Subject Distance vs Image Quality

[ajrmd]

Thank you for the extremely well thought out responses!

Anytime. This is a learning process, and admittedly, I am going through many of the same challenges you are. I switched over to Nikon from Canon largely because of their failure to add high quality, mid priced, long range RF lenses. Yes, the 100-500 was pretty sweet, but the 600 f/4 was a tweaked older lens design, still large, and very expensive. Like you, I had heard so many promising things about the promised PF lenses that I made a wholesale switch.

3) I agree, defining keepers will vary from person to person. For me - it just means that as a noob photographer, I wouldn't post any of the images from 300GM + 2x in that shoot. I would grudgingly post the 800PF + 1.4x pics because although soft - they had good action (bringing in a fish), the naked 800PF shots were good enough to post, and the 400TC + 2x were absolutely postable.

The reason I asked that question was to differentiate between "keepers" due to capturing the moment versus "keepers" attributable to IQ. I suspected that you were referring to the later and my responses were focused on IQ.

I think I agree with your statements about the 800PF. In the beginning I was awe struck, but now I am seeing more of the tradeoffs whether it be that it's a PF lens, or just a "cheap" telephoto prime.

Likewise, I'm still awestruck in many ways but the love affair has lessened significantly when I compare those images against my Canon EF 400 f/2.8/2x, 500 f/4/1.4x, 600 f/4 1.4x. I think those lenses had better contrast, color, and an indescribable analog fidelity. While the 800 PF delivers sharp crisp photos especially near MFD, as you observed, the IQ drops with subject distance in a way other primes, and particularly those I mentioned did not. As I indicated, I suspect that the lens is more susceptible to atmospherics than traditional primes and more dependent on better lighting.

5) Sounds like I need to do more research into the PF technology and tradeoffs. I wonder if it's innately a PF thing that they are more susceptible to atmospheric effects and worse at shooting at distance

See above. I've tried to research the distinctions between PF and conventional lenses and while there are a few articles describing the physics of light collimation and how the fresnel element results in less CA, finding detailed information, particularly data comparing them to conventional lenses is less forthcomiing.

6) When I was coming over from Canon, I was trying to decide what lens setup to go with. I owned all of the RF primes (400 2.8, 600 4, 800 5.6, 1200 8) and after reading for many hours and watching videos - the majority of people were suggesting to buy both the 400TC AND 800PF as an alternative to just buying the 600TC. There are a number of users both on BCG and FM that swear by this "combo". if you're interested, I can dig up the threads/videos.

No doubt. The 400TC and 600TC's are special lenses though I don't see the wisdom of the 400TC and 800PF for the reasons you're experiencing.

I'm leaning towards selling the 400TC/800PF in favor of the 600TC, but wanted to make sure I wasn't going crazy. I've seen so much praise for the 800PF (rightfully so - it's a budget banger!), but I never saw mention of subject distance come up in discussion.

Nope, not crazy at all and if anything, I applaud you for calling out the emperor. As I said before, it's all a compromise between IQ, cost, etc.

7) From my testing, adapting the 300GM onto the Z9 works stunningly well. Much better than expected. I would have no qualms about using that as a stellar 300 f2.8, very good 46
Good to know. For you the 300GM/600TC may be better for your purposes. If I could afford them, they would likely be top on my wish list.

 

[nmerc_photos]

I swore I'd stay out of this discussion but the misconceptions and broad generalizations are getting abused, misused and confused.

First, any lens can be optimized for any distance or magnification. There isn't a one-size-fits-all description of how lenses will behave. Lenses are usually designed to work quite well over a broad range of distances and magnifications, but how and where the optimum point can be found is up to the particular design of the lens, which aberrations are best minimized, the design philosophy behind the lens (i.e., is it designed to be used with software geometric and/or chromatic correction?) and the intended use of the lens.

Lenses can also be designed to be paired with TCs, either a dedicated TC as with the TC lenses or with a general-purpose TC which itself can be designed to work with a broad range of exit pupil angles or with a narrower range of exit pupils.

Yes there will be differences among lenses but the differences over a wide range of FL, apertures, MFDs or optical technologies (such as PF or TCs) shouldn't be simplified to "lenses perform best at MFD", "lenses without TCs perform better at distances". Test each lens or lens+TC in the working conditions you expect, find the combination that works best for your intended purpose, and go take some pictures. Oddly enough or not, spend more for the lens and you might find it works better under a broader range of conditions which could explain how the 800 PF is fantastic when conditions are right while a 600 TC is great no matter what. The same applies to other brands BTW.

