I have not tried moon shots. I see there are several guides online but I was wondering what were your camera settings. May I ask you what they were? Do you usually shoot the moon low or high in the sky?
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).
I haven't shot it enough to say I have a norm. But I'm fundamentally lazy so I shoot it handheld and when I've done it seems to always work out to a reasonably comfortable angle. For settings I read somewhere once to simply use sunny 16 rule because the sun it being lit by clear sunlight and that's what you're shooting. In practice I find about a stop over sunny 16 is necessary. This was shot at 1/800, f6.3, ISO200 and I raised it half a stop in post. Also IMO shooting it on the quarters/crescents is more interesting than the full moon due to the angular lighting. And of course atmospheric conditions have a huge effect. So shooting right after passage of a cold front tends to give the clearest sky. And waiting a good while after sunset to there is less chance of thermal effects helps also.
Hope this helps.
MatthewK
Well-known member
After the last 2 months of shooting songbirds, I’m coming to the conclusion that this isn’t the best lens for this application. Too much reach, too distant MFD, it’s proving to be too much lens for closer up small subjects. Add to that, for whatever reason, I’m missing tons of easy shots due to the same old AF weaknesses that mirrorless exhibits: the propensity to completely miss a subject if it’s slightly OOF, and instead grab the background.
Maybe it’s because I just grew so accustomed to the 500PF, and getting closer to birds, that this nautical mile of MFD is just not jiving with how I shoot. I just don’t “see” in 800mm like I thought I did, I’m not a long range sniper.
Finally, I used to take the 500PF on regular family trips, it was so small and portable, I could be anywhere and bird. I don’t see this being realistic with the 800, and I miss that portability.
So, I’m adding the 400 4.5 + 1.4 TC to the lineup to see if it can take the place of my departed 500PF, and get me back on track with how I like to shoot. Seeing as Spring migration should be starting soon, it’ll be a great test to see if it, or the 800, turns in the winning performance.
Maybe it’s because I just grew so accustomed to the 500PF, and getting closer to birds, that this nautical mile of MFD is just not jiving with how I shoot. I just don’t “see” in 800mm like I thought I did, I’m not a long range sniper.
Finally, I used to take the 500PF on regular family trips, it was so small and portable, I could be anywhere and bird. I don’t see this being realistic with the 800, and I miss that portability.
So, I’m adding the 400 4.5 + 1.4 TC to the lineup to see if it can take the place of my departed 500PF, and get me back on track with how I like to shoot. Seeing as Spring migration should be starting soon, it’ll be a great test to see if it, or the 800, turns in the winning performance.
I've seem multiple posts here and elsewhere mentioning this as an issue. Are you shooting form a blind/hide? How/why so close? Certainly if that's a problem there's no need to struggle with any longer focal length than necessary.
What AF mode/area do you use. I don't think that's a lens specific issue.
It does indeed take some mental re-calibration to judge distances when setting up etc.
There's no getting around that. It's not a lens to haul along on casual outings.
Adjusting to 800mm is certainly not trivial. At the end of the day it boils down to whether it's the right tool for the job. We each have to define "right tool" for our given subjects/style.
I did a wildlife trip to Barkley Sound on Vancouver Island earlier this month. Used the Z 800 mm PF and Z 100-400 mm lenses for wildlife on a Z9 and Z7II. I also had a 500 mm PF and F and Z 1.4x TCs along, although I did not end up using them.
This was my first time traveling with the 800 mm PF. I carried the 800 mm PF in a Mindshift Backlight 36L (along with the two Z bodies, the 500 mm PF, the TCs, and a Z 24-120 lens). It fit in the overhead bin on the Air Canada Dash 8 two-engine turbo prop flight from Vancouver to Nanaimo. Hoped that this would be the case and was pleased by the result. Air Canada does not weigh carryons, at least on flights that I have been on, so that was not an issue. No issues — size or weight — on a regular jet (Delta) from Minneapolis to Vancouver.
