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
Understood. An odd choice to send review copies, although I suppose it gets more eyeballs, and nobody is going to turn down a review copy of an 800mm lens.

If it were me, I'd have let Steve hold onto his copy for longer, as I doubt anyone is buying this lens for portraits.
 
Member's gallery
Chris K said:
Geez, these guys and their 800mm portraits! This is the second reviewer I've seen attempting this. I can't tell if they're serious or not at this point!

I applaud them for experimenting, but I had a heck of a time shooting portraits with a 300/2.8 due to the amount of camera movement you need to affect the background and the difficulty communicating.

Does anyone here shoot portraits with anything longer than a 300/2.8? Do you find you're really getting something you can't get from the typical 105/135/200 options?
Click to expand...
It's a nose hair sharpness test, very new!
 
Member's gallery
Here's an image from early this morning - Z7ii with 800 PF. Love the lens - compact size and easy to handhold. Very sharp.
Peachtree Creek - Zonolite Park_5-10-2022_363208-Edit.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
So…I’ve got my 800PF and Z9 on order…but I’m rethinking the lens a bit. I have the Z 100-400 and both Z TCs as well as the 500PF. I’m just an amateur and am concerned about the weight and size of the 800…but the reach would be very nice.

However…looking through my LR catalog I’m finding that there aren’t all that many recent shots (I’m almost exclusively a screen output guy) where the either the 500PF or the 100-400 and TC weren’t long enough. So considering the cost I wonder if skipping the 800 and using the zoom with the 2.0 TC wouldn’t be good enough. Has anybody done any side by side testing with the 800 vs the 100-400/2.0TC combo as far as IQ gues? I realize the prime is probably better for large prints but for screen output a lot of the advantage isnt really noticeable…and the zoom TC combo would be a 1-2/3 stops slower…and before I got the zoom there were times when the 500 made me zoom out with feet to get the shot…so perhaps the reach vs utility vs cost vs size/weight matrix comes down on the side of keeping that $6.5K. Adding in the extra difficulty in getting and keeping the subject in the viewfinder and I’m starting to doubt the good idea-ness of this purchase. It isn’t really an I can’t really afford it thing…I can easily…but more of a bang for the buck thing and how much it will actually get used. I’m primarily a wildlife shooter so BIF are in there…but here in FL usually getting close enough isn’t an issue. The 800 and TC would have been excellent for the grizzly/wolf stand-off out in Yellowstone several years back…but I’m having trouble telling myself this is a good idea. Althou* I have both of the TCs…the 2.0 one has only been used about 10% of the time I had a TC on…so that’s also sort of telling me that I don’t need that much reach all that often…but then the GAS genie tells me you can never have too long of a lens.

Of course…having those doubts probably means I should listen to them and cancel the order…but outside thoughts are always good. Ive been toying with the 100-400/2TC combo out back in some framing and finding the subject testing with my Z7II which further added to the doubts…so maybe I’m just trying to convince myself of the right answer…<shrug>.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
Neil Laubenthal said:
So…I’ve got my 800PF and Z9 on order…but I’m rethinking the lens a bit. I have the Z 100-400 and both Z TCs as well as the 500PF. I’m just an amateur and am concerned about the weight and size of the 800…but the reach would be very nice.

However…looking through my LR catalog I’m finding that there aren’t all that many recent shots (I’m almost exclusively a screen output guy) where the either the 500PF or the 100-400 and TC weren’t long enough. So considering the cost I wonder if skipping the 800 and using the zoom with the 2.0 TC wouldn’t be good enough. Has anybody done any side by side testing with the 800 vs the 100-400/2.0TC combo as far as IQ gues? I realize the prime is probably better for large prints but for screen output a lot of the advantage isnt really noticeable…and the zoom TC combo would be a 1-2/3 stops slower…and before I got the zoom there were times when the 500 made me zoom out with feet to get the shot…so perhaps the reach vs utility vs cost vs size/weight matrix comes down on the side of keeping that $6.5K. Adding in the extra difficulty in getting and keeping the subject in the viewfinder and I’m starting to doubt the good idea-ness of this purchase. It isn’t really an I can’t really afford it thing…I can easily…but more of a bang for the buck thing and how much it will actually get used. I’m primarily a wildlife shooter so BIF are in there…but here in FL usually getting close enough isn’t an issue. The 800 and TC would have been excellent for the grizzly/wolf stand-off out in Yellowstone several years back…but I’m having trouble telling myself this is a good idea.

