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

[Nikondale]

I am optimistic that the 800 will be a positive addition to my use of the Z9 out in the Everglades. If the lens is as good as stated by those who had the opportunity to use a pre-production copy, will probably reduce my long lens arsenal. I am hoping to get an 800 soon.

 

[PhilM]

I am sorry if it is a repeated question (please direct me to the answer if so).
Have someone found 800PF replacement foot already? I am now using a long Arca-Swiss plate, but it would be nice to have a proper replacement food installed.

On the configuration side of things - I am using command ring for easy exposure compensation. It seems to work very well in concert with viewfinder histogram. I did not find any other assignable function useful.

I received a prototype foot from Hejnar Photo yesterday. I will be using it for several days and will then provide feedback. It currently has 1 x 1/4x20 threaded hole and 2 x QD holes for straps & such. I tested balance on a gimbal with the heaviest and lightest Z bodies I have a available (Z9 + 2xTC and Z50). I also verified balance with Z6II both with & w/o a grip, native, w/ 1.4xTC, and 2xTC. No balance or clearance issues whatsoever. I also verified clearance between the front of the foot and the hood when reversed - with and w/o cover.

These should be listed on their site soon. I have several of their feet on other lenses and have been very happy with fit, finish, function, and feel - 4 F's, HA! (http://www.hejnarphotostore.com/category-s/190.htm)

Pic below is an unfinished prototype, but should be very close, if not exact (only missing final polishing & anodizing).

1) Clearance between foot & backwards hood
2) Clearance between Z9 grip (no TC) and foot

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

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

 

[WBYonder]

I received a prototype foot from Hejnar Photo yesterday. I will be using it for several days and will then provide feedback. It currently has 1 x 1/4x20 threaded hole and 2 x QD holes for straps & such. I tested balance on a gimbal with the heaviest and lightest Z bodies I have a available (Z9 + 2xTC and Z50). I also verified balance with Z6II both with & w/o a grip, native, w/ 1.4xTC, and 2xTC. No balance or clearance issues whatsoever. I also verified clearance between the front of the foot and the hood when reversed - with and w/o cover.

These should be listed on their site soon. I have several of their feet on other lenses and have been very happy with fit, finish, function, and feel - 4 F's, HA! (http://www.hejnarphotostore.com/category-s/190.htm)

Pic below is an unfinished prototype, but should be very close, if not exact (only missing final polishing & anodizing).

1) Clearance between foot & backwards hood
2) Clearance between Z9 grip (no TC) and foot

View attachment 40558
View attachment 40559

Did you try balance with a Z6/Z7 sized camera? (Edit: Sorry, I re-read your post and see you tested with a Z6 II. Thanks for the information.)

 

[Tibor Hrnko]

I have taken the lens to an airshow for the first time yesterday. The weather was extreme +40 C (104 F) and direct sun with no clouds. On a grassy runway it created very unstable air.

The single most important take away from the situation is that 800 mm is a very long glass for such weather. It significantly impacted all pictures which were quite soft. Especially so for targets in distance, which was exactly the reason I use it for the airshows. As a result I am not able to comment on the sharpness yet. I have to wait for better weather. But one should be aware of the fact that the maximum focal length is not appropriate for all occasions as longer lens enhance the atmospheric disturbances.

It is very light lens indeed, easily handheld for a long time as Steve has mentioned in his video. That is a big bonus.

Due its weight the attached Arca-Swiss plate should be as long as possible on its back side, otherwise Z9 tends to unbalance it on gimbal. Consider it when buying a plate.

Included is a picture of a first Czech airplane replica (1912) :

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

 

[JDG Photo]

Does it have a programable focus ring like the Z 100-400mm lens?

 

[BorderBirder]

Does it have a programable focus ring like the Z 100-400mm lens?

Yes

 

[Calson]

A 800mm PF lens arrived today from Berger Bros. and it is a bit mind boggling in terms of size and weight. The 500mm PF was much the same where you needed to hold the lens to fully appreciate how compact it is. With the 800mm attached to a Z9 the Op/Tech neoprene camera strap is quite adequate for the load.

