Sony 400-800mm vs Nikon 800mm PF

macwalter · Mar 16, 2025

I’m no scientist and frankly don’t care that much about specific detail vs sensor size and IQ of a zoom vs a prime. That being said primes are easier to make and it seems that the zooms are targeted to consumer who wants versatility vs the absolute best IQ. I can’t afford the big exo and they are not hand holdable in any practical way. Thus the zooms tend to have compromise built in and are not built to the same high quality as most primes. The newer zooms are certainly better than years past and the ovement
may be more with these lenses vs primes. In most cases I prefer the faster lighter,sharper primes but if I were to go back to Africa I would be tempted to go with two z8s the 180-600 zoom and the 24-120 zoom as weight can be an issue. Currently I don’t own a 186 but I would rent or buy or borrow one.
if you are fairly strong handholding the 400-800 Sony could be done but I am 77 in excell shape but of slight build and these optics are a bit heavy for me though doable. This is also true for the 186 but on safari you are mostly in vehicles.
also as an aside, the 600pf with a 1.4tc works quite well at f9 for 840mm.

Len Shepherd · Mar 16, 2025

apakett said:
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.

I disagree with these 2 comments

First diffraction whilst somewhat relevant does not "dominate" by f8 with 46 MP.
MTF 50 tests etc generally do not indicate anything other than a slight reduction at f11 compared to f8 and often higher than f4 - part depending on how "dominant" lens aberrations other than diffraction are at wider than f8.

Second image resolution is always distinctly less than a lens tested without a body, or a body tested without a lens.

Third going from 45 to around 60 MP is likely to increase the sensors contribution to image resolution by around 16%.

When the image resolute fall off between f8 and f16 is less than 15% (as it can be) there is a bigger gain from increased sensor resolution than the loss from increasing diffraction effects - with f16 on 60 MP sometimes yielding higher image resolution than f8 on 45 MP

It is possible going from 24 MP to 45 MP for f11 to result in distinctly more image resolution than at f8 and wider, usefully more at f16 and occasionally about equal at f22.

Anjin San · Mar 17, 2025

Roy said:
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...

While you’re optically correct…in order to see the better sharpness of the prime with most of the better zooms today you’re going to be at 2:1 in LR…and while we agree thee will probably be some differences there…nobody else will ever pixel peep your images. When printed or exported for display use…the resolution of the printer or screen and the required downsampling will eliminate most to almost all of whatever difference you can see at 2:1…that’s just physics for you. I would be willing to wager that if one looked at a screen output or a 13x19 or so sized print from a 180-600, 60pPF, and 600TC (or the equivalent other brand lenses)…that almost no one would be able to see An actual quality difference assuming same exposures, crop, and other factors being the same…and while some would guess correctly doing so consistently seems unlikely. Of the final images are such that normal people can’t see the difference…then other factors come into play. Like ypu…I’m a Nikon guy and with the 100-400, 600PF, and 180-600 and the TC when needed…if I don’t get the shot it’s on me, not the gear…or else it was simply too far away to get a good shot. I’m never going to denigrate the expensive lenses…but unless one is a pro where the slight improvement might make money going for the expensive glass is more of an ego thing than a ‘it will make me a better photographer’ thing. For most people…I think weight, flexibility, and lower cost will likely win the decision once they get past the ego thing. I did play with Steve’s 600TC in Serengeti in April…and the weight alone assured me I had made the correct decision in not buying one.

I actually tested all,of those lenses and TC along with a Tamron 150-600G2 and a 500PF…used a static target and filled the frame and made the shots as identical as I could. Yes…could see differences at 2:1…but they were very slight…but at screen display size and 13-19 print size there were no differences in IQ. Some slight differences in bokeh and background blur…but even there it was just different as opposed to better or worse. Looking at lines per inch charts doesn’t mean much outsides the ego thing…final images are where it counts, and with no to extremely small differences…those other factors become more important than absolutely bestest sharpness IMO.

macwalter · Mar 17, 2025

I think for me the resolution on primes is most notable when shooting further out assuming atmospheric conditions allow such. The higher resolution will tend to make these shots more noticeable in terms of sharpness and clarity. When close in the difference is negligible to me. The other difference is in terms of the richer contrast in primes that I notwice at least with what I am using. The z100-400,z400f4.5 and z600pf. Of these the IQ is best with the 600mm. TCs are a mixed bag but overall better on the primes.
when processing these shots i often zoom in to 400% to look for the sharper shots as this can make a noticeable difference when processing.
when you print you can no longer zoom in so if it looks good as is go for it. I do think newer lenses are in general better but you can get bad copies.

