Sony 400-800mm vs Nikon 800mm PF

[apakett]

For the lenses discussed here there is no advantage to ultra high pixel density sensors. At 46 MP lens diffraction starts at about f/5.6 and dominates by f/8. More pixels just adds redundancy. Also, for birds in flight, noise is going to limit achievable resolution. Noise reduction works but reduces detail.

The ideal lens for photographing birds is the Nikon 600 f/4 TC. Flip a switch and you have 840 mm f/5.6 with plenty of room to crop. That lens is obviously heavy, expensive, and not one that I plan to purchase (maybe rent).

 

[macwalter]

I would tend to agree but it is one that I can only imagine. Not for me.

 

[John Navitsky]

i haven’t been following the 400-800mm f/8 as it isn’t particularly interesting to me, but even at f/8, i would assume weight is going to be a significant factor i would consider

the nikon 400 4.5 has changed the way i think about long glass. light, sharp glass is a revelation, and i’m not going back

 

[seancrockett]

I am new to the forum but have been into wildlife photography, mostly birds, for a while. Originally, I was a Nikon DSLR user, then a Sony Mirrorless user, and since the Z8, I started migrating to Nikon Z for most of my photography needs.

For birding in my area, reach usually becomes the issue, and I have stuck with my Sony 200-600mm + TC 1.4 on my Sony a7rIV. I was strongly considering getting the Nikon 800mm f6.3 PF, but one thing that held me back was the 30% increase in resolution the a7rIV has over the Z8.

Now, with Sony anoucing the 400-800mm, I am more confused about which way to go. The way I see it:

The 200-600mm f6.3 gets me:
200-600mm f6.3
+ TC 1.4x 280-840mm f9
+ TC 2x 400-1,200 f13

The 400-800mm f8 gets me:
400-800 f8
+ TC 1.4x 560-1,120 f11
+ TC 2x 800-1,600mm f16

The 800mm f6.3 PF gets me:
800mm f6.3
+ TC 1.4x 1,120mm f9
+ TC 2x 1,600mm f13

Based on my experience with the TC 2x on the 200-600mm at f13, I am not sure the TC 2x on the 400-800mm at f16 will be useful for much outside of video. So I feel that for max optical reach, the 800mm PF wins. Also, in lower light, the 800mm PF wins being 2/3 of a stop faster, but the Sony 400-800mm has the ability to zoom, which is very convenient. The Sony will also have the camera resolution advantage for cropping. I wish Sony allowed Sigma to make TCs for the 300-600mm f4 because that sounds like the perfect wildlife lens for me if it supported TCs.

I know the 400-800mm is not out yet, but based on what we know so far, which lens would you go for the Sony 400-800mm f8 or the Nikon 800mm PF f6.3?

I have never shot Sony, which is an important disclaimer. About two years ago I was shooting vultures in Bulgaria from a blind. I had two Z9s, each mounted to a tripod, one with the 400mm f/2.8 tc, and one with the 100-400mm f/4.5-5, which is a well-regarded lens. In the early morning I was only using the f/2.8, but when there was sufficient light to catch action, I was using both lenses at f/5.6 (or even a bit narrower) to catch "battle shots" with wings spread, mostly at 400mm with both lenses, occasionally a bit shorter with the zoom. I was shocked at how much I disliked my photos from the zoom lens relative to my prime, I've barely used it since except for shore birds in flight and large mammals. I love the 24-120mm and 14-30mm lenses, and I use the former for wildlife from time to time, but when you get above 200mm, I stick to primes.



I have used the 800mm f/6.3 pf extensively, and it is a fantastic lens. It renders a photo in most conditions as well as the 400mm f/2.8 or 600mm f/4 with the tc engaged, though if you can fill the frame without the tc, the primes are exquisite and the 800mm is a notch below, though still publishable quality. The 800mm struggles a bit with intense highlights. So if you're shooting waterfowl at sunrise/sunset, the highlights on the water can get mushy, whereas with the 400 f/2.8 or 600 f/4, you have a ton of flexibility in post on those highlights. And as others have mentioned, you can also get stuck with the long minimum focus distance for small birds. For example, I just can't get close enough to a perched Costa's Hummingbird with the 800mm to come anywhere close to filling the frame. But if you're shooting wildlife from warbler-size on up, and if you are shooting in overcast or shadow conditions (but not rainforest dark), the 800mm takes an incredibly good photo, gorgeous colors, much better than the 100-400mm zoom in my opinion. It pairs reasonably well with the 1.4x tc, though to be honest I don't notice a significant sharpness difference between a cropped photo at 800mm vs. the full frame at 1120mm when shooting hand-held (I almost seldom shoot on a tripod, and haven't compared them in that case).