Photography was from an ocean-going motorized sail boat and two zodiacs. We photographed birds (bald eagles; three types of cormorants; common, red-breasted and hooded mergansers; common loons; surf scoters; various gulls; Barrow’s and common golden-eyes; murres; pigeon guillemots; marbled murrelets; ….) and marine mammals (humpback whales, grey whales, sea lions (Stellar and California), harbor seals, and sea otters). All handheld. The 800 mm PF worked well in the zodiac. I had the Z 100-400 on a second body. The first day I had the 800 mm PF on the Z7II and the Z 100-400 mm on my Z9. But after that I switched to using the 800 mm on my Z9. Wish I had had two Z9s.
The Z 800 mm PF ended up as my most used lens, even for eagles, sea lions and seals. In some cases the marine mammals were close and I shifted to the Z 100-400 mm lens. Given waves, swell and wind, you tend to use higher shutter speeds in a zodiac. And when you have waves and a swell, it can make framing a shot with the 800 mm PF (or for that matter, other telephotos) difficult.
I was pretty sure that I would like the 800 mm focal length, as I tended to use my 500 mm PF more often than not with an F mount TC — usually the 1.4x TCIII, but also the 1.7x TCII and 2x TCIII.
I’ve used the Z 800 mm PF with the Z 1.4x TC for winter eagle photography along the Mississippi. Found it worked well. Plan to test the Z 800 mm with the Z 2x TC in the next few weeks at a nearby great blue heron rookery where there are limits to how close you can get. (Have previously used the 500 mm PF there with a TC.)
Not the lens for everyone or for every situation. But I am glad I have it.
[Fixed a typo.]
This was my first time traveling with the 800 mm PF. I carried the 800 mm PF in a Mindshift Backlight 36L (along with the two Z bodies, the 500 mm PF, the TCs, and a Z 24-120 lens). It fit in the overhead bin on the Air Canada Dash 8 two-engine turbo prop flight from Vancouver to Nanaimo. Hoped that this would be the case and was pleased by the result. Air Canada does not weigh carryons, at least on flights that I have been on, so that was not an issue. No issues — size or weight — on a regular jet (Delta) from Minneapolis to Vancouver.
Photography was from an ocean-going motorized sail boat and two zodiacs. We photographed birds (bald eagles; three types of cormorants; common, red-breasted and hooded mergansers; common loons; surf scoters; various gulls; Barrow’s and common golden-eyes; murres; pigeon guillemots; marbled murrelets; ….) and marine mammals (humpback whales, grey whales, sea lions (Stellar and California), harbor seals, and sea otters). All handheld. The 800 mm PF worked well in the zodiac. I had the Z 100-400 on a second body. The first day I had the 800 mm PF on the Z7II and the Z 100-400 mm on my Z9. But after that I switched to using the 800 mm on my Z9. Wish I had had two Z9s.
The Z 800 mm PF ended up as my most used lens, even for eagles, sea lions and seals. In some cases the marine mammals were close and I shifted to the Z 100-400 mm lens. Given waves, swell and wind, you tend to use higher shutter speeds in a zodiac. And when you have waves and a swell, it can make framing a shot with the 800 mm PF (or for that matter, other telephotos) difficult.
I was pretty sure that I would like the 800 mm focal length, as I tended to use my 500 mm PF more often than not with an F mount TC — usually the 1.4x TCIII, but also the 1.7x TCII and 2x TCIII.
I’ve used the Z 800 mm PF with the Z 1.4x TC for winter eagle photography along the Mississippi. Found it worked well. Plan to test the Z 800 mm with the Z 2x TC in the next few weeks at a nearby great blue heron rookery where there are limits to how close you can get. (Have previously used the 500 mm PF there with a TC.)
Not the lens for everyone or for every situation. But I am glad I have it.
[Fixed a typo.]