Of course…having those doubts probably means I should listen to them and cancel the order…but outside thoughts are always good. Ive been toying with the 100-400/2TC combo out back in some framing and finding the subject testing with my Z7II which further added to the doubts…so maybe I’m just trying to convince myself of the right answer…<shrug>.
Click to expand...
I had the same issue. I ordered it immediately just after midnight when preorders came available but decided to cancel the order for now. I may still end up with it and I think I would get use out of it, but I needed more time to think about it and see. I have the 500mm PF which I have been using with the 1.4x TCiii which is 700mm F/8. I find the focal length workable. I think I’d get a lot more use out of a 400mm F/4 so I’m holding out hoping that is what we see on the roadmap. I have no doubt the 800mm is an awesome lens and would work great like you said in Yellowstone. If in doubt, you can hold off like I decided to do. I’m sure you would be happy with it, as would I, but I fully understand the hesitation. The Z9 is great though and I have been getting a lot of use from it. 😊
 
Member's gallery
I’m in the same boat as you two. Want it, don’t need it.

I’m happy with my 500PF’s performance with the TC14. The 800PF essentially amounts to less cropping at the same focal length, and a bit shorter DOF. It also will surely improve AF a bit (which isn’t compelling to me), and it gives me the new Z lens features (no FTZ, control ring).

I quantify the difference between the two options by considering my maximum acceptable crop to be DX format, in which case you can call the 500PF a “1050/8”, and the 800PF a “1200/6.3”.

On the other hand, it has two significant downsides: First, it weighs 2lbs more than my 500PF and requires a specialized bag. That’s a big deal for me, as I enjoy the 500PF’s feather-weight when hiking, and using my existing bags. Second, the 800PF ties up a LOT of cash. With that cash I could get that GFX camera I’ve always wanted, or I could buy the upcoming 85/1.2 and one of the other upcoming Z tile’s. Or I could always not spend tons of money on a camera lens. ;)

Balancing the logistics of shooting a “big lens” again against the benefit of more pixels for very distant subjects, it’s a tough call. I shoot for my own enjoyment, and most of my own enjoyment Is simply being outdoors, and coming home with some nice photos. Is it worth the downsides for those photos to be nicer than they are today?

As with you guys, I’ve been teetering on the edge of canceling what I like to call “my defensive pre-order”.
 
Member's gallery
abc123brian said:
I ordered it immediately just after midnight when preorders came available but decided to cancel the order for now.
Click to expand...

Chris K said:
I’m in the same boat as you two. Want it, don’t need it.
Click to expand...
Bryan and Chris…thanks for the thoughts. I'm going to go ahead and cancel mine for now as well…and will try and analyze over shooting outings whether it would be useful enough to carry or not. For me…carrying it means that I would only take either the 100-400 with TCs or the 500PF for weight while hiking reasons and at least since I got the 100-400 earlier in the year I have rarely used the 500PF. I've been carrying it on a dual BR strap with my old D7500 mostly and the only time I really used it was for a quick reaction BIF in flight shot of a Swallowtailed Kite because I couldn't get the Z7II/100-400 to lock focus. Probably 97% of my shots this year (SW FL) have been with the 100-400 on the Z7II with about 2/3 of those using the 1.4 TC and the remainder the bare lens. Used my 70-200/2.8 for about 10 shots total and the 500PF maybe 50…the remainder were with the 24-70. I really like that lens but am seriously considering also selling it in favor of the 24-120 so that for travel when I only want a single lens I've got a little broader focal length option. Looking forward to getting the Z9 for the better AF locked than the Z7II though…not real happy about the grip and associated weight and would rather have the Z8 or Z7III with the better sensor and processor but we have no idea when or if those are coming at this point…and I've essentially given up on any meaningful improvement to the AF in the Z7II…I know that a lot of the Z9 improvements are due to the faster sensor and processor…but Nikon really hasn't done much with the dual processors in the Z7II…that could be firmware space or CPU cycles or engineer cycles or a bunch of other things I suppose…but it is frustrating.
 
Member's gallery
Ney Neil, this is totally off-topic, but you might also check out the 24-200. I got one as a single-lens walkaround kit when I'm not shooting wildlife. It has a reputation for some CA and soft corners, but--while I hate LoCA--I haven't found it to be bad at all, and it sure is a nice, compact lens with a ton of range!

