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
padrepaul said:
I have no idea what a meter is :) but the 800 5.3 is actually 3 feet better than the 800 5.6 for minimum focusing distance, so that's nice. I do feel the 800 5.6 can handle low light well too coupled with noise reduction; for instance I took these owlets late in the day, ISO 3600, 1/200. f5.6 at 1/200/sec on a cloudy cold early evening; the sun was still out but nowhere to be seen on the Z9 with the 800 5.6. I'm getting the 6.3 and trading in the 5.6 as I'm very happy with the offer from the local dealer (unless something comes out that says do not trade it in it's that much better) but everything I've read and watched so far indicates it's great; in this situation I'd expect I'd have to be at ISO 5000 perhaps? Hard to know how big a difference a third of a stop is.

View attachment 37216
Click to expand...
Apologies will put it in feet as well next time. Is slightly more than 16 feet.
 
Member's gallery
Ralph Bruno said:
A lot has been said about the 5m minimum focusing distance. Maybe I’m missing something but I wouldn’t be buying an 800 mm lens to shoot a subject 16 feet away. The primary purpose of a less like that is to bring in objects that are too far away to fill the frame while using a 500 or 600 mm lens. If something does come in closer than 16 ft change lenses. But if you are using this lens for the purpose it was designed for, that situation will seldom occur.
Click to expand...
Fully Agree and it serve its does purpose well. I feel it is also dependent on the photographer, I do sometimes shoot close up even for birds with this lens for tight shots, with this lens I get the flexibility of mobility and I do notice more than a few times backing away to get a shot with the min focus distance, sometimes backing away can mean losing shot if the subject decide to fly, however this is purely my use case.
 
Member's gallery
Joel N said:
I concur.

Initial impression on the 863, So far on use, greatest downside of the 863 is the minimum focus distance of 5m and also the long focal length (makes it a very specialized lens) It is a very sharp and contrasty lense wide open, you can make up in the min focusing distance with cropping in if you have a high resolution camera. In comparison to the 400 f2.8 tc, it lacks the lens fn ring and doesn’t sport the new Silky Swift VCM, believe the Af will be slower compared to 400 f2.8, anyway usually af will also be faster with more light gathering as well. On feeling with Af for 863 is very fast but still need to use it more to get a more accurate feel as af speed defers in different lighting situation. With the 1.4x tc, sharpness and contrast is slightly reduced, stopping down to f10-f11 can visible increase the sharpness. I feel It is actually a very good portrait lens in terms of image quality and rendering, feasibility is another question. Greatest merits are the superb vr which allows very low shutter speed with high aperture (with tc or in low light) and the way it renders the image and then background. makes it extremely good for static or less moving subject or object shooting.

Also using the 500pf you won’t break a sweat, but the 863 with z9, definitely will sweat like a light workout. Planning to use it to lose some weight. 🤣
Click to expand...
By lens function ring I am guessing you mean the Lens Control Ring and it does have one check the manual for instructions ... it is forward of the manual focus ring.
 
Member's gallery
I think the 800 PF has struck me with my first bout of GAS in quite a while. I don't need it. My 600 and TC14 have served me extremely well over the past 5 or so years. I think I'm going to cancel my order (you're welcome), and wait out the 600 f/4 replacement.

On a related note. Anyone here using the 400Z + TC20? If so, what do you think?
 
Member's gallery
grossidm said:
On a related note. Anyone here using the 400Z + TC20? If so, what do you think?
Click to expand...

For me the Z 400/2.8 TC VR S is the most versatile lens you can own. But it is of course not the right lens for everyone. I used the 400 E FL before. Around 55 % at 400 mm, 35 % at 560 mm and 10 % at 800 mm.

I posted here some sample photos with the 2x 1.4 TCs and why I use this combination instead of the 2.0 TC.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
NaturRosi said:
For me the Z 400/2.8 TC VR S is the most versatile lens you can own. But it is of course not the right lens for everyone. I used the 400 E FL before. Around 55 % at 400 mm, 35 % at 560 mm and 10 % at 800 mm.

I posted here some sample photos with the 2x 1.4 TCs and why I use this combination instead of the 2.0 TC.
Click to expand...
Link not working for me…
 
Member's gallery
RoyC said:
How about a specific example. Its is 9 AM (sunrise 6 AM) and the Obsidian Sow is out feeding with her COY. If she is 100 yards west of the Grand Loop road the 800PF would surely be a good choice. But if she is east of the Grand Loop road does the 800 stay in the car and the $14K 400 f2.8 standby lens become the lens of choice. In other words, will the $6400 bargain 800mm need a $14 backup lens because the 800 does not come into it's own until there is a lot of light?

View attachment 37158

D5 at 1/160 @f5.6 ISO1250. They were on the east side that morning and anything that included action was soft.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I missed this one.