Last edited:
I’m going to Svalbard in July. I’m wondering about just using my z70-200 or rentInag the z400 f4.5. I think the 809 might be too long, I think seals and polar bears. Arctic birds maybe,
MatthewK
Well-known member
So it’s not too often I’m shooting massively long distances, more often than not I’m in the woods on a path, at the edge of the woods in, or along a stream. Generally, scope out an area and see if there’s any activity, and then try to hide nearby (behind a tree, bush, etc) and wait for birds to happen by. Think: a boardwalk in a swamp/marsh, or a wooded path along a stream (Magee Marsh comes to mind exactly: warblers in woods, close up).
Songbirds, like warblers, vireos, kinglets, etc, are what I’m going for, and they mostly exist in brushy, branchy environs, which makes it a challenge for the mirrorless AF. I think perhaps the thin DOF of the 800 exacerbates the issue even more.
I can def see it being the best lens for stationary, known distance shooting, but for walk around chance encounter type stuff, it’s proving to be too unwieldy. Where I see it fitting in for me, is if I find a hot spot, and then return knowing that the lens can be effectively put to use. It’s a learning experience, for sure, just thought that being familiar with the D500+500PF it wouldn’t have been this challenging.
Polar bears are big, but the question is how close they will be and what other subjects might you see that are smaller (e.g., Arctic foxes).
I was at Seal River Heritage Lodge on Hudson Bay north of Churchill last November. We photographed polar bears, Arctic foxes, red foxes, ptarmigan, ermine, snow buntings, Northern Lights and scenics of Hudson Bay. For telephotos, I brought my Z 100-400 and 500 mm PF, along with the Z and F 1.4x TCs. I carried two bodies — the Z 100-400 on a Z9 (with or without a TC, depending on light levels) and the 500 mm PF on a Z7II (with or without a TC depending on light levels). We photographed from protected areas on the lodge grounds and on guided hikes near the lodge. While hiking, we encountered adult polar bears as close as 25 feet. They are huge at that distance and I used the Z 100-400 for those shots and was glad to be able to zoom out wider. At other times the bears were farther away and I used the 500 mm PF and TC — I remember a couple of sparring matches between bears at a distance where I used the 500 mm PF plus 1.4x TCIII and still cropped the images.
I also took a lot of photos of Arctic foxes and ptarmigan. They are much smaller than polar bears, even when they were closer, so many (although not all) of those photos were with the 500 mm PF and often a TC.
If I went back to Seal River, I would bring the 800 mm PF, at least if I could get it there given weight and space limits. I think it would be useful if I could get it there. The trip leader recommended against my bringing the Z 800 mm PF. But he had a Canon 600 mm f4 along (and used it) that was larger and heavier than the 800 mm PF and he used a 1.4x TC with it at times.
Your Z 70-200 with a Z 2x TC will be pretty close to the Z 100-400, although with the Z 100-400, you can go to 140-560 with the Z 1.4x TC (which I did frequently). If you rent the Z 400 f4.5, you can add the Z 1.4x TC and have 560 mm f6.3 or the 2x Z TC and have an 800 mm f9. I don’t have this lens, but Thom Hogan has noted that this is a very useable way to get 800 mm. And relatively small and light.
I do not know how close you will get to polar bears and other smaller subjects in Svalbard and how often you will be close versus farther way. I also do not know what weight and space limits you have to deal with. Your trip leaders may have some information on this. But I would certainly expect that focal lengths of 400 mm and more would be useful. I’m going to Greenland in the fall and we may see polar bears, walruses, and other creatures. While I have not discussed it with the trip leader yet, I am thinking I will bring the Z 800 mm PF. For various reasons, we will not have particularly tight weight and space limits on the trip.
If you were to rent a Z 800 mm PF or a Z 400 f4.5 with a Z 2x TC to get to 800 mm, I’d recommend getting it a bit early to do some practice at 800 mm before the trip.
thank you!