 

[Anjin San]

I am new to the forum but have been into wildlife photography, mostly birds, for a while. Originally, I was a Nikon DSLR user, then a Sony Mirrorless user, and since the Z8, I started migrating to Nikon Z for most of my photography needs.

For birding in my area, reach usually becomes the issue, and I have stuck with my Sony 200-600mm + TC 1.4 on my Sony a7rIV. I was strongly considering getting the Nikon 800mm f6.3 PF, but one thing that held me back was the 30% increase in resolution the a7rIV has over the Z8.

Now, with Sony anoucing the 400-800mm, I am more confused about which way to go. The way I see it:

The 200-600mm f6.3 gets me:
200-600mm f6.3
+ TC 1.4x 280-840mm f9
+ TC 2x 400-1,200 f13

The 400-800mm f8 gets me:
400-800 f8
+ TC 1.4x 560-1,120 f11
+ TC 2x 800-1,600mm f16

The 800mm f6.3 PF gets me:
800mm f6.3
+ TC 1.4x 1,120mm f9
+ TC 2x 1,600mm f13

Based on my experience with the TC 2x on the 200-600mm at f13, I am not sure the TC 2x on the 400-800mm at f16 will be useful for much outside of video. So I feel that for max optical reach, the 800mm PF wins. Also, in lower light, the 800mm PF wins being 2/3 of a stop faster, but the Sony 400-800mm has the ability to zoom, which is very convenient. The Sony will also have the camera resolution advantage for cropping. I wish Sony allowed Sigma to make TCs for the 300-600mm f4 because that sounds like the perfect wildlife lens for me if it supported TCs.

I know the 400-800mm is not out yet, but based on what we know so far, which lens would you go for the Sony 400-800mm f8 or the Nikon 800mm PF f6.3?

Really depends on whether one is a Sony or Nikon shooter. Switching brands is costly and overall I think that even Steve would free that here in March 25 Nikon has the best overall wildlife lens group. That said…if I was a Sony shooter I would have to seriously consider this lens…but I’m not. The 600PF and 100-400 or the 180-600 depending on the day are optimum for me. The vendors keep leapfrogging each other in both bodies and lenses…but Nikon is currently ahead on lenses…and there are precious few of us who can actually take advantage of the ‘better today in whatever’…so my suggestion is to remember how much better any brand is than in the DSLR days 5-10 years ago and just not worry about it. Muscle memory and knowing how the menus work means a lot…and unless there is a specific feature or lens that will make you more money there isn’t really any good reason to change horses now.

 

[apakett]

Really depends on whether one is a Sony or Nikon shooter. Switching brands is costly and overall I think that even Steve would free that here in March 25 Nikon has the best overall wildlife lens group. That said…if I was a Sony shooter I would have to seriously consider this lens…but I’m not. The 600PF and 100-400 or the 180-600 depending on the day are optimum for me. The vendors keep leapfrogging each other in both bodies and lenses…but Nikon is currently ahead on lenses…and there are precious few of us who can actually take advantage of the ‘better today in whatever’…so my suggestion is to remember how much better any brand is than in the DSLR days 5-10 years ago and just not worry about it. Muscle memory and knowing how the menus work means a lot…and unless there is a specific feature or lens that will make you more money there isn’t really any good reason to change horses now.

It is easy to get caught up in what is the best system at the moment. I just spoke to someone who was a Nikon shooter. His friend showed him a Sony, convincing him that Sony focuses better than Nikon. He sold all of his Nikon F gear for Sony. He then discovered that Sony would not focus well on cars. He was a commercial race-car shooter. Everything Sony got sold for Cannon.

