Nikon Z 800 f6.3 S compared to F mount f 5.6 E version

[JetBlast]

Anybody out there had a chance to compare the new Z 800 f6.3 against the old F mount 800 f 5.6 E

I love my F mount version but being in my late sixties, I'm now finding it harder to man handle the beast around. Appart from being half the weight, will any difference in the IQ be noticeable.

Roy

 

[Squatch]

Anybody out there had a chance to compare the new Z 800 f6.3 against the old F mount 800 f 5.6 E

I love my F mount version but being in my late sixties, I'm now finding it harder to man handle the beast around. Appart from being half the weight, will any difference in the IQ be noticeable.

Roy

Disclaimer, right off the bat: I do not own, nor have I shot with either of these lenses.

That being said, the weight is indeed a huge factor. Every review of the 800PF that I’ve seen or read, the reviewer (including Steve himself) touts the fact that the 800PF is extremely “hand-holdable.” For an 800mm lens, that is incredible.

The 800PF is also an S-line Z-mount lens, so the optics and quality should be top-notch, much like the F-mount gold ring lenses vs. non-gold ring. The sample shots I’ve seen (including Steve’s preview videos of the 800PF) are absolutely stellar. I don’t imagine there would be any IQ issues with the PF at all.

Furthermore, in my opinion, 1/3 of a stop of light is a very, very small price to pay to save half the weight AND $10,000 in cost. Since you already own the 800 5.6, I don’t imagine the cost savings are as important to you, but you could easily sell the 800 5.6 (while it’s still worth a decent amount), and fully fund an 800PF and a Z9.

One issue I’ve read about, and somewhat experienced myself, going from a “standard” lens to a PF: the PF lenses tend to be a bit more susceptible to atmospheric distortions at greater distances, and I’m assuming that’s because of the design and physical properties of the phased Fresnel lens. Again, in my opinion, a small price to pay for the size and weight savings.

I previously owned the older 500mm f/4 G lens, and sold it to purchase the 500mm f/5.6 PF. I do not regret this decision one bit, I do not miss the 500 f/4 at all; I’m a “run and gun” shooter, I like to walk/hike and shoot whatever I may happen upon. I also sold all of my DSLRs almost a year ago, and have been shooting exclusively with a Z6II (I just bought a Z7II this past week, haven’t had a chance to go out with it yet). I also use a TC14EIII 98% of the time, so my 500PF is now essentially a 700mm f/8, but shooting with mirrorless cameras, the aperture doesn’t really affect the autofocus system accuracy much, if at all. The only things I have to pay more attention to now are making sure my subjects are well-lit, and making sure the backgrounds are far enough away to produce a pleasing bokeh to make the subject pop more. Incidentally, my current setup of Z6II, FTZ, TC, and 500PF weighs about 3.5 pounds less than my old 500mm f/4 alone. For my type of shooting, it is an absolute joy. No monopod or tripod, nothing cumbersome to carry around and set up, and a lot less missed shots, because I’m hand-holding and not fumbling around to try and quickly get into shooting positions…while the subject disappears while I’m doing so.


Just my 2¢ as an amateur enthusiast.

 

[John_DE]

I have never owned the 800/5.6, but I do own the 500/5.6 PF and the new Z-mount 800/6.3 PF. I'm in my 70's and I find the 800/6.3 almost as easy to carry on a BlackRapid type sling as the 500 PF with FTZ II on my Z9. Also, I can easily walk miles with the 800/6.3 and photograph without needing a monopod or tripod. The enclosed photographs are just for showing the lens and not intended as fine art... The Cardnal is the same photograph, one is just a tight crop. The Dragonfly was taken at very close to the lens minimum focus distance of 5 meters. All were taken hand-held.

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.

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

 

[Mufftrix]

Am glad you started this discussion as I am the opposite way around wanting the 800 f5.6

I have Just sold my 600 f4 FL as a friend wanted it and offered me a good price considering I had it from day one so 5 years old and had seen some action shall we say

While I appreciate the pf version I have not so far seen anything outstanding to sway me towards it besides the obvious weight advantage

I loved the 600 FL so the 800 with its dedicated TC if anything like as sharp would be an ideal upgrade and is actually available

I have ordered the pf 800 but it in lap of gods when it arrives and would love someone to do a comparison as you say with IQ and focus speed etc

 

[JetBlast]

I had the 600 f 4.0 E and upgraded to the 800 as I always seemed to need the extra reach !
It did take some time to get into the groove…and initially thought it wasn’t as sharp as the 600. Definitely revealing sloppy technique
Didn’t notice any slow down with the AF on the Z9 but it would occasionally get itself confused.
So…..Do I cancel the 800PF and keep the 5.6 Or wait for the PF and sell the 5.6 ?