We now return to 800PF talk.... :)
 
Member's gallery
Neil Laubenthal said:
So…I’ve got my 800PF and Z9 on order…but I’m rethinking the lens a bit. I have the Z 100-400 and both Z TCs as well as the 500PF. I’m just an amateur and am concerned about the weight and size of the 800…but the reach would be very nice.

However…looking through my LR catalog I’m finding that there aren’t all that many recent shots (I’m almost exclusively a screen output guy) where the either the 500PF or the 100-400 and TC weren’t long enough. So considering the cost I wonder if skipping the 800 and using the zoom with the 2.0 TC wouldn’t be good enough. Has anybody done any side by side testing with the 800 vs the 100-400/2.0TC combo as far as IQ gues? I realize the prime is probably better for large prints but for screen output a lot of the advantage isnt really noticeable…and the zoom TC combo would be a 1-2/3 stops slower…and before I got the zoom there were times when the 500 made me zoom out with feet to get the shot…so perhaps the reach vs utility vs cost vs size/weight matrix comes down on the side of keeping that $6.5K. Adding in the extra difficulty in getting and keeping the subject in the viewfinder and I’m starting to doubt the good idea-ness of this purchase. It isn’t really an I can’t really afford it thing…I can easily…but more of a bang for the buck thing and how much it will actually get used. I’m primarily a wildlife shooter so BIF are in there…but here in FL usually getting close enough isn’t an issue. The 800 and TC would have been excellent for the grizzly/wolf stand-off out in Yellowstone several years back…but I’m having trouble telling myself this is a good idea. Althou* I have both of the TCs…the 2.0 one has only been used about 10% of the time I had a TC on…so that’s also sort of telling me that I don’t need that much reach all that often…but then the GAS genie tells me you can never have too long of a lens.

Of course…having those doubts probably means I should listen to them and cancel the order…but outside thoughts are always good. Ive been toying with the 100-400/2TC combo out back in some framing and finding the subject testing with my Z7II which further added to the doubts…so maybe I’m just trying to convince myself of the right answer…<shrug>.
Click to expand...

800mm is really a small bird photography lens, it can do a lot of other things very well but so can many other options. If you are not heavy into photography of small birds and you have doubts about the 800mm, wait and see - I bet there will be used ones available in 12 months. Not everyone will be happy shooting such focal length all the time (I know I struggle).
 
Member's gallery
Chris K said:
Ney Neil, this is totally off-topic, but you might also check out the 24-200. I got one as a single-lens walkaround kit when I'm not shooting wildlife. It has a reputation for some CA and soft corners, but--while I hate LoCA--I haven't found it to be bad at all, and it sure is a nice, compact lens with a ton of range!

We now return to 800PF talk.... :)
Click to expand...
Yeah…that one is on the mebbe instead of the 24-120 as well...but it starts to get into a heavier single body/lens for non photo intensive trips but I'm at least thinking along that lines. I used an 18-200 and then 18-300 for years as my primary lens on a D7500 and having a single lens for almost everything is nice. Had a Tamron G2 which I swapped for the 500PF for weight purposes and those two plus a Sigma 10-20 covered everything from waterfalls to distant wildlife. I''m just not sure whether the extra weight of the 24-200 is worth it for the reach given it will be aimed at more landscape/building/touristy sort of photos when traveling with a lighter rig is a key element. Anything wildlife related will have 2 bodies and multiple lenses…but that's expected for those sorts of trips.

Edit…I checked and the 24-200 is actually lighter than the 24-120 and about midway between it and the 24-70. Since I cancelled the 800 and have both the 70-200 and 100-400 I think that skipping the gap between 70 and 100 isn't necessarily a downside…and the 24-200 is much better as a travel, walk around light rig for most situations. Still thinking but I'm guessing I'll go that way for that sort of shooting and also get 14-30/f4 for when wider than 24 is needed…that happens a lot with waterfalls.

Slight drifting from topic just fine with me…especially since we started with the 800 in my original reply.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
FB101 said:
800mm is really a small bird photography lens, it can do a lot of other things very well but so can many other options. If you are not heavy into photography of small birds and you have doubts about the 800mm, wait and see - I bet there will be used ones available in 12 months. Not everyone will be happy shooting such focal length all the time (I know I struggle).
Click to expand...
Another good thought which crossed my mind as I was thinking about it…small birds are what my wife and I call taunty birds since they hide in the trees and taunt you with their calls but ya just can't find them and if you see all you see is bird butt if they're overhead. Here in SW FL we mostly get heron/egret types and birds of prey along with woodpeckers of various sorts. Neither of us has ever had much luck with smaller species…because we're usually hiking with a destination in mind and don't stop for the time required for the little guys to get a bit used to you and come out of hiding.
 