If a lens is sharper at MFD than at infinity, it's because of the way the particular lens was designed. It's not because of its focal length. It's not because it's a PF or non-PF lens. It's not because of its maximum aperture or because it has a TC built in. It's that particular lens.

Do you know of any lenses that don't perform best, or near-best at MFD? It would be surprising if that wasn't the case. As you add distance, cropping, TC's, atmospherics, etc. I would think all lenses would lose some IQ.

I also don't see anyone saying "lenses without TC's perform better at distances", because that's the opposite of what I've seen in this example. but maybe I missed someone's post.

Basically what I take from your post is that there are too many variables, and there's no point in even trying to discuss lens comparisons? It seems like a lot of words just to say that it's a conversation not worth having.

I don’t think what you are describing is a “controlled experiment”. I also think there may be differences among specific lenses in a series and it is possible your lens may be different from others’.

I have never had access to the 400mm f2.8 tc so I have no basis for comparison. The general test results done by some reviewers has placed the 800 pf as marginally better than the 400 f2.8 with 2x tc.

All I know is what I can and cannot afford according to the standards set by She Who Must Be Obeyed. I can afford, and own, the 800mm pf and I also own/have owned the 400mm f4.5 and the 600mm pf. My experience with my copy of the 800mm pf is that it is very capable of producing sharp images at ”reasonable” distances even after significant cropping. In short my copy of the lens is the best available to me at this time and I am happy with what it produces. It is fair to say that I does the best I have ever seen at 800mm for any lens I have used.

It would not be surprising to me that a lens that costs close to three times as much as the 800 pf may be able to produce images that are sharper than the 800. I do aspire to get one of those one of these days and if I do get one I may well choose to finally replace my 800.

I bought my 800 from someone who was selling it because she had acquired the 600mm f4 tc vr. My recollection in discussions with her is that the 800 continued to provide high quality images in her judgment even after she had been working with the 600mm tc.

Of course the other issue is that with long focal length lenses when shooting distant subjects there are all sorts of factors that can affect image sharpness. Among those are atmospheric conditions and movement of the subject. And as has been shown with shooting in multiple bursts there can be wide variance in sharpness between images taken fractions of a second apart.

Did your experiment include shooting a number of shots at high frame rates and comparing the images that way?

Quite clearly it is not a controlled experiment that's the nature of the beast. I'm posting observations based on real world experiences, and asking if others have shared the experiences - and if so, why that may be.

I wasn't able to find anyone who has done a controlled experiment like this, and I haven't done one myself yet.

Yes, in my experience I am often shooting 100+ images and selecting the best one out of the lot.

Firstly, what distances are we talking about? I mean, it would have to be a long distance with a large bird or animal for me to consider it long distance. Here we have heat haze issues and other factors to consider. For me, most shots are under the 20mt mark.

I would say that the more expensive lenses would definitely focus faster and possibly focus more accurately than the cheaper lenses at distance, but I have no proof of the second part to that statement. I guess it depends on the price equation we are talking about. Is my 180-600 that much worse at distance as far as focus accuracy is concerned compared to the 600 f4 + TC? Or even my 800 pf? I know it probably isn't as fast to focus, but as far as accuracy I haven't noticed this but it might be there. I guess if you are paying the money you would want better AF performance but whether that affects long distance accuracy is questionable. I mean, it is either in focus or it isn't. I have not noticed this in my circumstances taking photos, but I generally do not shoot at long distance if I can avoid it simply due to the fact that I always try to get as close as possible to avoid cropping and I don't want to have to deal with heat haze issues. Cropping increases apparent noise and does take the edge off. Having said that, I have cropped significantly with small birds at close distances, like under 10mts. Again, what distances are you getting issues at?

Using a TC on a slower lens is never as good as on a fast exotic to the point I generally will not use it on a zoom if it is a consumer f4 and slower lens. If it is a pro grade f2.8 or f4 lens that is different - the Z70-200 f2.8 VR S is hardly affected with the 1.4x TC. On a prime it is less of an issue but on an f2.8 exotic like my 400 f2.8E FL VR it is no issue whatsoever, but on say the 500 pf I would generally only do it when I needed to crop and use the 1.4x TC. Again, with any of them, I rarely shoot at distance because filling the frame is what using the TC is all about. Again, what distances are you talking about?