 

[Mufftrix]

I had the 600 f 4.0 E and upgraded to the 800 as I always seemed to need the extra reach !
It did take some time to get into the groove…and initially thought it wasn’t as sharp as the 600. Definitely revealing sloppy technique
Didn’t notice any slow down with the AF on the Z9 but it would occasionally get itself confused.
So…..Do I cancel the 800PF and keep the 5.6 Or wait for the PF and sell the 5.6 ?

I think you are in a good position in that you can get the pf so have both and you will know first hand if it as sharp as your f5.6, rather than relying on other peoples opinions which may differ from what your idea of IQ etc is

That what I would do then sell f5.6 if the pf performance is good enough for what you need

 

[tigger4t]

I realise that this is an old thread but find myself with a similar dilemma.

Having just part-exchanged my D850 + Sigma 150-500 for a Z8 + Z 180-600 , I am in a quandary as whether to sell my Sigma 500mm f4 to fund a Z 800mm F6.3. The Sigma 500mm f4 gives me great low light shooting with part exchange values already at rock bottom in the UK while the Z 800 gives me less weight, longer reach and parting with a some more cash. I guess the ket differentiators for me are low light shooting (Sigma) versus longer reach (Nikon Z) but I find myself with a 50:50 decision either way.

Has anyone else had a similar dilemma and if so, how did you resolve it.

 

[DRwyoming]

Photography Life compares those two lenses in their 800mm PF review: https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-z-800mm-f-6-3-vr-s/3

The 800mm f/5.6 E lens is sharper as you’d expect given the price difference

 

[EricKlees]

The MTF charts will show the f5.6 to be marginally sharper, but I've seen shots side by side in person on a local PC side by side (my images with my 800f6.3 and sunshine i know with am 800f5.6) and in real world usage you will never tell the difference between the 2 lenses unless you see them side by side and cropped in 100% or more. The one place that was barely noticable was the far corners were sharper on the f5.6.

The only real difference is the 1/3 difference in the aperture and with the much shorter lens for the light to travel, the 800PF is as bright. Much like the 200-500 f5.6 and the 500f5.6 PF. Same aperture but my 500PF was bright with both at f5.6

 

[tigger4t]

The MTF charts will show the f5.6 to be marginally sharper, but I've seen shots side by side in person on a local PC side by side (my images with my 800f6.3 and sunshine i know with am 800f5.6) and in real world usage you will never tell the difference between the 2 lenses unless you see them side by side and cropped in 100% or more. The one place that was barely noticable was the far corners were sharper on the f5.6.

The only real difference is the 1/3 difference in the aperture and with the much shorter lens for the light to travel, the 800PF is as bright. Much like the 200-500 f5.6 and the 500f5.6 PF. Same aperture but my 500PF was bright with both at f5.6

Thanks for your input - my 500mm is a Sigma f4 Sport though not the Nikon PF so a one and a third stop difference. However with a 1.4 TC on the Sigma (which I use more and more) to make it f5.6 and closer in focal length I guess it comes down to weight, IQ and cost.

I find that one of the great things about this forum is that posts get me thinking more so many thanks.

 

[tigger4t]

Photography Life compares those two lenses in their 800mm PF review: https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-z-800mm-f-6-3-vr-s/3

The 800mm f/5.6 E lens is sharper as you’d expect given the price difference

Many thanks - I couldn't find much about a comparison with a 500 f4 +1.7 Tc that they mention in the intro though. Did I miss something?

Your reply and the review did remind me of a recent forum post about using the Z 180-600 with a TC which would be cheaper as I own the zoom but IQ would inevitably not compare with the 800 and it would be f9 versus f6.3 for the z800

 

[EricKlees]

Thanks for your input - my 500mm is a Sigma f4 Sport though not the Nikon PF so a one and a third stop difference. However with a 1.4 TC on the Sigma (which I use more and more) to make it f5.6 and closer in focal length I guess it comes down to weight, IQ and cost.

I find that one of the great things about this forum is that posts get me thinking more so many thanks.

I was using the 200-500 and 500pf as an example that because the 500pf is shorter, light had less distance to travel and at the same aperture the 500pf was almost 1/3 of a stop brighter then the longer 200-500. The same would better the 800f5.6 and the 800f6.3. the 800pf with both at f6.3 is brighter.

The weight is advantage 800pf. The IQ would be a push. The cost is severely in favor of the 800pf

 

[tigger4t]

I was using the 200-500 and 500pf as an example that because the 500pf is shorter, light had less distance to travel and at the same aperture the 500pf was almost 1/3 of a stop brighter then the longer 200-500. The same would better the 800f5.6 and the 800f6.3. the 800pf with both at f6.3 is brighter.