Len Shepherd · Mar 18, 2025

macwalter said:
when processing these shots i often zoom in to 400% to look for the sharper shots as this can make a noticeable difference when processing.

I agree there can be differences, particularly when printing to a high standard.
On the other hand, I only print a few of my very best images on an Epson P800.
This is expensive compared to lesser quality lower price High Street printing though on close inspection the difference is very distinctly obvious.

Back to lenses - I describe the Nikon 180-600 as a consumer lens - and the specification confirms no nano coating.
Even so image quality is amazingly good at the price point as it is with the Nikon mount 200-500. Both are good enough for quite high quality printed images.
Even so I suspect as with the new Sony higher print quality will be possible with each manufacturer best prime lenses.

macwalter said:
when you print you can no longer zoom in so if it looks good as is go for it.

Agree - though if you view on a 24 inch or larger monitor it is easy to determine quality before printing.

macwalter said:
I do think newer lenses are in general better but you can get bad copies.

My knowledge is mainly of the Nikon system and I mainly disagree on both your points.
Apart from a few late F mount lenses such as the 120-300 (that I do not own) and the 180–600, 200–500 or 60 mm macro, Z lenses are generally distinctly optically better, often with better VR and often with better flare coatings.
"Bad copies" - having tested many for other users I find to be a rarity.
What I do find is that some do not understand that auto focus does not focus on everything, and then when they get this important detail wrong assume the lens is the defective.
When I test for them with a good subject for accurate autofocus this usually results in an instant no cost "repair".

MarkB · Mar 18, 2025

I was with "Sony" before it was Sony and I moved to Nikon when it took Sony so long to start production after buying Konica Minolta. Then when I switched to mirrorless a couple of years ago I evaluated Nikon, Canon and Sony and I decided to stay with Nikon because of the telephoto options, primarily the 800 f6.3 PF.

For me, with optics that long the maximum aperture is important. Many birds and animals are out early in the morning and late in the evening and it can make a difference. Before the 800 f6.3 PF I had the F-mount 800 f5.6 and even that lens occasionally struggled with active wildlife because of a lack of light. And, for BIF one usually needs a minimum of 1/1200 and faster is better if you have the light. So for me, going to a lens with f8 as the maximum aperture is just not workable.

You mention the 200-600 but ignore the excellent Nikon 180-600, which would be a good companion lens to the 800 f6.3 PF. When I'm out shooting I typically have one camera with the 800 or the 600 f6.3 PF and one with the Nikon 100-400. I have the 100-400 vs. the 180-600 because I like to take it hiking and it is smaller and lighter. And, it will take the 1.4x in a pinch to get me to 560mm f8. I also don't have any mid-range zooms so the 100mm end is useful.

And the size and weight of the Nikon PF lenses is amazing. I'm preparing for a trip to Costa Rica and I have the 600 f6.3 PF, the 100-400, Sigma 180 f2.8 macro, 24-70 f4, two camera bodies and 4 flashes all in a Think Tank Airport Commuter backpack: Internal Dimensions: 11.5” W x 16.3” H x 6.8” D (29.2 × 42.4 × 17.3cm). I'm on one of those small commuter flights for one leg of my trip and need something small.

Finally, to me, the higher megapixels of the Sony are almost immaterial; it's only 15% larger on the horizontal and vertical than the Z8. And that also means the photo sites are smaller and more apt to produce noise. It also takes longer for the camera to clear the sensor.

macwalter · Mar 18, 2025

I am in the same camp as above. I have 2z8s the 104,400f4.5, 600pf, 24-120 and both TCs. I have used all of the above and knowing their limits has allowed me to use all of the above. I like the 104 due to its size and versatility and it does work with a tc but the 600pf is way better at this focal length. I’m sure Sony has excellent options as well but at this time the size and weight advantage seems to be in the Nikon camp. Except for the Sony 300 f2.8. But I do use the 600pf with the 1.4tc a lot and it works quite well at 840mm. The new Sony 4-8 will equal this but it is a much heavier lens. I dont see that much difference between 46 and 50mps. I would mind 30fps vs 20 but it is not a deal breaker nor is pre-capture.

MarkG · Mar 19, 2025

kanonka said:
I've been on Sony A1+200-600/6.3+1.4TC. That's F9 @ 800mm. Was happy with the process (Sony AF + subject detection is the best in the industry by far), but not with the results. Tried 800PF, and it made me to switch to Nikon. Now it's reversed situation. I totally don't like Nikon (compared to Sony it's like using manual screwdriver vs electrical one), but I absolutely love the result. In fact, 800PF is the only thing that made me to go with Nikon and still keeps me there. And no, Sony 400-800 is not going to change that. 2/3 of a stop is a massive difference, no matter how much Sony sugarcoats 800/F8 (and don't forget extra weight!). Yes, with careful approach and extra effort one can get great photos even with that zoom, but I prefer to have it easy way - I never liked hard work.