 

[EricBowles]

Minimum focus distance only makes a difference on a few lenses. In most cases the magnification at minimum focus distance is around 1:6.5 and any differences insignificant. If there is an edge, it's when you back up 10 feet from minimum focus distance, and in those cases the longer focal length normally has more magnification.

With zooms it's harder to tell what you are getting. The minimum focus distance is usually at the wide end of the zoom range, but highest magnification could be at the wide or long end depending on the lens. In general, I would not normally buy a long lens based on minimum focus distance.

 

[Roy]

I am new to the forum but have been into wildlife photography, mostly birds, for a while. Originally, I was a Nikon DSLR user, then a Sony Mirrorless user, and since the Z8, I started migrating to Nikon Z for most of my photography needs.

For birding in my area, reach usually becomes the issue, and I have stuck with my Sony 200-600mm + TC 1.4 on my Sony a7rIV. I was strongly considering getting the Nikon 800mm f6.3 PF, but one thing that held me back was the 30% increase in resolution the a7rIV has over the Z8.

Now, with Sony anoucing the 400-800mm, I am more confused about which way to go. The way I see it:

The 200-600mm f6.3 gets me:
200-600mm f6.3
+ TC 1.4x 280-840mm f9
+ TC 2x 400-1,200 f13

The 400-800mm f8 gets me:
400-800 f8
+ TC 1.4x 560-1,120 f11
+ TC 2x 800-1,600mm f16

The 800mm f6.3 PF gets me:
800mm f6.3
+ TC 1.4x 1,120mm f9
+ TC 2x 1,600mm f13

Based on my experience with the TC 2x on the 200-600mm at f13, I am not sure the TC 2x on the 400-800mm at f16 will be useful for much outside of video. So I feel that for max optical reach, the 800mm PF wins. Also, in lower light, the 800mm PF wins being 2/3 of a stop faster, but the Sony 400-800mm has the ability to zoom, which is very convenient. The Sony will also have the camera resolution advantage for cropping. I wish Sony allowed Sigma to make TCs for the 300-600mm f4 because that sounds like the perfect wildlife lens for me if it supported TCs.

I know the 400-800mm is not out yet, but based on what we know so far, which lens would you go for the Sony 400-800mm f8 or the Nikon 800mm PF f6.3?

Its not just about reach
A prime will always be sharper and more suitable for a TC.
The big advantage of the Nikon PF lenses is their weight and handholdability.
I find I can even shoot steady video handheld with the 600 or 800 PF...

 

[RikWriter]

For the lenses discussed here there is no advantage to ultra high pixel density sensors. At 46 MP lens diffraction starts at about f/5.6 and dominates by f/8. More pixels just adds redundancy. Also, for birds in flight, noise is going to limit achievable resolution. Noise reduction works but reduces detail.

The ideal lens for photographing birds is the Nikon 600 f/4 TC. Flip a switch and you have 840 mm f/5.6 with plenty of room to crop. That lens is obviously heavy, expensive, and not one that I plan to purchase (maybe rent).

Curious. If you've never used this lens, how do you know it's ideal?

 

[apakett]

Curious. If you've never used this lens, how do you know it's ideal

Based upon it’s specificationI know it’s ideal, except for weight and price.

I own the 600PF and 100-400, so I know the limitations of those lenses.

 

[daran]

For the lenses discussed here there is no advantage to ultra high pixel density sensors. At 46 MP lens diffraction starts at about f/5.6 and dominates by f/8. More pixels just adds redundancy.

While not entirely wrong, that is a fairly crude simplification. At f8 you still have meaningful details per pixel on a 50MP sensor. Given a decent RAW processor (Capture One in my case) and optimal processing settings the results are pretty hard to distinguish from peak sharpness (typically around f5 for my prime lenses), even when closely inspected at 100% (about 100dpi on my display).
In my experience the difference between f5.6 and f8 on a prime tends to be less then the difference between a prime and a typical zoom at the same aperture. But recent zooms (at least on Sony) are noticeably sharper than older designs, reducing that gap.

 

[Doug Herr]

Minimum focus distance only make a difference on a few lenses.

With small passerines when using a blind the MFD is why I use the 300 GM + 2x TC instead of the 600 GM.