As with DSLRs it's a challenge for some AF modes. For perched/stationary birds I have the DISP button(Z9) programmed to custom area AF set up as a single point. Then I'll have WA small or large(depending on situation) set to activate with the AF-ON button. If there are issues with obstructions etc I'll hit the DISP button until I get AF lock then switch to the AF-ON button and let the eye detection do its thing. It works well and is very quick.
If DOF with the 800 seems flatter/narrower then you must be cropping a good bit when using the 500. For a given f stop if the subject fills the frame the DOF is the same regardless of focal length. So if you fill the frame with the subject when shooting the 500pf wide open at f5.6 then DOF is actually slightly flatter/narrower than the same field of view with the 800 6.3.
Of course the 800, relatively small/light though it is, can't compete with either the 500PF or 400 4.5 for mobility/ease of use. Life is full of compromises.
Last edited:
fcotterill
Well-known member
I rely on a similar Custom setup. CA1*1+AFOn is set on Fn2. If the AF discombobulates (rarely these days, at least on my subjects), focus-peaking is the great enabler to get back on the subject, or AF Recall on the Lens-Fn buttons. As mentioned a few times on BCG, the Custom Group Area 1*1 is excellent, and I've been relying on it soon after FW 2.0 arrived.
I find the Z9 S-R has improved significantly in Firmware v3.0. Nikon has clearly continued intensive training of the Deeplearning algorithms undergirding the Subject-Recognition....their supercomputing clusters must have been burning barrels of the proverbial midnight oil for months last year, crunching Bayesian priors etc. The field of shape recognition models in Deeplearning is very active in inventing new statistical solutions to teach software "identity subspaces", which account for shape variation (important in face recogntion software). Obviously, biodiversity is rich in such challenges: pertinently the morphologies of the vertebrate eye!
Anyways, however Nikon's achieved this, their S-R is definitely become much stickier, and impressively so (not that there was much wrong with SR in most cases, previously IME.) So much so, I recently dropped assigning Subject-Recognition ON/OFF option in Recall Shooting Functions (RSF) Hold. Like my D6, it's now set in a better role for unexpected action surprises.
These examples are screen grabs from NXStudio - to show the AF point. All taken this morning with the 800 PF. These Little Rush Warblers are extremely furtive. They typically call deep within reedbeds, but this chap is enjoying the sun after much rain: preening and warming up.
Subject distance is close to the MFD, within 8m
Subject distance is approx. 8m
I find the Z9 S-R has improved significantly in Firmware v3.0. Nikon has clearly continued intensive training of the Deeplearning algorithms undergirding the Subject-Recognition....their supercomputing clusters must have been burning barrels of the proverbial midnight oil for months last year, crunching Bayesian priors etc. The field of shape recognition models in Deeplearning is very active in inventing new statistical solutions to teach software "identity subspaces", which account for shape variation (important in face recogntion software). Obviously, biodiversity is rich in such challenges: pertinently the morphologies of the vertebrate eye!
Anyways, however Nikon's achieved this, their S-R is definitely become much stickier, and impressively so (not that there was much wrong with SR in most cases, previously IME.) So much so, I recently dropped assigning Subject-Recognition ON/OFF option in Recall Shooting Functions (RSF) Hold. Like my D6, it's now set in a better role for unexpected action surprises.
These examples are screen grabs from NXStudio - to show the AF point. All taken this morning with the 800 PF. These Little Rush Warblers are extremely furtive. They typically call deep within reedbeds, but this chap is enjoying the sun after much rain: preening and warming up.
Subject distance is close to the MFD, within 8m
Subject distance is approx. 8m
800mm as a closeup lens.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
MatthewK
Well-known member
AF setup is generally the same: Custom 1x1 set to AF-On, Single Point set to Fn1, and 3D set to Shutter Release. Also have Dynamic Small set to Fn2, so all sorts of AF cases to get me out of AF “discombobulations”, which with this lens/body is a regular occurrence. Like I mentioned, once the focus plane is generally in the neighborhood of the bird, there’s no problem, the setup is amazing, but anytime I’m dealing with a “blob” of OOF bird, this thing fails like crazy. It’s a let down that I have to hope and pray every time that the camera will decide to do what I want.