I attached a 140mm long plate to the foot using its 1/4" and 3/8" fasteners and was able to get a good position on a gimbal head for neutral balancing. With the 140mm plate I can adjust the lens position when adding a teleconverter to the setup.

The additional 40mm gain with the lens plate over using a third party foot works much better for most of the lenses and cameras I have owned. It may be why the lens makers let the buyers put on whatever length lens plate they need for the camera they will be using. $15 for a lens plate is not an issue. I need a different plate for video heads but that is another matter.

I would love it if Nikon would make a good lens bag for their lenses. The CL-L3 lens case that ships with the lens has only a single strap and no space for the lens with a body attached and no outer pocket that can hold a teleconverter or the Kirk SS-1 security strap. It is going to retail for $290 which is only $40 less than the far superior LowePro 600 AW III carry case. Product design of the lens cases is still a very low priority for Nikon.

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

 

[euanmax]

I would love it if Nikon would make a good lens bag for their lenses. The CL-L3 lens case that ships with the lens has only a single strap and no space for the lens with a body attached and no outer pocket that can hold a teleconverter or the Kirk SS-1 security strap. It is going to retail for $290 which is only $40 less than the far superior LowePro 600 AW III carry case. Product design of the lens cases is still a very low priority for Nikon.

I have this lens which comes with the CL-L3. I'm not sure if your case is somehow different but mine will comfortably fit the 800mm with the Z9 attached. I don't have either TC but I'd imagine it'd bit a tight fit with the 1.4TC. I do agree though about the single strap, it would be better if it had two.

 

[Snapshot2020]

I have this lens which comes with the CL-L3. I'm not sure if your case is somehow different but mine will comfortably fit the 800mm with the Z9 attached. I don't have either TC but I'd imagine it'd bit a tight fit with the 1.4TC. I do agree though about the single strap, it would be better if it had two.

Yes, agreed the CL-L3 supplied Bag with the 800PF will fit the Lens and the attached Z9. Plus the side Zippered Pockets will accommodate the 1.4 Z TC and a spare battery. IMO... and for my use the past 6 weeks the Bag works well. On the other hand.. the 100-400s supplied bag is useless...IMO

 

[Calson]

I have shoulder bags with a single shoulder strap and even with these I add a waist belt for stability. All my photo backpacks have two shoulder straps and most have outer pockets for a water bottle or small pair of binoculars. The LowePro Trekker lens case has two shoulder straps and a large outer pocket that is large enough to hold a couple of teleconverters. I can leave the camera and a 1.4x teleconverter on the lens (600mm f/4 or 800mm PF) when putting it in the Trekker lens case. I can arrive at a destination with the camera and TC and lens all set to go and no worries about windblown dirt while I assemble everything in the field.

This to me this is the bare minimum when laying out the design criteria for a new lens case for a super telephoto lens. Even having a clip mount for the strap and way to add a second strap without taking it to a shoe repair shop would be very helpful. Glad that I have the Trekker 600 AW that I bought for $182 in 2016 and it now sells for $330, a 75% price hike which is hard to swallow for something made in communist Vietnam.

The Ruggard Alpine 6000 lens case that B&H sells for $140 is what I would buy today for a 600mm or 800mm lens. Contrast the features of the Ruggard $140 case to that of the Nikon case that will sell for more than twice as much and you will get an idea as to how Nikon fell short of the mark.

 

[grossidm]

Anyone regret getting rid of their big 600s and 800s in favor of the 800pf only?

 

[padrepaul]

Anyone regret getting rid of their big 600s and 800s in favor of the 800pf only?

Nope, I've been loving it, no reduction in quality having owned the 800 5.6. The tough decision will be down the line when the 600 f4 is released; if and only if it has a built in 1.4TC, it would be very tempting to trade in for that though it'll be more expensive. Will be curious how much it weighs, but the 800 6.3 has been wonderful so far.

 

[arbitrage]

Anyone regret getting rid of their big 600s and 800s in favor of the 800pf only?

I don't have the 800PF and I don't have an 800 to get rid of. But I do shoot 600/4.

The way I see it is that I can't see any reason to not drop an 800E for this 800PF. The 1/3 stop loss is just so meaningless compared to all the other benefits you get from the reduced size/weight, native Z mount and use of Z TCs if needed which are arguably improved over F TCs.