 

[NorthernFocus]

For birding in my area, reach usually becomes the issue, and I have stuck with my Sony 200-600mm + TC 1.4...

...So I feel that for max optical reach, the 800mm PF wins. Also, in lower light, the 800mm PF wins being 2/3 of a stop faster, but the Sony 400-800mm has the ability to zoom, which is very convenient...

I know the 400-800mm is not out yet, but based on what we know so far, which lens would you go for the Sony 400-800mm f8 or the Nikon 800mm PF f6.3?

IMO you are way overcomplicating this issue. Sounds like you need at least 800mm most of the time. What is most of the time? If you use LR it is easy to filter your image database by focal length to determine how many of your images are shot at 800mm or more. You should also analyze how often/how much you crop when shooting at shorter focal lengths(IOW what was effective focal length). For sake of argument let's say 90 percent of the time you shoot at 800mm+ effective focal length. You've already indicated that you view the 800PF as the choice for best optical performance. So the question boils down to whether you want to compromise optimum optics 90 percent of the time for the convenience of the zoom capability 10 percent of the time.

 

[ChrisM]

The very limited tests I have seen - I want to see several before reaching a conclusion - is that this new lens while respectable for real world wildlife photos, does not quite equal the Sony 200-600 for test chart results.
As the Nikon 180-600 is widely regarded as being a somewhat better lens than the Sony 200-600 the Nikon 180-600 could be equal or even ahead with a 1.4 TC.
The Nikon will definitely be cheaper if you already use one.
I have higher expectations of the Tamron 300-600 as it seems built to "full" pro rather than "consumer" wildlife lens standards and it has a faster aperture. Trade offs are it is heavy and not available in Z mount.

How many 400-800 will be sold as distinct from internet desire remains to be seen.
I hope it sells well as this would encourage Nikon and Canon to directly compete.
If my hope comes about there could be a reasonably wide range of zooms going to 800mm coming to market over the next 2 years.

There is a French reviewer that supplies raw files comparing the 400-800G to the 200-600G.
The 400-800 is better in every practical way

 

[RikWriter]

i haven’t been following the 400-800mm f/8 as it isn’t particularly interesting to me, but even at f/8, i would assume weight is going to be a significant factor i would consider

the nikon 400 4.5 has changed the way i think about long glass. light, sharp glass is a revelation, and i’m not going back

Weight wouldn't be significant for me, since I regularly handhold the 600f4 and the 400-800 is over a pound lighter than that.

 

[John Navitsky]

clearly you hit the gym more than i

while the heaviest lens i have is the 180-600, i do say i think twice about lugging it on a hike where i don’t blink an eye with my 400 4.5

 

[RikWriter]

I think the main thing that made me hesitate to get this lens was that in most situations when I'd use it, I'd use the 600 with a 1.4X TC instead. It would mostly be replacing the 200-600, which I use mainly for hiking longer distances, and I hesitate to spend the money for that because I bought a 300 2.8 to replace the 200-600 and found out that I just don't see as much on long hikes as I thought I did. I'm about to put the 300 up for sale simply because I don't use it enough to justify its cost.

 

[macwalter]

Weight is the main issue for me not buying the Nikon 186. The same goes for the Sony 4-8. I’m 77 and slightly built though in excellent condition. Also primes look better to me than zooms in terms IQ. There are always trade offs in life. Any of the lenses discussed on this topic will work just fine knowing their limitations and yours as well.

 

[Mark_Laidlaw]

If you have a Z8, just get the 800PF and sell off the Sony stuff. The difference between 45 and 60MP isn't actually all that much. It'll never make or break a photo, whereas a 6.3 prime will look better and different compared to an f/8 zoom.

This is an easy choice if you can swing the cash.

 

[macwalter]

I think my main objection to the 800pf is that it is simply too long for many situations and I find in most light I can do pretty well with the 600 pf and a 1.4tc. However I live and photograph in areas that are often close to moderate in terms of distance. I do hear it’s an excellent lens.

 

[Anjin San]

It is easy to get caught up in what is the best system at the moment. I just spoke to someone who was a Nikon shooter. His friend showed him a Sony, convincing him that Sony focuses better than Nikon. He sold all of his Nikon F gear for Sony. He then discovered that Sony would not focus well on cars. He was a commercial race-car shooter. Everything Sony got sold for Cannon.