I’ve resorted to twisting the MF ring back to MFD prior to every single AF attempt, and guess I will need to start incorporating the focus distance recall button into the workflow. This puts a damper on an otherwise marvelous set of camera gear.
I’ve resorted to twisting the MF ring back to MFD prior to every single AF attempt, and guess I will need to start incorporating the focus distance recall button into the workflow. This puts a damper on an otherwise marvelous set of camera gear.
MatthewK
Well-known member
Exactly the sort of environs I’m shooting in, and once the AF can see the bird, it works flawlessly, able to pick out bird eyes and stick to it like a vice. Trying to get the AF into the bird in the first place, is the challenge. My D500 was so much better at this than every ML camera I’ve tried.
fcotterill
Well-known member
I'm trying to think what else could be your problem, as IME the 800 PF is excellent (at subject distances beyond the MFD, obviously). The tighter FoV can make it a struggle sometimes to find and frame the subject (!), which is why I rely on 'Two-Eyed Shooting'.
For small brown birds in clutter, I do not find a significant difference between the 500 PF on D6 and Z9, except the Z9 eye recognition has a higher hit rate. I will have to recheck this as it's now some weeks back I deliberately compared the two cameras on the same lens.
On a DSLR, in clutter (reeds, brush) I use single-point in the DSLR, and the D6 also has Custom Area Group although this cannot be 1*1, so I use 5*1 or 7*1 Vertical in tandem with Single-Point. Otherwise, Group AF mode should work fairly well on a D500 or D850.
EDIT: Having re-read your reply, the solution with the MILC is to have a Preset focus (Memory Recall on the 500 PF) at ~10-15 m (or leverage the focus peaking with MF), this should help render out-of-focus Blobs that much more legible to the on-sensor AF. Obviously, the DSLRs have their advantage of Cross-Type focus points, which cover a high percentage of the OVF in the D500, and the D6 AF engine has a full house.
For small brown birds in clutter, I do not find a significant difference between the 500 PF on D6 and Z9, except the Z9 eye recognition has a higher hit rate. I will have to recheck this as it's now some weeks back I deliberately compared the two cameras on the same lens.
On a DSLR, in clutter (reeds, brush) I use single-point in the DSLR, and the D6 also has Custom Area Group although this cannot be 1*1, so I use 5*1 or 7*1 Vertical in tandem with Single-Point. Otherwise, Group AF mode should work fairly well on a D500 or D850.
EDIT: Having re-read your reply, the solution with the MILC is to have a Preset focus (Memory Recall on the 500 PF) at ~10-15 m (or leverage the focus peaking with MF), this should help render out-of-focus Blobs that much more legible to the on-sensor AF. Obviously, the DSLRs have their advantage of Cross-Type focus points, which cover a high percentage of the OVF in the D500, and the D6 AF engine has a full house.
Last edited:
One thing that does seem to be different with DSLR is that in these situations when focus place is so far out that everything is just a blur the DSLR would run focus from near to far stop of the lens back and forth searching. The Z9 doesn't do this. It must be programmed to do nothing when there is no discernable contrast across the sensor. In those cases I will tap the AF-ON button which works most times. But failing that yes the only solution is manual override to "wake it up". It doesn't happen often buy I'm only occasionally shooting those situations close to MFD.
MatthewK
Well-known member
I should get an Atomos to record it so I don't have to keep failing at trying to describe it haha. This isn't an issue w/ just the Z9, it's been the challenge w/ ML AF from the beginning; it's definitely better than the first ML camera I tried (EOS R), but it's disappointing to see that it's still affecting the cutting edge systems available today. I guess the question is: is it something I can overcome and live with, or would it just be easier to revert back to a DSLR until the day comes when the problem is fixed? Hard to give up all the amazing tech like Subject Detect & Eye AF and silent shooting.