Member's gallery
I pre-ordered the 800mm pf but since cancelled it. My 500mm pf with/without TC-14 will do the job for what I shoot. Now I have only three lenses - 24-120mm Z, 105mm macro Z, and 500mm pf. May be I will pick up the 100-400mm in the future.
 
Member's gallery
I know that some/many talk about this lens as a small bird lens, and it will be for many. However, after the past two weeks in Colorado, I could have used the 800 PF several times and even with the 1.4 TC. For instance, on a moose where I used the 500+1.4TC and still did a 50% crop. Same goes for a group of elk in a field with a magpie harassing one of the elk, captured with the 100-400 and Z6. Then, in a clear cut example, there was the praitrie dog city where even the shots at 700mm could use a bit more length. It will also help me with my backyard birds, so the small bird thing is true too.

On a separate note, got word that my Z9, ordered early March from my local dealer, is in.. Will pick it up on our return from Colorado this week. In a way I am glad that it came in now. If I had it earlier, it would have been all learning on this vacation and I might have missed a lot of shots and a lot of fun while yelling at the camera for my own inadequacies.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
Another aspect of longer FL that is usually over looked is that by increasing distance you reduce the angle between camera and subject. So shooting birds in trees, ducks on water, etc, are captured at less of an angle. Even when it is possible to get closer it's not always desirable due to viewing angle.
 
Member's gallery
Member's gallery
Member's gallery
BorderBirder said:

PhilM​

#441​

Back to regularly scheduled programming....


Inspiring photos indeed and a very interesting and unusual angle too. Shows to us slow humans what’s involved in a “simple” dive!!
Click to expand...

Thanks Bruce.

You bring up a very interesting observation - one that I made as I've started processing our shots for this trip.

I suppose we may have experienced a "right place / right time" scenario with regard to the diving pelicans. There was a group of approx. a dozen brown pelicans that must have come across a large school of fish passing through the inlet. They began repeatedly diving and scooping out fish. It didn't last very long, and we went back to check several times over various days and only saw it that one time. The crazy angles & speed make it near impossible to fully observe with the naked eye. I wish I had shot a video or two of it. :-/

Here's another odd sequence - 4 consecutive frames.

20220507 PDM Z9, 800PF, Fl Vaca - Pelican Dive1-1021 by Phil McKinney, on Flickr

20220507 PDM Z9, 800PF, Fl Vaca - Pelican Dive2-1022 by Phil McKinney, on Flickr

20220507 PDM Z9, 800PF, Fl Vaca - Pelican Dive3-1023 by Phil McKinney, on Flickr

20220507 PDM Z9, 800PF, Fl Vaca - Pelican Dive4-1024 by Phil McKinney, on Flickr
 
Member's gallery
PhilM said:
Thanks Bruce.

You bring up a very interesting observation - one that I made as I've started processing our shots for this trip.

I suppose we may have experienced a "right place / right time" scenario with regard to the diving pelicans. There was a group of approx. a dozen brown pelicans that must have come across a large school of fish passing through the inlet. They began repeatedly diving and scooping out fish. It didn't last very long, and we went back to check several times over various days and only saw it that one time. The crazy angles & speed make it near impossible to fully observe with the naked eye. I wish I had shot a video or two of it. :-/

Here's another odd sequence - 4 consecutive frames.

20220507 PDM Z9, 800PF, Fl Vaca - Pelican Dive1-1021 by Phil McKinney, on Flickr

20220507 PDM Z9, 800PF, Fl Vaca - Pelican Dive2-1022 by Phil McKinney, on Flickr

20220507 PDM Z9, 800PF, Fl Vaca - Pelican Dive3-1023 by Phil McKinney, on Flickr

20220507 PDM Z9, 800PF, Fl Vaca - Pelican Dive4-1024 by Phil McKinney, on Flickr
Click to expand...
Those are such wonderfully crazy moves …. and one of the joys.. seeing nature in ways we’d miss in real time
 
Member's gallery
@Neil Laubenthal, I think you'll get more mileage out of the Z9 than the 800PF. It is a bit heavier than the Z7II, but it feels great in the hand with the 500PF and 100-400. The balance of weight makes it pleasant to shoot, and all it takes is a shoulder strap on the tripod mount to make the kit weightless in the field. I used to shoot a 6lbs telephoto kit with my Canon 7D and it was more fatiguing than the Z9+500PF, which weighs only slightly less. I think a big factor in handholding fatigue is how far away from your eye the center of mass is. I suspect you could hold a bowling ball close to your face for longer than you could hold a broom straight out, for example. Both the 100-400 and 500PF are great in this regard, being fairly short lenses.

