh lights, foreground to subject to BG transitions etc. I don't believe someone like Steve Perry would just go out and call a lens "ground breaking" otherwise.
Apparently the manufacture utilizes a thin layer of moulded resin with the glass. The chemistry of the "resin(s)" is the subject of speculation, but to work in practice the set resin assumes a glass state i.e. an amorphous solid. I've read several times all aspherics are moulded from optical resins - a process licensed by the major optical companies, apparently. Ironically, the ultimate determinants of the glass phase still presents fundamental mysteries challenging modern physics.
Nikon's process is patented so the details are obscure. But they let out some interesting details after the 300 f4E PF was released - "... blazed diffraction optical element is formed from two types of optical resin...." Much of Nikon's glass know-how is classified, but it is complex. 2 articles fyi
Glass for geeks: An in-depth tour of Nikon’s Hikari Glass factory
I've been on a lot of factory tours with various camera and lens manufacturers before, but had never had a chance to see how the optical glass was made that goes into the lenses we use every day. So I was really happy to receive…www.imaging-resource.com
Manufacturing glass that grows like a lifeform | Stories | Nikon About Us
Synthetic fused silica glass is utilized for the lenses of Nikon's semiconductor lithography systems. Discover the technology behind this glass that provides such outstanding optical performance.www.nikon.com
G-FOTO.de
Active member
The only concerns I have with lots of optical resins is aging. Resins are aging in general much faster than glass ever will do.
But ok, am I gonna use my 800PF still in 15 years...
But ok, am I gonna use my 800PF still in 15 years...
I have a question for you regarding the factory lens foot. I noticed in your video that you had a plate bolted to the factory Lens foot but in the online pictures it appears to only have one 1/4 inch mounting hole in the Lens foot unless I’m looking at it wrong. If I get this lens I am not going to replace that foot because it looks super nice but would definitely like to be able to put a two bolt plate onto the lens. I really like the padding that it shows on the foot and think that will really add a lot of comfort when carrying this set up.
Steve ,
From the video it appears to be a 2 bolt plate.
That’s good to know.
I've been off BCG for a week, or so, and this thread has been a super interesting read for me. The excitement about the upcoming 800PF is palpable. The ratio of (price per mm) : (f-stop) : (build) is very high and uncharacteristic in the OEM telephoto lens market. The only other lenses that have offered this type of value has been the Nikon 500PF, Sigma 500 f4, and Sony 200-600 G. When lenses like this are introduced, there is a fervor followed by a race to see who can get it first, shoot with it first, and post as many, often mediocre, images as possible (note... this does not apply to Steve P's pics, as they were quite striking in spite of the short use in overcast weather).
So what's my point... Well I think that Brad Hill hit the nail on the head. In the end this lens will be a winner for the "right" photographer who is looking to photograph some specific subjects in specific ways. While anyone who eventually owns the lens will find a way to use it... often as a way to justify its acquisition, but others will eventually find that it was an expensive purchase that gets less use than it should.
This lens is the right lens for those who shoot small or distant birds, and want to fill the frame. Furthermore, if you are a roadside shooter and prefer not to hike into the thickets, don't shoot from blinds, and don't shoot from boats, this lens might allow you to use the magic of optics to tighten your composition. In contrast, there are a lot of photographers who are exited by the proximity of their subject to person distance. Personally, I like to be close to my subjects... species as diverse as grizzlies, black bears, otters, coyotes, deer, pronghorn, grouse, herons, etc... As such, I look for ways to be close while maintaining a strong respect for a subject. Sleeping in tented blinds, kayaking along coastal shores, and waiting by clear animal corridors are my primary techniques. Like Brad, I am a fan of the animal in the wilderness as opposed to the animal form... thus, the 800mm f/6.3 is not for me.
As for the debate... Z9 + 800PF vs A1 + 600GM vs R3 (R1) + 600RF... I say tomato tomato. Sony shooters want to claim the need for a tiny body, but are willing to wield a heavier lens, while Nikon shooters claim superior ergonomics in a gripped camera w/ a lighter lens... I tend to agree with the Nikon POV, having shot and owned D4's to Z6 cameras... give me an integrated grip any day... but this, in my mind is one part personal preference and one part justification of purchase (on either side).
cheers,
bruce
So what's my point... Well I think that Brad Hill hit the nail on the head. In the end this lens will be a winner for the "right" photographer who is looking to photograph some specific subjects in specific ways. While anyone who eventually owns the lens will find a way to use it... often as a way to justify its acquisition, but others will eventually find that it was an expensive purchase that gets less use than it should.