I'd love to have tried a D6, the pinnacle of DSLR AF. If my experiment w/ the 400 4.5 doesn't yield any better results, I think I just might...
That's what I'm suspecting is at play, along w/ the super thin DOF you deal w/ at 800mm. Might be something we'll just have to live with and be aware of when encountering these types of situations. Again, it wasn't nearly as bad w/ the adapted 500PF, so I'm really hoping the 400 4.5 doesn't exhibit it as bad either.
fcotterill
Well-known member
sorry, I was editing my latest, when you replied!
As added.... the solution with the MILC is to have a Preset focus (Memory Recall on the 500 PF) at ~10-15 m (or leverage the focus peaking with MF), this should help render out-of-focus Blobs that much more legible to the on-sensor AF. Usually I find CA 1*1 works well provided the lens is pre focused in the vicinity of the action - and one can also setup to toggle to a Vertical CA5*1 in the Z9, which may help somewhat with grabbing in the vertical dimension.
Obviously, the DSLRs have their advantage of Cross-Type focus points, which cover a high percentage of the OVF in the D500, and the D6 AF engine has a full house.
Postscipt: Compared to the Z7 and Z6, the hybrid focus setup, which Nikon has since permitted use to customize on our Z9's gives huge advantages. Sad how they have persistently failed to update the firmware the former cameras; this failure is the main reason why I traded in my Z7 mid 2020 (.....Nikon caught me out once with their mediocrity and nanny policy of permissible custom sett'ngs - never again). It's great Thom Hogan continues to buzz Tokyo on this problem, for which there's a simple fix circa that was possible probably in early 2019. It would have solved many frustrations, bad press by solving many AF challenges. to quote: "It's the fact that Nikon took away control opportunities on all the cameras except the Z9 (e.g. AF-ON+AF Area change assigned to a button). We need a dedicated focus mode button and we need the function key assignments back and I'd be happy"
Last edited:
MatthewK
Well-known member
Nikon mentions in their firmware releases that they're working on the AF not sticking to the background, so it tells me that at least they're aware of it at least. Guessing that someday this problem will be overcome with the "Gen 2" set of sensors, which will fuel the next upgrade craze 
Anyway, I won't go on about this anymore, just wanted to bring it to the forum's attention that there are potential challenges associated w/ this setup, in certain situations. I'm not complaining, just trying to wrap my head around what adjustments I need to make, and see if anyone had any insights that could aid in that.
Anyway, I won't go on about this anymore, just wanted to bring it to the forum's attention that there are potential challenges associated w/ this setup, in certain situations. I'm not complaining, just trying to wrap my head around what adjustments I need to make, and see if anyone had any insights that could aid in that.
thelordofthelight
Well-known member
May be it could also be due to the fact that mirrorless cameras do not (yet) have cross type sensors for AF.
For the benefit of others who may read this thread I'll point out again that when viewing the subject the same size in the viewfinder(IOW the same field of view) and shooting the same f-stop the DOF will be the same regardless of focal length. If comparing the Z9/800mm to D500/500mm then yes there is a difference due to the crop factor.
Adjusting distance to keep subject the same size in the VF:
Z9/800mm f6.3 at 16ft, DOF = 3/8in(9mm)
Z9/500mm f6.3 at 10ft, DOF = 3/8in(9mm)
D500/500mm f6.3 at 15ft, DOF = 3/4in(19mm)
Z9/DX mode/500mm f6.3 at 15ft, DOF = 3/4in(19mm)
MatthewK
Well-known member
That makes sense, but let's say I'm stationary w/ both lenses, and a bird lands 20 feet away, the 800 is going to have shallower DOF than the 500PF, right? Generally, birds have a certain safe-distance they keep from you, so most of the time I'm not able to get the bird the same size in the VF.