Believe it or not, I'd probably take the 800mm over the 400 2.8 - unless I could fill the frame the same way with the 400 2.8.

The thing is, cropping increases comparative output noise. If I were shooting 800mm and filling the frame and you were next to me with a 400 2.8 and were going to crop to match what I have in the viewfinder, you're not really gaining much. You may be shooting at ISO 1250 and I may be at 6400, but once we output my full frame image and your cropped image (to print, screen, whatever), our noise would be within 1/3rd of a stop - basically imperceptible.

Of course, if you could get closer, that changes things, but from the same distance, it really doesn't make much of a difference. In this specific scenario, I don't think I'd want to be at a 400mm range :)

This video goes over the concept in detail with examples:

 
Member's gallery
Warren D said:
I only watched the first 1/2 but I don't think this shows the lens at it's best.
Click to expand...
The intent I think was as much showing the lens as it was showing the lens + Z9 with fw 2.0 - if you watch through there is a lot of examples of birds in front of busy backgrounds and AF back and forth between far background and close subject (the main AF gripe with z9's first firmware). I thought the combo behaved quite well actually so they must have made some meaningful improvements.
When you get to the 2nd half, he is dealing with very challenging subjects (swallows in flight and falcon in flight) and the results are quite good - not perfect but it gives a good sense of what that combo can do under very demanding conditions.

What I did notice though is a high percentage of situations where an eye is not detected and the focus boxes are on the body - but it's impossible to judge where focus actually was on a 1080p video - everything looks "soft" so not very informative from that standpoint; for all I know the eyes may have been pin sharp, despite the focus boxes being on the body.
 
Member's gallery
grossidm said:
I think the 800 PF has struck me with my first bout of GAS in quite a while. I don't need it. My 600 and TC14 have served me extremely well over the past 5 or so years. I think I'm going to cancel my order (you're welcome), and wait out the 600 f/4 replacement.

On a related note. Anyone here using the 400Z + TC20? If so, what do you think?
Click to expand...
with the 10p-400 the 1.4 TC is essentially just as good with a slight falloff with the 2.0…no idea about it with the 400/2.8 but Brad Hill has done or is doing some testing…and he has initial thoughts on his site.
 
Member's gallery
Got mine this afternoon. Ran out to the back yard in bad light but had to try it out. Damn, this is a well balanced lens and so easy to hand hold. There will be more images in the days ahead but these are my first images, take them for what they are, nothing exciting!

backyard042822__0088.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.



backyard042822__0211.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.


backyard042822__0262.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.


I am sure everyone who is waiting for this lens will be very happy!! All shot with Z9, hand held and wide open!!
 
Member's gallery
Wink Jones said:
Elegant portrait!
Click to expand...
Thank you !

By the way, I have not yet heard any sound coming from the 800pf, not from the AF motor or the VR (surprisingly, as it must be covering quite a wide distance). no noise when shaking the lense as well.

One quirk that I have noticed is (not sure if will cause any issue in the final image) I can sometime spot the signature "thumb print" marks similar on the phase fresnel element in the viewfinder... The phase fresnel element did move towards the focal plane on the 800pf design making it smaller (more noticeable ?). If anyone has the same findings please let me know.. So far I haven't notice this quirk with the 500pf and have not seen any artifact on the final image.
 
Member's gallery
gdecamp said:
Got mine this afternoon. Ran out to the back yard in bad light but had to try it out. Damn, this is a well balanced lens and so easy to hand hold. There will be more images in the days ahead but these are my first images, take them for what they are, nothing exciting!

View attachment 37513


View attachment 37514

View attachment 37515

I am sure everyone who is waiting for this lens will be very happy!! All shot with Z9, hand held and wide open!!
Click to expand...

When I get my first shots to look this good in bad light, I will be VERY excited. Thank you for sharing these. Goodness, I wish I could afford both the Z9 and the 800 F at the same time...
 
Member's gallery
NaturRosi said:
For me the Z 400/2.8 TC VR S is the most versatile lens you can own. But it is of course not the right lens for everyone. I used the 400 E FL before. Around 55 % at 400 mm, 35 % at 560 mm and 10 % at 800 mm.

I posted here some sample photos with the 2x 1.4 TCs and why I use this combination instead of the 2.0 TC.
Click to expand...
I agree about the versatility of the 400mm f/2.8 lens and if I was only going to be able to take a single lens on a trip it would be my first choice. But overall I prefer using the 500mm PF with the 100-400mm with the 600mm f/4. My plan is to replace the 600mm f/4 with the 800mm PF lens. Most of my shooting is with focal lengths from 100 to 500mm and from 800mm to 1200mm. A lens I wish was available from Nikon is something like the Canon 100-500mm zoom lens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top