This is the 800pf shot at distance and about a 100% crop. It looks fine to me.

Z8 + 800 pf, 1/3200s f/6.3 at 800.0mm iso1000

Crop

Another but the bird was closer
Z8 + 800 pf, 1/3200s f/6.3 at 800.0mm iso1000

Crop

For comparison. Z9 + 400 f2.8E FL VR + 1.4x TCIII, 1/1250s f/5.6 at 560.0mm iso180. Different day, similar conditions but is it any better/ worse than the Z8 + 800 pf? Difficult to judge as it was a different day and the shutter speed here was only 1/1250sec compared to 1/3200sec with the 800 pf.

Crop

Here is a Rainbow bee eater at distance simply because it was on someone's private land and had a no trespassing sign and I couldn't get closer. This is with the 800 pf + 1.4x TC. This is not something I would ordinarily do - use a TC on a slow lens and crop - but the result was decent enough, actually impressive considering it was handheld, no bracing at all, a "slow" f6.3 lens with a 1.4x TC attached and cropped!

Z8 + 800 pf + 1.4x TC, 1/500s f/9.0 at 1120.0mm iso720


Crop

in this example, I'm talking about 300' distance. by mt do you mean meters? I've never seen it abbreviated that way

so far I haven't brought up anything relating to focus. I don't have any issues with focusing on any of these setups, at any distance. the only talking point is image quality and how it degrades for each lens, over certain distances.

if you mainly shoot at 20m and under, your experiences don't really relate to what's being discussed. at under 20m, I found all of these lenses and combos to be more than acceptable.

all of the images and crops you posted look great, but they are all significantly closer than what's being discussed.

 

[kanonka]

This is interesting. Why donyoubsay the 600tc is great no matter what but the 800pf is condition dependent? What sorts of conditions do you have in mind?

Obvious ones, like bokeh of specular highlights - that's standard issue with PF lens. Less microcontrast at some light angles, due to the diffusion (principle of PF). Also, foe some reason, PF is less tolerant to atmospheric disturbances - can't explain why. Otherwise, great lens. Besides, there is nothing on the market that can beat weight/FL combo of the 800PF.

 

[nmerc_photos]

Thank you for the extremely well thought out responses!

Anytime. This is a learning process, and admittedly, I am going through many of the same challenges you are. I switched over to Nikon from Canon largely because of their failure to add high quality, mid priced, long range RF lenses. Yes, the 100-500 was pretty sweet, but the 600 f/4 was a tweaked older lens design, still large, and very expensive. Like you, I had heard so many promising things about the promised PF lenses that I made a wholesale switch.

3) I agree, defining keepers will vary from person to person. For me - it just means that as a noob photographer, I wouldn't post any of the images from 300GM + 2x in that shoot. I would grudgingly post the 800PF + 1.4x pics because although soft - they had good action (bringing in a fish), the naked 800PF shots were good enough to post, and the 400TC + 2x were absolutely postable.

The reason I asked that question was to differentiate between "keepers" due to capturing the moment versus "keepers" attributable to IQ. I suspected that you were referring to the later and my responses were focused on IQ.

I think I agree with your statements about the 800PF. In the beginning I was awe struck, but now I am seeing more of the tradeoffs whether it be that it's a PF lens, or just a "cheap" telephoto prime.

Likewise, I'm still awestruck in many ways but the love affair has lessened significantly when I compare those images against my Canon EF 400 f/2.8/2x, 500 f/4/1.4x, 600 f/4 1.4x. I think those lenses had better contrast, color, and an indescribable analog fidelity. While the 800 PF delivers sharp crisp photos especially near MFD, as you observed, the IQ drops with subject distance in a way other primes, and particularly those I mentioned did not. As I indicated, I suspect that the lens is more susceptible to atmospherics than traditional primes and more dependent on better lighting.

5) Sounds like I need to do more research into the PF technology and tradeoffs. I wonder if it's innately a PF thing that they are more susceptible to atmospheric effects and worse at shooting at distance

See above. I've tried to research the distinctions between PF and conventional lenses and while there are a few articles describing the physics of light collimation and how the fresnel element results in less CA, finding detailed information, particularly data comparing them to conventional lenses is less forthcomiing.