The weight is advantage 800pf. The IQ would be a push. The cost is severely in favor of the 800pf

Thanks for clarifying- I'm trying to get my head around that as it's not something I've heard before. So does that mean that the shorter PF lenses would allow you to use a faster shutter speed or lower ISO as they collect more light than their physically longer equivalents? I.e. because they are 'brighter'?

 

[Vincent_VdB]

Thanks for clarifying- I'm trying to get my head around that as it's not something I've heard before. So does that mean that the shorter PF lenses would allow you to use a faster shutter speed or lower ISO as they collect more light than their physically longer equivalents? I.e. because they are 'brighter'?

PF is the naming of Nikon for the technology to make lenses light & compact. If a lens is labelled as a f/5.6 should (!) you end of with the same aperature and ISO to get a picture that is equally exposed.

 

[Nimi]

PF is the naming of Nikon for the technology to make lenses light & compact. If a lens is labelled as a f/5.6 should (!) you end of with the same aperature and ISO to get a picture that is equally exposed.

Sort of. That would be true if they reported T stops. F stops, when comparing different lenses, correlate but not 1:1 with transmission. Simple experiment: plop two different lenses on, manual everything, identical settings, and see the difference in the exposure. Or Auto ISO and watch how it moves. In the modern Nikkors and Sonys I have, it's probably 1/2 stop variability.

 

[EricBowles]

I've got the 800mm PF. Image quality of the 800mm f/5.6 is slightly better - but not readily apparent without close examination. The 800mm lenses are optically sharper than any combination of 600mm lens + TC except the 600mm f/4 TC and various versions of the 600mm f/4. The 400mm f/2.8 + 2.0 TC is pretty good as well. The 600mm PF + 1.4 TC is close, but you're losing a stop of light and at f/9 which affects backgrounds and ISO/shutter speed. The 800mm f/5.6 requires a stout tripod and gimbal due to the size and weight. The PF version is quite portable and relatively easy to handhold or use with a monopod.

For me, the 800mm PF is a great lens for small birds, and just okay for wading birds and mammals. It can be a bit long for wading birds and mammals, so you end up with head shots and lack environmental shots where a 400mm or 600mm might work better. Your field craft is also a factor - if you struggle to approach the wildlife you photograph most often, the longer reach can be useful. I found it helps with jumpy subjects and lets you adequately approach without risk of spooking them.

 

[EricKlees]

Thanks for clarifying- I'm trying to get my head around that as it's not something I've heard before. So does that mean that the shorter PF lenses would allow you to use a faster shutter speed or lower ISO as they collect more light than their physically longer equivalents? I.e. because they are 'brighter'?

It's minimal but, not even a 1/3 of a stop

 

[fcotterill]

I realise that this is an old thread but find myself with a similar dilemma.

Having just part-exchanged my D850 + Sigma 150-500 for a Z8 + Z 180-600 , I am in a quandary as whether to sell my Sigma 500mm f4 to fund a Z 800mm F6.3. The Sigma 500mm f4 gives me great low light shooting with part exchange values already at rock bottom in the UK while the Z 800 gives me less weight, longer reach and parting with a some more cash. I guess the ket differentiators for me are low light shooting (Sigma) versus longer reach (Nikon Z) but I find myself with a 50:50 decision either way.

Has anyone else had a similar dilemma and if so, how did you resolve it.

I have both 800E and 800 PF, which are both excellent in their respective roles. If you're patient, there are Used copies 800 f5.6E available at much less than the RRP, but it depends mostly if you use a 800 handheld versus on support, and also often add a TC on the 800, particularly as the bespoke TC125 gives you a relatively fast 1000 f7.1

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

More about PhaseFresnel optics

Help me understand Nikkor Phase Fresnel elements (PF)

I have never owned or researched a Nikon PF lens. The rumored 600 PF lens has me interested in what that means now and for future lens development. The little research I have done seems to indicate PF allows smaller and lighter elements while maintaining quality. Since PF has only been around...

bcgforums.com

 

[EricBowles]

Thanks for clarifying- I'm trying to get my head around that as it's not something I've heard before. So does that mean that the shorter PF lenses would allow you to use a faster shutter speed or lower ISO as they collect more light than their physically longer equivalents? I.e. because they are 'brighter'?

The f.5.6 aperture made a lot more difference with a DSLR where you did not have AF if you added a 1.4 TC. At f/8 you have reasonable AF with the center area sensors, but none of those AF point were reliable at f/9. With mirrorless, it doesn't matter so f/6.3 lenses are fine, and even adding a 1.4 TC is a good option under the right circumstances.