Z9/500mm f/5.6 at 20ft, DOF = 1.8"
Z9/800mm f/6.3 at 20ft, DOF = 3/4"
I've no idea if this DOF discussion is contributing to the AF foibles or not. Thinking about it over the past few weeks, what I can conclude (obviously) is that whichever works best for the shooter, is the one you go with, and in my particular case, 800mm just isn't working out like I thought it would, and I'll need to make adjustments to how I go about employing it in my pursuits.
Z9/500mm f/5.6 at 20ft, DOF = 1.8"
Z9/800mm f/6.3 at 20ft, DOF = 3/4"
I've no idea if this DOF discussion is contributing to the AF foibles or not. Thinking about it over the past few weeks, what I can conclude (obviously) is that whichever works best for the shooter, is the one you go with, and in my particular case, 800mm just isn't working out like I thought it would, and I'll need to make adjustments to how I go about employing it in my pursuits.
ChrisM
Well-known member
To be honest, as much as I applaud Nikon for making the 800PF, as you may know I never was after an 800mm lens, but much more a 600mm lens. 800mm is, well, complicated. It can no doubt produce great images, but there is something about 800mm that makes me feel I would only use it with special intent.
I just got the 1.4TC for the Sony 600GM, but I pondered whether to get it at all. I did in the end for the small songbirds at spring migration, singing in distant shrubs, and flying off as soon as you get within 60ft.
I wished for a Nikon 600mm f5.6PF for years, but instead they gave us 800mm. I would be shooting Nikon 100% if a Z600mm f5.6PF would have materialized, simply because 600mm is my focal length. Many small reasons leading up to that. 500mm always felt short. Also, f5.6 has always been something of a limit for AF to truly work responsively and reliably in many scenarios.
Regarding your struggle with AF: when I close down the Sony 600mm to f6.3, AF also starts to lose the magic that it has at f4-f5
I know mirrorless AF is a different concept, but it is still Phase AF, and the larger the aperture, the better it works.
Perhaps Nikon should still add a Z600mm f5.6 to their line up, it would truly make it "complete" for birding/wildlife at least.
On a side note: the Z400/4.5 with the 1.4TC added may well be a genuinely good solution for you as you liked the 500PF so much.
Last edited:
fcotterill
Well-known member
Biodiversity presents in an almost infinite range of size but also habits and other behaviours, including interspecific interactions; there are incredible trends and differences between regions ie biomes, let alone continents....
Personal needs and applications of photographic gear vary correspondingly. 300mm is ideal in some sites /species, or elsewhere a 800 still needs a TC
Chart comparing subject distances to magnification
It’s never enough! (or is it?)
I was thinking yesterday while out my rig how I couldn’t believe I used to shoot wildlife including BIF with a 300mm lens. About how I then moved to a 500mm (which felt like the holy grail) and now shoot with 600mm on which I often use a 1.4TC. And how even now I often wind up too far away...
bcgforums.com
Cross-Type sensors are the dominant factor that determine AF reliability, although MILC autofocus systems are much less constrained by the f5.6/f8 restrictions compared to DSLR AF.
Nikon 2018 patents registered before launch of the 500 PF also include a 400 and 600 versions. All f5.6.
Recently, they submitted a new 600 f5.6 PF patent. If it is going to happen, Nikon are probably waiting for demand to slacken off for the 800 PF ie 2024. A 600 f5.6 PF is sure to stir up another feeding frenzy
Last edited:
I have purchased this lens. The light weight makes it eminently hand holdable. It takes the the Z 1.4 TC well, which gives a remarkable 1120mm at F/9. The one drawback is the bokeh. While Steve says it is good, it is not great and, of course, not as good as the 600mm F/4 PF. Overall, I am quite pleased, and it has become my go to for walking around and looking for little birds.