fcotterill
Well-known member
Thanks
A most interesting summary of what was obviously a great experience (I visited Vancouver Island in mid 1990s but biodiversity science, no photography sadly).
The prominence of 800mm is interesting, particularly considering the previous recommendations by Brad Hill, who had discounted the value of this focal length along the Pacific NW coasts... But he's reversed his review - and he's a big fan now!
A most interesting summary of what was obviously a great experience (I visited Vancouver Island in mid 1990s but biodiversity science, no photography sadly).
The prominence of 800mm is interesting, particularly considering the previous recommendations by Brad Hill, who had discounted the value of this focal length along the Pacific NW coasts... But he's reversed his review - and he's a big fan now!
Comparisons: 800mm f5.6E FL and 800mm f6.3S PF Nikkors
Here follow a selection of images taken over the past several months with both lenses, with/without their respective teleconverters. I have built up a sizeable database since mid 2022, when time and conditions permitted. I took all these primarily with the aim of trying to define the...
bcgforums.com
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.]