Now I would have more issue dropping a 600/4 for this lens. I use a 600/4 at 600mm at least 75% of the time (probably more) and 840mm only 25% of the time (maybe less). So I would have a much harder time giving up a 600/4 for this lens. Especially a 600/4 in the weight class of current Sony/Canon versions...I'd have an easier time giving up a heavier 600E. But once the Z600/4 S hits the market then I'd be looking at that instead of this 800PF. Especially true if the 600S has built-in TC.

 

[agrumpyoldsod]

In about 2 weeks I will receive two prototype replacement feet for my Z800/6.3 PF and Z400/2.8TC from a firm in Italy -- it will be made from Carbon Fibre and connect to the lens via an Aluminium Alloy fitting (for strength and wear). If these are OK I anticipate they will market them shortly afterwards. A launch event/links will follow.
No I do not know what these will cost folk who did not work on the design or provide them with an original foot as a template AND yes it will be Arca-Swiss Compatible -- same as their replacement foot for the AF-S 400/600E-FL feet. It will be super light - certainly when compared to an original foot and bolt on plate. I will post what I can when I get mine.

 

[agrumpyoldsod]

I receive my Nikon Z 800mm f/6.3 S-line lens in April, the same day the 400mm/2.8TC arrived and since then the weather has been terrible on the days I could go out to shoot.
BUT - I did take a series of initial test shots at my local pond AND I shot a test target with every combination of bare lens and with both the ZTC14 and ZTC20 both at constant ISO and constant shutter speed -- so from 800/6.3 to 1,600mm f/13.0

Test Target shots taken with the 400 and 800 can be seen here (lots of shots at different settings - first image ISO 100 and 2nd using more typical settings)

A gallery of a few of the shots I took with the lens on a Z9 can be seen here.

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

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

 

[zule11]

Nikon’s Hand-holdable 400 2.8 & 800 6.3 Z Super Telephoto Lenses​

 

[Tibor Hrnko]

I have taken the lens to an airshow for the first time yesterday. The weather was extreme +40 C (104 F) and direct sun with no clouds. On a grassy runway it created very unstable air.

The single most important take away from the situation is that 800 mm is a very long glass for such weather. It significantly impacted all pictures which were quite soft.

I had second chance to test 800 mm on a hot day, and the effect of shimmering air was very much a problem for subjects further than hundred meters (300 ft). It may not be a problem for small bird that is relatively near if it is not on a hot sand, but it is something one should count with.
On the other hand if subject is near and background is far enough it can enhance the subject separation by blurring the background more than one would expect from F 6.3. I have not tested it though.

Other than that I have nothing to complain/comment. It works as intended.

 

[PhilM]

Thanks to someone on FM posting info on this, I ordered and received really nice lens cap for my 800PF from ZemlinPhoto. It's 3D printed and uses piano wire to spring load the retention surfaces. It operates just like the cap for 70-200, 100-400, 500PF, etc. - only bigger.

It can be installed/removed with the hood on, reversed, or removed.

This will make me feel a whole lot better about packing the lens in my roller bag and stowing in the overhead bin on a plane.

Having this one in hand, I am satisfied such that I'll order one for my 600F6 too.

Lens Caps for Nikon lenses | Zemlin Photo

www.zemlinphoto.com

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

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

 

[accessdenied]

I've been shooting the 800PF and 500PF side by side the last few days on my Z9.
I know shooting at 800mm is more challenging, compared to 500mm, but I'm finding the 800pf to be softer and slower to autofocus than my 500pf.

At the same minimum focus distance, both of these lenses have similar reproduction ratios - 500pf 0.18x // 800pf 0.16x.
If I can get close enough that both lenses are shooting roughly MFD at the same reproduction ratios, the 500pf beats the 800pf - this is my experience at least. I set up a tripod last night and got a few test shots but ended up getting destroyed by mosquitoes. I'd like to test these two lenses again in more depth, but figured it doesn't hurt to just ask the community here too ---

Has anyone else tested these two lenses at MFD with similar results?

At similar reproduction ratios, shooting at MFD, should we expect the 800pf to outperform the 500pf?
Or, is it reasonable that 500pf is the better performer there?