True…and it’s a losing proposition. By the time I got muscle memory in the new system the old one will have leapfrogged it.

 

[ajrmd]

It's interesting to read all of the banter and positions against the 400-800. First, it is a very intriguing FL for WL shooters particularly those who shoot birds. Apart from specialized applications and infrequent situations, I am almost always shooting at the long end. If one is fortunate enough to be filming at raptor rescue centers, boardwalks with tame birds, or places like stick marsh shooting spoonbills, then yes 600mm or even shorter FL lenses may be appropriate. While zoom lenses used to be significant compromises compared to prime lenses, the optical quality has improved to the point that the utility and advantages are now offsetting many of the shortcomings.

While I appreciate my 800 PF, I've been running into some strange AF issues lately which are either attributable to the lens or body (stay tuned). By comparison, my 1/3rd of the price 186 is much more useful, yields strong images, and is easier to field in some respects. A 400-800 would be a fantastic lens to have and contrary to the naysayers, the f/8 aperture at the longest FL, while a drawback in situations of marginal light, has a negligible impact on image appearance than what people attribute (subject and background distance/separation being more important).

Bottom line is this lens is likely to be a winner for many reasons including size/weight/utility/affordability, etc. If it fits your needs buy it. If not, move on. I subscribe to the camp that these are tools which we use to bring joy in our lives rather than a serving as a be-all-end-all. Perhaps, this is best epitomized in Duade's video:

 

[Bill Ferris]

I am new to the forum but have been into wildlife photography, mostly birds, for a while. Originally, I was a Nikon DSLR user, then a Sony Mirrorless user, and since the Z8, I started migrating to Nikon Z for most of my photography needs.

For birding in my area, reach usually becomes the issue, and I have stuck with my Sony 200-600mm + TC 1.4 on my Sony a7rIV. I was strongly considering getting the Nikon 800mm f6.3 PF, but one thing that held me back was the 30% increase in resolution the a7rIV has over the Z8.

Now, with Sony anoucing the 400-800mm, I am more confused about which way to go. The way I see it:

The 200-600mm f6.3 gets me:
200-600mm f6.3
+ TC 1.4x 280-840mm f9
+ TC 2x 400-1,200 f13

The 400-800mm f8 gets me:
400-800 f8
+ TC 1.4x 560-1,120 f11
+ TC 2x 800-1,600mm f16

The 800mm f6.3 PF gets me:
800mm f6.3
+ TC 1.4x 1,120mm f9
+ TC 2x 1,600mm f13

Based on my experience with the TC 2x on the 200-600mm at f13, I am not sure the TC 2x on the 400-800mm at f16 will be useful for much outside of video. So I feel that for max optical reach, the 800mm PF wins. Also, in lower light, the 800mm PF wins being 2/3 of a stop faster, but the Sony 400-800mm has the ability to zoom, which is very convenient. The Sony will also have the camera resolution advantage for cropping. I wish Sony allowed Sigma to make TCs for the 300-600mm f4 because that sounds like the perfect wildlife lens for me if it supported TCs.

I know the 400-800mm is not out yet, but based on what we know so far, which lens would you go for the Sony 400-800mm f8 or the Nikon 800mm PF f6.3?

I'm a Nikon shooter but have to admit that new Sony 400-800 is a very interesting lens.

To address your concern about the difference in resultion between the A7R IV and Z8, yes the A7 IV has 35% more pixels. However, that translates to a 16% increase in resultion. (The square root of the ratio is what determines the difference) So, while there is a difference, it's one that would only be noticeable when comparing photos at 100%.

Since the lens you currently use and one of the two you're considering are zooms, I'd ask if you'll miss the shorter focal lengths. One of the reasons I upgraded from a Nikkor 200-500 to the 800 PF is that a review of the focal lengths used to make my favorite photos with the zoom revealed that 90% were made at 500mm.

I used that lens with an APS-C D500 so, the 500mm lens translates to a full frame equivalent 750mm angle of view. If your photography with the 200-600 is similarly biased toward the 600mm end, moving to a prime could be a good fit. If, say, 1/3 or more of your favorites with that lens have been made at 500mm or shorter, you might find a prime lens not such a good fit.