This lens is the right lens for those who shoot small or distant birds, and want to fill the frame. Furthermore, if you are a roadside shooter and prefer not to hike into the thickets, don't shoot from blinds, and don't shoot from boats, this lens might allow you to use the magic of optics to tighten your composition. In contrast, there are a lot of photographers who are exited by the proximity of their subject to person distance. Personally, I like to be close to my subjects... species as diverse as grizzlies, black bears, otters, coyotes, deer, pronghorn, grouse, herons, etc... As such, I look for ways to be close while maintaining a strong respect for a subject. Sleeping in tented blinds, kayaking along coastal shores, and waiting by clear animal corridors are my primary techniques. Like Brad, I am a fan of the animal in the wilderness as opposed to the animal form... thus, the 800mm f/6.3 is not for me.
As for the debate... Z9 + 800PF vs A1 + 600GM vs R3 (R1) + 600RF... I say tomato tomato. Sony shooters want to claim the need for a tiny body, but are willing to wield a heavier lens, while Nikon shooters claim superior ergonomics in a gripped camera w/ a lighter lens... I tend to agree with the Nikon POV, having shot and owned D4's to Z6 cameras... give me an integrated grip any day... but this, in my mind is one part personal preference and one part justification of purchase (on either side).
cheers,
bruce
Last edited:
It's just a random plate we had in the bag. It has two screws, but both are 1/4 inch so I only used the one hole. Since it was 800mm I thought I would be using it on a tripod quite a bit, but that just wasn't the case. Still, at the time, it was a beggars-can't-be-chooser scenario so I used what I had.
G-FOTO.de
Active member
Bruce I agree with you that it is much more exiting to be as close as possible to your subjects, but for the majority it is nearly impossible to spent so much time with their hobby - including me. And you are fortunate enough to have a wife, sharing your passion. Which is most probably also not the case for the majority of wildlife shooters.
I have a blind and all the stuff you need, but at the end of the day, you need a full day or even a whole weekend to prepare everything and get close enough. Especially here in Europe with a dense population and different escape distances vs. the US.
Therefore the 800PF will be more than welcome for me.
Just my 2 cents.
Logical, level-headed discourse like this has no place on an internet forum. For shame. But I guess if you must express yourself in this manner better here than on social media.
The only concerns I have with lots of optical resins is aging. Resins are aging in general much faster than glass ever will do.
But ok, am I gonna use my 800PF still in 15 years...
At 75 years, I can only hope and pray that I am still using my cameras and lenses in 15 years...
zule11
Active member
Nikon 800mm f6.3 PF | Thoughts from the cabin | new ultra telephoto lens for WILDLIFE PHOTOGRAPHY
G-FOTO.de
Active member
Well, lets say it like that, Nikon should handover a huge cheque to @Steve for his phantastic video about the pre-production 800PF. His way to showcase the lens and even more his amazing shots with the 800PF, nearly forced me to buy this lens as a Sony shooter.
Neither this bla bla bla video nor their first video would have convinced me, to cancel a 600GM order and getting the 800PF instead. But Steve's did so.
By the way, the same goes for Ricci from UK. Nice guy, but where are the phantastic (handheld) shots, which proof the concept of the lens?
Luckily Nikon gave one to Steve, who is still the only one on YT, who really showcased this lens in a proper way.
Neither this bla bla bla video nor their first video would have convinced me, to cancel a 600GM order and getting the 800PF instead. But Steve's did so.
By the way, the same goes for Ricci from UK. Nice guy, but where are the phantastic (handheld) shots, which proof the concept of the lens?
Luckily Nikon gave one to Steve, who is still the only one on YT, who really showcased this lens in a proper way.