@JAS, congrats on the Z9! I hope you love it!

@PhilM, those are outstanding, very nicely done! The weird angle on the pelican is very interesting. I also noticed the neck was turned quite a bit in the first sequence. Perhaps they were making corrections to get the fish, but can't adjust their bodies fast enough?
 
Member's gallery
Neil Laubenthal said:
Bryan and Chris…thanks for the thoughts. I'm going to go ahead and cancel mine for now as well…and will try and analyze over shooting outings whether it would be useful enough to carry or not. For me…carrying it means that I would only take either the 100-400 with TCs or the 500PF for weight while hiking reasons and at least since I got the 100-400 earlier in the year I have rarely used the 500PF. I've been carrying it on a dual BR strap with my old D7500 mostly and the only time I really used it was for a quick reaction BIF in flight shot of a Swallowtailed Kite because I couldn't get the Z7II/100-400 to lock focus. Probably 97% of my shots this year (SW FL) have been with the 100-400 on the Z7II with about 2/3 of those using the 1.4 TC and the remainder the bare lens. Used my 70-200/2.8 for about 10 shots total and the 500PF maybe 50…the remainder were with the 24-70. I really like that lens but am seriously considering also selling it in favor of the 24-120 so that for travel when I only want a single lens I've got a little broader focal length option. Looking forward to getting the Z9 for the better AF locked than the Z7II though…not real happy about the grip and associated weight and would rather have the Z8 or Z7III with the better sensor and processor but we have no idea when or if those are coming at this point…and I've essentially given up on any meaningful improvement to the AF in the Z7II…I know that a lot of the Z9 improvements are due to the faster sensor and processor…but Nikon really hasn't done much with the dual processors in the Z7II…that could be firmware space or CPU cycles or engineer cycles or a bunch of other things I suppose…but it is frustrating.
Click to expand...
I wasn’t going to get the 24-120mm because I liked the small and light 24-70mm but after seeing some of the 100-400mm reviews I decided to get the 24-120mm and 100-400mm for a great two lens combo that covers so much. I am really happy with that setup and think it is the best combo offered. I also haven’t been using the 500mm PF as much since getting the 100-400mm, but I need something over 400mm and don’t like shooting F/8 that much so will keep it for now.
 
Member's gallery
abc123brian said:
I wasn’t going to get the 24-120mm because I liked the small and light 24-70mm but after seeing some of the 100-400mm reviews I decided to get the 24-120mm and 100-400mm for a great two lens combo that covers so much. I am really happy with that setup and think it is the best combo offered.
Click to expand...
atm the 24-120 is attached if the 100-400 isn't. very nice little lens
 
Member's gallery
Chris K said:
@Neil Laubenthal, I think you'll get more mileage out of the Z9 than the 800PF. It is a bit heavier than the Z7II, but it feels great in the hand with the 500PF and 100-400. The balance of weight makes it pleasant to shoot, and all it takes is a shoulder strap on the tripod mount to make the kit weightless in the field. I used to shoot a 6lbs telephoto kit with my Canon 7D and it was more fatiguing than the Z9+500PF, which weighs only slightly less. I think a big factor in handholding fatigue is how far away from your eye the center of mass is. I suspect you could hold a bowling ball close to your face for longer than you could hold a broom straight out, for example. Both the 100-400 and 500PF are great in this regard, being fairly short lenses.
Click to expand...
Chris…thanks. That's about what I decided as well since the long lens would get used less than the body…part of my whole cost vs weight vs how much use calculation. Like you…I've found the 500Pf and 100-400…as well as the 70-200…very hand holdable since they're relatively short and the lens hand isn't that far in front of the body. With my former Tamron G2…it was much longer at 600mm and the weight was out farther so it was a pain to hand hold for long…but both the 500 and 100-400 are rarely on anything for support and a monopod is probably more than a tripod since it's less weight to schlep around with me on the hike.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top