Caveat: I always shoot @800mm, so your situation could be different.

I've been using A1 + 200-600 for awhile. At the same time, Nikon prime lenses have been very enticing, but I've been worried about AF performance on Z8/Z9 for birds/animals and especially the easy of use of Nikon's AF vs simple/effective A1. Never held a Nikon body in my hands... Could you share your experience on what you like/dislike about Nikon system? Genuinely curious as I've had that GAS for some time, and so far Sony 400-800 is not very convincing. Thanks a lot!

kanonka · Mar 19, 2025

MarkG said:
I've been using A1 + 200-600 for awhile. At the same time, Nikon prime lenses have been very enticing, but I've been worried about AF performance on Z8/Z9 for birds/animals and especially the easy of use of Nikon's AF vs simple/effective A1. Never held a Nikon body in my hands... Could you share your experience on what you like/dislike about Nikon system? Genuinely curious as I've had that GAS for some time, and so far Sony 400-800 is not very convincing. Thanks a lot!

I'm going to rub many people here against the grain with my answer.
First and foremost - in my opinion camera/system should be the thing that photographer pays the least attention to. Yes, basically "point and shoot". No fiddling with camera/lens settings while shooting. Many years ago, when I just started my carrier in programming, we were doing automation for accounting. I asked the main customer, what kind of UI he wants, and the answer was dead simple: "I want just one button, called "do all the work", and that's it". Sounds stupid, but this is the essence of what any UI, any tool, and - yes, any camera system should be. "Take a good picture with one button press without forcing me to do hard work". And that what Sony delivered. Before I moved to Nikon I didn't even know that Sony A1 has different AF areas to speed up focus point acquisition - because I never needed it. Full frame AF area was all that I ever used, because Sony was that good in getting focus. Total no-brainer, which is what every camera producer should strive for. Occasional hiccups happened, especially with long-necked birds, but that was rare. Now, with Nikon this is not possible. I mean, in some occasional situations you can still use full AF area and it will get bird eye in focus, but in most situations - forget it. I learned to use smaller areas, holdouts to a different mode and all those tricks that simply were never needed shooting with Sony.
That's mine main pet peeve with Nikon. Also, you gonna struggle with correct exposure. On Sony, again, it was a no brainer - zebra 107 or 109, and you are good to go. With Nikon it simply doesn't exist, so you have to rely on metering modes, or histogram, or even pull out your dust-covered Sekonic. There are other small, but annoying things, like wrong direction of attaching/detaching lenses - after 20+ years with Canon/Sony/Fuji it's so unnatural that really gets under my skin every time I change lens; bad camera body (both Z9/Z8) ergonomics (although Sony is also far from the ideal of Canon and Fuji GFX), jerking view in EVF due to the stabilizer (when you have it on), etc. Also, on Z9 body you just have to lock second shutter button, otherwise you'd keep pressing it accidentally - and that never ever happened to me on any Canon and Sony bodies.
Overall - yes, you can use Nikon to get great photos, just like any other system out there, but coming from Sony A1 you will curse Nikon camera every time you take a picture, because you will remember how easier and simpler it was with Sony.

Now to the pluses. Nikon lenses are what you get in exchange of the camera body shortcomings, and Sony simply doesn't have them. I'm talking about holy trinity: 400TC, 600TC and 800PF. Everything else you can get in Sony realm with similar quality, but not those three. If you are shooting mostly 800mm without tripod, then 800PF is THE lens to get. If you prefer shorter distances, you can't beat TC lens for convenience with best IQ possible.

My view is this: if you don't plan to use one or more lens from Nikon holy trinity, you are much, much better off keeping your Sony A1. But if you are, be prepared for suffering. For me the end result is worth it, but I really, really hope that either Sony will come up with 800PF-like lens, or Nikon will catch up with the leaders in AF/SR area with Z9ii.