6) When I was coming over from Canon, I was trying to decide what lens setup to go with. I owned all of the RF primes (400 2.8, 600 4, 800 5.6, 1200 8) and after reading for many hours and watching videos - the majority of people were suggesting to buy both the 400TC AND 800PF as an alternative to just buying the 600TC. There are a number of users both on BCG and FM that swear by this "combo". if you're interested, I can dig up the threads/videos.

No doubt. The 400TC and 600TC's are special lenses though I don't see the wisdom of the 400TC and 800PF for the reasons you're experiencing.

I'm leaning towards selling the 400TC/800PF in favor of the 600TC, but wanted to make sure I wasn't going crazy. I've seen so much praise for the 800PF (rightfully so - it's a budget banger!), but I never saw mention of subject distance come up in discussion.

Nope, not crazy at all and if anything, I applaud you for calling out the emperor. As I said before, it's all a compromise between IQ, cost, etc.

7) From my testing, adapting the 300GM onto the Z9 works stunningly well. Much better than expected. I would have no qualms about using that as a stellar 300 f2.8, very good 46
Good to know. For you the 300GM/600TC may be better for your purposes. If I could afford them, they would likely be top on my wish list.

It sounds like you and I are very similar in our journeys, and how we got to this point. I also came from Canon with the RF 100-500 and RF 600 F4. Such simpler days! Sometimes I yearn for that simplicity again. Nikon has given me too many good choices and I keep ending up with specialized lenses for every case. "Here's a PF lens for walking around", "Here's a TC lens for travel", "Here's a TC lens for long range", "Here's a zoom for quasi macro", "Here's a zoom for wildlife", etc.

I am definitely a MASSIVE fan of the PF lenses. I think they are probably one of the best things about the Nikon ecosystem right now. I'm just starting to learn and observe more about the limitations and what the lenses can and cannot be asked to do. I think that for the price to performance ratio, there's still nothing that even comes close on the market.

I've read and seen so many good things about the 400TC/800PF combo, and specifically the 800PF competing against brand's 600 F4's - but none of them ever mentioned distance, how the results can be less consistent, what kind of "weaknesses" or situations you need to be aware of to maximize performance - etc. It all makes sense intuitively - because why would a (now used) $4K lens be able to beat out a $12K lens? I think my expectations were just too high.

3) correct, I am mainly focusing on IQ. for the "test" shots (if you can call it that) - they were all of ospreys just sitting in a nest and not doing anything. other than the single image of the 800PF + 1.4x with a fish, which I should toss out for comparison sake

4) I'm glad for the confirmation bias about the 800PF. I think at this point, it's clear that it cannot be my main lens to rely on - as its attributes do not lend themselves to the type of situations that I find myself in

 

[Lance B]

in this example, I'm talking about 300' distance. by mt do you mean meters? I've never seen it abbreviated that way

so far I haven't brought up anything relating to focus. I don't have any issues with focusing on any of these setups, at any distance. the only talking point is image quality and how it degrades for each lens, over certain distances.

if you mainly shoot at 20m and under, your experiences don't really relate to what's being discussed. at under 20m, I found all of these lenses and combos to be more than acceptable.

all of the images and crops you posted look great, but they are all significantly closer than what's being discussed.

300 feet? Wow, that is a very long way out. That is 100mts - yes, mt/mts refers to meters and depends on the context when I abbreviate it whether I put mt or mts, "at the 20mt mark or it was at 20mts". I would not shoot at 100mts ever unless it was a large animal and even than an elephant would come to mind in order to fill the frame depending on the lens. I just don't know what would fill the frame at 100mts with say an 800 pf.

The first photo and crop of the Osprey would be 30mts and maybe more. However, that would be about the maximum in order to get a frame filling shot or one that is a reasonable crop.

 

[nmerc_photos]

300 feet? Wow, that is a very long way out. That is 100mts - yes, mt/mts refers to meters and depends on the context when I abbreviate it whether I put mt or mts, "at the 20mt mark or it was at 20mts". I would not shoot at 100mts ever unless it was a large animal and even than an elephant would come to mind in order to fill the frame depending on the lens. I just don't know what would fill the frame at 100mts with say an 800 pf.

The first photo and crop of the Osprey would be 30mts and maybe more. However, that would be about the maximum in order to get a frame filling shot or one that is a reasonable crop.