If anyone wants to see a particular test done, I'm willing to set something up and share the results here (to the best of my abilities, I'm not a tech reviewer kind of person). Also, I don't have any teleconverters, unfortunately so if you want to see that comparison I cannot help (unless someone wants to mail me a TC to test)

Cheers all

 

[Lassep]

I would love to see some controlled comparison images from those two lenses!

 

[accessdenied]

I would love to see some controlled comparison images from those two lenses!

I'll give it my best this weekend!
I'm not a gear tester and don't have any fancy gear for testing gear... But, I own a few very sturdy tripods and have a few measuring tapes laying around.

If there is anything in particular that you'd like to see, let me know!
As for testing AF speeds. I will wait for Steve to put out a video on that one! Without the focus window on the 800pf, I'm not sure how best to determine or compare AF speeds between the two lenses.

 

[ChrisM]

I'll give it my best this weekend!
I'm not a gear tester and don't have any fancy gear for testing gear... But, I own a few very sturdy tripods and have a few measuring tapes laying around.

If there is anything in particular that you'd like to see, let me know!
As for testing AF speeds. I will wait for Steve to put out a video on that one! Without the focus window on the 800pf, I'm not sure how best to determine or compare AF speeds between the two lenses.

To do a practically relevant and meaningful comparison regarding image sharpness, you could set the 800PF to f9, the 500PF to f5.6, photograph a subject from the exact same distance, and crop the 500PF shot to match the subject size in the full 800PF frame.
That will give you an idea of the benefit in the field of the 800PF.
Shorter lenses of comparable quality are always crisper and sharper when used to fill the frame with a subject than longer lenses, but the reason for longer lenses is reach when a shorter lens can not fill (enough of ) the frame.

 

[accessdenied]

To do a practically relevant and meaningful comparison regarding image sharpness, you could set the 800PF to f9, the 500PF to f5.6, photograph a subject from the exact same distance, and crop the 500PF shot to match the subject size in the full 800PF frame.
That will give you an idea of the benefit in the field of the 800PF.
Shorter lenses of comparable quality are always crisper and sharper when used to fill the frame with a subject than longer lenses, but the reason for longer lenses is reach when a shorter lens can not fill (enough of ) the frame.

Ok, I will give that a shot and post the results. Just need to find something appropriate to shoot inside since it's raining (and with enough artificial light to not introduce higher than desired ISO...)

You say that shorter lenses of comparable quality are always crisper and sharper when used to fill the frame... Why is that? Is that just an assumption that we need to test here? Or is there actually a correlation between image quality and focal length at repeatable reproduction rates?

 

[accessdenied]

Also, why is 800pf set to f/9 equivalent to 500pf at f/5.6 at the same distance, cropped to similar fields of view?
Is that because of the depth of field? I ran a quick calculator in PhotoPills and it looks like the depth of field of an 800mm at f/16 would be closer to 500mm at f/5.6.

All calculated at 15m subject distance:
500mm f/5.6 = 30cm depth of field
800mm f/9 = 18cm depth of field
800mm f/16 = 32cm depth of field

Is there another reason for testing 800pf at f/9 compared to the 500pf, other than depth of field?

 

[ChrisM]

Also, why is 800pf set to f/9 equivalent to 500pf at f/5.6 at the same distance, cropped to similar fields of view?
Is that because of the depth of field? I ran a quick calculator in PhotoPills and it looks like the depth of field of an 800mm at f/16 would be closer to 500mm at f/5.6.

All calculated at 15m subject distance:
500mm f/5.6 = 30cm depth of field
800mm f/9 = 18cm depth of field
800mm f/16 = 32cm depth of field

Is there another reason for testing 800pf at f/9 compared to the 500pf, other than depth of field?

View attachment 42547View attachment 42548View attachment 42549

You are right there is no DOF equivalence to the 500PF for the 800mm at f9 but at f16 diffraction should ruin the 800PF image rendering. F9 should bring rendering close, also regarding light gathering.
Your DOF comparison does illustrate how different these lenses are bound to render, which is why I have been hoping for a Z600mm f5.6 PF S lens myself.