Thank you so much. We were very fortunate to find what we did
luckmurph
Well-known member
Very modest & a true gent, your video convinced me to order one! Well doneThank you so much. We were very fortunate to find what we did
In my situation zooming with my feet is often not an option. Physical limitations and advancing age do not allow long treks through the woods or on trails to shoot. The 800mm PF will allow me to shoot at some places where I cannot get close enough and the lens does matter. I am finding my 500PF and 100-400 with TC work much of the time and the 800mm will offer me a few more options, like shooting from the roadway in a refuge or park. In other words, the current range of options allow us to shape our kit to meet our individual needs. I understand your thoughts and, a few years ago, would have been closer to your position. These days my view has changed in many ways and I look forward to getting this lens for everything from birds in my backyard to longer range shots in wildife refuges and other areas where I cannot zoom with my feet. I do appreciate how the new cameras and lenses afford options that were not as accessible in years past. Just my thoughts.
I concord with G-Foto. No way in heck I need to spend that kind of money for a lens for my hobby, but as @JAS , I too am not as capable of zooming with my feet as I was when I was a young Marine running ten to fifteen miles a day to stay in shape. I will eventually own one of these lenses.
I didn't need the Z9 either, but seeing what Steve has done with it, I ordered one and fully expect to be very glad I did when it arrives.
I want to also express my admiration for Steve's stand on not being sponsored. It just says something to me that increases my respect and wonder at the quality of work he provides to us.
You Marines were always tougher than us Army guys anyway, but all those miles take their toll in the end!. I too am waiting for my Z9 and 800PF both are on pre-order at my local camera store which usually has shorter wait lists. Hope you get your new gear soon!
I started running on base when I was in Vietnam, kept doing it when I was stationed first in Cal and then in Hawaii. It served me well, but became uber critical when I was stationed in Rio de Janeiro on Embassy Duty. I was able to eat 5 - 7,000 calories day and not gain weight, which is a huge no no in the Corps. Man, those Brasilians know how to eat. I kept running into my 50's, but not as far and was a soccer referee for 15 or 16 years. I eventually wore out my right hip joint and had a replacement some years ago, so no more running, I still walk every day and lift weights, but it is only able to slow down the decline that gets us all eventually. My good local store went out of business a couple of years ago, covid finished what the internet started. I miss them. It was nice having good people who could talk with you in person.
I know some pretty tough current and former Army guys too, I was just trying to keep in good shape. Now I am just trying to take some wall hanger photos to annoy my kids when they have to sell the house and decide what they need to do with all the old man's stuff after mom and I are gone...
I debated whether to get this lens, but for the past 10 days I was using the 600 f/4 and 500 PF with the TC14E III teleconverter for about 70% of my shorebird images. That's an equivalent of 840mm at f/5.6 and 700mm at f/8. Much of this was birds in flight. AF was definitely slower with these combinations as the subjects were often in less than ideal lighting - probably 60% were backlit silhouettes. I was using a Z7ii - and the Z9 would have been much better. But I was using the 500 + 1.4 TC combination handheld from a moving boat.
The biggest challenge was keeping the bird in the AF box at 700-840mm. It takes practice. A lot of people won't be able to use the 800mm focal length because of the very narrow field of view. It's not a skill you pick up in a day or two. You need to watch subject behavior, learn to anticipate, and be able to very quickly pick up a subject as it approaches.
Part of the attractiveness of the 800 PF is using it with a Z 1.4 TC which I already have. That's effectively 1120mm - and I may not be up to the task. But it's possible with good technique and reasonable lighting. I photograph a lot of small birds near my home, and the combination will work well on a tripod.
The biggest challenge was keeping the bird in the AF box at 700-840mm. It takes practice. A lot of people won't be able to use the 800mm focal length because of the very narrow field of view. It's not a skill you pick up in a day or two. You need to watch subject behavior, learn to anticipate, and be able to very quickly pick up a subject as it approaches.
Part of the attractiveness of the 800 PF is using it with a Z 1.4 TC which I already have. That's effectively 1120mm - and I may not be up to the task. But it's possible with good technique and reasonable lighting. I photograph a lot of small birds near my home, and the combination will work well on a tripod.
my thoughts exactly…and add in that you can’t take it with you and we are well enough off that it is pretty much a blip in the budget. The trouble is that both my wife and have always been…she says cheap but I prefer thrifty and non extravagant…but that’s one of the big reasons we are well enough off in retirement so it is a blip in the budget. It’s really hard for us to just say…heck with it, we can afford it and want it.