macwalter · Mar 19, 2025

Having never shot Sony for any length of time I can’t offer an opinion on just how much better the AF system is. I get the impression that of the big three, canon is at this moment the best but both Sony and Canon are ahead of nikon in this area. That being said, I have no problem getting onto subjects with the z8-9. Yes you do need to do a handoff often but big deal. It’s easy, it does mean you need to get closer to the subject at first then decide to handoff. I have two areas I use most often, the cycle option AF area with three options, small,medium and large and the auto area AF and I can either stay with the smaller area or handoff to the auto area. I have no problem in this regar. They Sony does have pre-capture in raw and a faster frame rate, but where I see the main difference is in the mid grade primes that neither Sony nor canon can match. The 400f4.5 ,600pf are both superb and affordable. And very handholdable, I don’t shoot with a tripod so the exotics are out of the question for me as well as the cost.
I also think ergonomics is a matter of opinion based on how one shoots. I actually prefer the z8 in this regard vs the Sony bodies which I find to be a bit on the small side. I have no problem with the button placement except on the lens where they put the four on the lens that you can program. They are awkward in that they are at the top,bottom,and sides but nowhere are they easy to reach with my smallish hands. If they would put them at a 45% angle form their current location it would be so much better. I do t care for the canon buttons as they are too small at least on the bodies I’ve handled.
if I were a rich man I would probably have a second setup using one of the other makes but at the moment nothing Sony or canon has in the mid price hi quality lightweight lenses come close to the 4-600mm primes not to mention the 800pf. Just my opinion and each year things change.

nmerc_photos · Mar 19, 2025

MarkG said:
I've been using A1 + 200-600 for awhile. At the same time, Nikon prime lenses have been very enticing, but I've been worried about AF performance on Z8/Z9 for birds/animals and especially the easy of use of Nikon's AF vs simple/effective A1. Never held a Nikon body in my hands... Could you share your experience on what you like/dislike about Nikon system? Genuinely curious as I've had that GAS for some time, and so far Sony 400-800 is not very convincing. Thanks a lot!

FWIW, not who you're quoting but I shot Canon mirrorless for 2 years, Nikon mirrorless for 2 years, and now moved over to try Sony.

Nikon has hands down the best options for wildlife lenses, but as a lens is only as good as the body it's on. I find the Z8/Z9 AF to be extremely frustrating. It requires a ton of work to get "right", whereas Canon/Sony seem to just work from the get go. Can you get as good of AF with Nikon? Maybe, but it involves hand offs, multiple buttons being pressed at once, swapping AF modes, etc. I prefer my stuff to just work.

I got my 400-800 today and haven't had time to test it yet, but it is very similar in size and weight to the 800PF - which is what I'll mainly be comparing it to. Generally speaking, I find f6.3 pretty slow - so if I can make f6.3 work, I can probably make f8 work as well. You're probably not going to be shooting super fast BIF at sunrise or sunset with it, but this summer I expect it'll work well for loons fishing in broad daylight.

My summary of Nikon, below:

Pros-
Great budget (the A1 II is ridiculously overpriced, horrible budget value, while the Z8/Z9 are dirt cheap)
Best lenses available for wildlife (400 4.5, 600PF, 400TC, 600TC, 800PF)
Z9 body feels good. A bit heavy, but it feels rugged and dependable

Cons-
AF - the biggest con. I have missed so many shots, while shooting shoulder to shoulder with Sony and Canon users. Maybe user error, maybe Nikon centric.
Size/weight - even the "little" Z8 is heavier than the beastly Canon R1. that says a lot.
Z8 - I want to love this body, I've owned it 4 times, but it just feels cheap, flimsy, and heavy compared to the R5, A1, Z9, etc.

If I was budget constrained, I'd still be shooting Nikon 100%. But since I'm not, I want the best system possible - and I think right now that lends itself to Sony.

macwalter · Mar 19, 2025

As stated above Sony is probably better but I don’t have a problem dealing with handoffs and the glass options for Nikon are way better in the mid price range and size. I guess if one is used to the AF of Sony then the Nikon system might be frustrating. For me having a 5pound rig with superb IQ the hand hold performance is worth the deficiencies. Also what you don’t know can’t hurt you. I get way better shots with the Nikon z system than I ever did with my DSLRs. And bodies tend to improve faster than glass so as things improve I will have a nice closet of excellent glass to use. Also for what it’s worth I would rather have the Nikon 800pf over the Sony zoom as I don’t see that many times where zooming out to 400mm would be that much af an advantage. If you could go to say 200 then yes. So I still think if I were to go with a zoom the Nikon 180-600 or the Sony 200-600 would be more useful overall. I don’t know how these two lenses compare but I would imagine they are close.
I don’t make my living with photography except in a few cases so I can’t justify spending tens of thousands of dollars on a better rig. I also think that photography like any art, the perspective ans skill of the shooter vs what they shoot matters most. You can get great shots with pretty basic gear if you know what your doing and understand the limits of what you have.

fcotterill · Mar 20, 2025

If we're sharing personal experiences... What follows is honest advice....
I (attempted) to try out a Sony a1 and Leica SL at my esteemed local retailer. In short the Leica is a well designed camera. It fits the hand properly... But what a pity about the price of even the most modest L System

For me the a1 experience was decidedly negative; my immediate impression was the fit and feel of the Sony was the antithesis of how a camera should feel. Obviously, opinions differ and camera choice is distinctly personal. Client preferences reflect very real differences, which underlie the diversity of designs in cameras; this is true of all the other personalized instruments.