By the same token, if a significant percentage of your favs have been made in the 200-350mm range, you might find the 400-800 too long. Keeping a shorter prime or zoom in your arsenal to complement the 400-800 could be a good strategy to address that need.

What intrigues me about the 400-800 is the 100mm diameter entrance pupil at 800mm f/8. It's among the few lenses with an entrance pupil that large. Most lenses with larger apertures cost 2x to 4x as much.

At 800mm f8, it has an entrance pupil just a skosh larger (100mm vs 95mm) than the 200-600 at 600mm f/6.3. Adding a 1.4x TC to the 200-600, you achieve the same angle of view. With both lenses having very similar entrance pupils, they'll make photos having similar noise levels and depths of field.

Personally, I'd suggest looking for reviews comparing the two for sharpness and detail rendering. If the 400-800 is a touch sharper at its native 800mm than the 200-600 when cropped or paired with a TC to match the framing, that could translate to the longer zoom having an advantage.

I resist recommending system changes. They can be expensive and potentially frustrating if one doesn't like the new user interface. That said and since you're considering the 800 PF, that lens does collect about 60% more light from a subject in the frame than the 200-600 or 400-800. That should translate to a noticeable reduction in image noise at the same shutter speed. It's also likely to be at least as sharp and probably a skosh sharper. Plus, it's not too heavy; about the same weight as the 400-800.

Good luck with your decision.

 

[macwalter]

Everything I’ve been reading lately has Canon and Sony still ahead of Nikon in terms of AF capability. The area where Nikon excels is lens options in mid range in terms of quality and weight and expense. I would say if you are shooting Sony, stick with it and go for the 400-800 zoom. At this current moment they have a slight technical edge, faster frame rates, pre-capture in raw etc and better subject acquisition, Canon especially no handoffs etc. but I really don’t mind the limits in Nikon. The 400 f4.5 and 600-8oo pf are superb. Any prime will be sharper than a zoom, I don’t care what others say but the question is just how sharp does it need to be. I suppose if I could afford it I’d go with Sony A1 ii. And the 100-400 and the 400-800 and the 300 f2.8 with both TCs. But I’ve been shooting Nikon since my old d40x and have learned to work with what I have. Next year there will be a new king of the hill, who knows maybe Nikon will make the next quantum leap.

 

[Len Shepherd]

I'm a Nikon shooter but have to admit that new Sony 400-800 is a very interesting lens.

To address your concern about the difference in resultion between the A7R IV and Z8, yes the A7 IV has 35% more pixels. However, that translates to a 16% increase in resultion. (The square root of the ratio of what determines the difference) So, while there is a difference, it's one that would only be noticeable when comparing photos at 100%.

I disagree with this detail.

Whilst I agree the sensor resolution is likely to be increased by 16% (proportionate to the square root pixel increase) the sensor and lens each separately contribute to image resolution.

The important detail is that image resolution is always less than that of either a sensor tested without a lens attached or a lens tested without a sensor attached.

Specific testing of each lens/sensor being needed to determine a precise percentage increase.
The formula for calculating image resolution indicates an increase of between 6% and 10% is a reasonable expectation.

Assuming a high 10% resolution increase, this equates to increasing a high quality print going from 30 inch wide to 33 inches wide with the same resolution in the larger print.
I regard this as a useful rather than significant increase.
A 6% increase is equivalent to going from 30 inches wide to 31.8 inches wide.

In the background the 400–800 is (like the Nikon 180-600) a consumer lens at a consumer grade price, the Sony it seems with decent consumer grade optical performance though not quite the equal of the Sony 200-600.
The 800 PF is a professional grade lens highly likely to have greater optical performance at 800mm although I have not seen many side-by-side tests yet.

Any decision seems to be about the compromise of extra convenience with the zoom (assuming no loss of image quality using an adapter from Sony to Nikon) compared to highly likely higher optical performance with no zoom facility using the 800 PF.
Right now the only Nikon near options are the 180–600 with 1.4 TC, or the about four times more expensive than the Sony zoom Nikon 600 with ff4 or 840mm f5.6 using the in lens TC.