The ergonomics of modern Pro Nikon MILCs haven't changed very much in their essential design following on from the SLRs..... such as my trusty F90x, which improved on my F3 and FM2 (or Zf today). The fit of a Z9 is that much better than a Z7 which is an excellent ILC in almost all its attributes (my Z7 always had a bottom L plate to compensate for missing depth). I prefer the heft and proportions of the D6 and Z9 with their controls.

The weather sealing of Nikon cameras (and lenses) including the Z9 shutter guard are also essential features in my experience. Weatherproofing and reliability in extreme environments is definitely a singular advantage of Nikon Pro cameras, notably battery performance in freezing temperatures

LIVE CAMERA CHAT with Rob MacNeice: a Head of Nikon Pro Services (NPS) in the UK

We are kicking off this year with a chat with Rob MacNeice a Head of Nikon NPS in the UK. He recently came back from the Football World Cup in Qatar where he...

www.youtube.com

Nikon matrix metering just works, as it did in the 1980s-90s, except it's been refined and is even more robust. This technology was already exceptional 4 decades ago (launched in the FA). Back in the last century, one quickly learned to recognize and compensate for backlit scenes etc.

Together with focus-peaking (even with MF lenses), Mirrorless EVF's gift us Wysiwyg for exposure. They certainly simplify fine-tuning focus and exposure - extraordinary so - particularly with live exposure aids including histograms and a "blinky" Picture Control profile

Solution to see Overexposed Highlights in a Nikon Z EVF

This might have been shared here previously, but worth a refresh in any case. Here's a neat solution using a custom Picture Control file, which was shared on dpr close to 2 years ago. It should work on any Zed camera, and obviously will show if a blinky(ies) rears its head when shooting RAW For...

bcgforums.com

fcotterill · Mar 20, 2025

It's nonsensical to believe a singular AF mode always works on everything everywhere. The living world ridicules such notions. We learn this trying to track active animals in vegetation versus open habitat with only one AF mode. The optimal combination of AF mode(s) for the situation determines hit rates, and above all high quality images.

Building on the algorithms pioneered in the D5 AF engine (3D tracking and AutoAF), Subject Detection is the other fundamental reason why at least 2 alternative AF modes are essential in wildlife photography - using modern MILCs efficiently.

Transferring control over active Focus entirely to the camera has impressive benefits, but the capabilities of these miniaturized computers have very real limits in the wild! Fortunately, in AFC mode we can exploit the Focus Persistence feature, which underlies how Nikon's technology is able to inherit the active focus point seamlessly across AF Modes even on moving subjects.

The relatively reliability of this Focus Persistence feature has changed how I configure my D6 and Z9 cameras for AF Override / AF Handoff. This method not only improves AF in clutter that too often obscures wildlife subjects, but it works in many other situations needing a tighter active AF area mode - eg to grab the sharp eye in portraits.

I've trained my muscle memory to switch between only 4 AF modes. Provided I get the correct framing, I find capturing images is instinctive using an AF HandOff / AF Override; here Nikon cameras have the depth in options to co-opt custom solutions for particular situations.

Basically, C1 and C2 tighten - in practice they fine tune - the wider search window of the 3D and Auto modes. For wildlife photography, these Custom Area AF modes rank high among Nikon's legacy of excellent inventions through the past century. Originally restricted to the D6 and Z9, fortunately Nikon added the C1 and C2 options to the Z8, Zf, Z6 III and even Z50 II

The RSF Hold feature is there for sudden unexpected events, but only available in the D6, Z9 and Z8. [Edited]

nmerc_photos · Mar 20, 2025

first attempts in the backyard. crappy, gray Michigan light (or lack thereof)

initial thoughts are that I'm very impressed. IQ is definitely close enough to the 800PF for my uses, which is the lens it'll be replacing.

the only zoom I've ever used that had better IQ was the Canon RF 100-300 which is 3-4x the price.

Sony did a nice job with this one. looking forward to using it a lot this summer for loons

also.. all of these were meant to be at 800mm (as that's where I'll shoot it 99% of the time). any difference in focal length was me awkwardly bumping the zoom ring since I'm using a silly arca swiss plate and not a dedicated foot.