30 meters is often on the shortest side of what I usually shoot. I bought a rangefinder recently to specifically check as I go forward. from today's shooting:

osprey nest at 100m
great blue heron at 140m
hummingbird at 3.7m (unusual for me to shoot)
loons at 12 - 40m

as the year progresses, I'll build up a database of all the normal places I shoot and what distance the subjects are. if I had to guess, I'd say my most used range is 30m - 150m. but I've shot as far as 800m for wolf dens and golden eagles in yellowstone

partially laziness, partially subjects that I can't reasonably get any closer to

it looks like the ultimate hack for good photos is to get as close as possible - but when that isn't possible, I want to put myself in the best situation possible to get a keeper

 

[Lance B]

30 meters is often on the shortest side of what I usually shoot. I bought a rangefinder recently to specifically check as I go forward. from today's shooting:

osprey nest at 100m
great blue heron at 140m
hummingbird at 3.7m (unusual for me to shoot)
loons at 12 - 40m

partially laziness, partially subjects that I can't reasonably get any closer to

it looks like the ultimate hack for good photos is to get as close as possible - but when that isn't possible, I want to put myself in the best situation possible to get a keeper

In my humble opinion, a recipe for a less than optimal results.

 

[nmerc_photos]

In my humble opinion, a recipe for a less than optimal results.

I absolutely agree my goal is to get as optimal as possible, in an obviously suboptimal situation

 

[SCoombs]

Obvious ones, like bokeh of specular highlights - that's standard issue with PF lens. Less microcontrast at some light angles, due to the diffusion (principle of PF). Also, foe some reason, PF is less tolerant to atmospheric disturbances - can't explain why. Otherwise, great lens. Besides, there is nothing on the market that can beat weight/FL combo of the 800PF.

Interesting. Without doing any kind of elaborate testing (it's unclear to me how I'd do that anyways) I have generally found through experience that my 500pf handles things like atmospheric distortion much better than the non-pf lenses I have used, though the non-pf lenses I have used are generally in the class of the 200-500 and 180-600, so perhaps it may be that the pf lenses handle this stuff better than the consumer lenses but not as well as the $10,000+ class.

 

[Lance B]

30 meters is often on the shortest side of what I usually shoot. I bought a rangefinder recently to specifically check as I go forward. from today's shooting:

osprey nest at 100m
great blue heron at 140m
hummingbird at 3.7m (unusual for me to shoot)
loons at 12 - 40m

as the year progresses, I'll build up a database of all the normal places I shoot and what distance the subjects are. if I had to guess, I'd say my most used range is 30m - 150m. but I've shot as far as 800m for wolf dens and golden eagles in yellowstone

partially laziness, partially subjects that I can't reasonably get any closer to

it looks like the ultimate hack for good photos is to get as close as possible - but when that isn't possible, I want to put myself in the best situation possible to get a keeper

As matter of interest, how much of a crop on the Great Blue Heron is there at 140mts? I mean, that must be one hell of a crop!

 

[wotan1]

cameras and lenses have to obey the laws of physics. If you can’t get close enough to get the subject big enough in the frame the subject is too far away.

I also think that shooting beyond 800mm focal length compounds the difficulties that are already there. I have done a lot of shooting at 800 and I have found some great shots with a 50% and even more crop but there is a limit to what any lens can do. This might be different with a lens shooting in outer space Where there is no atmosphere.

Generally the longer the focal length the greater the problem with distance. I have relatively few problems at 400 but 600 gets difficult and 800 is worse. Perhaps that is why nobody makes a native lens longer than 800 full frame.

I have thoroughly explored the practical limit and I have thrown away a lot of useless images that were taken while the subject was too far away.

 

[Lance B]

cameras and lenses have to obey the laws of physics. If you can’t get close enough to get the subject big enough in the frame the subject is too far away.

I also think that shooting beyond 800mm focal length compounds the difficulties that are already there. I have done a lot of shooting at 800 and I have found some great shots with a 50% and even more crop but there is a limit to what any lens can do. This might be different with a lens shooting in outer space Where there is no atmosphere.

Generally the longer the focal length the greater the problem with distance. I have relatively few problems at 400 but 600 gets difficult and 800 is worse. Perhaps that is why nobody makes a native lens longer than 800 full frame.

I have thoroughly explored the practical limit and I have thrown away a lot of useless images that were taken while the subject was too far away.

Completely agree. My "limit" is generally 800mm due to the fact that any longer than that, like you say, there are too many factors that will impact on the result. Shutter speed, high ISO, atmospherics just to name the most logical of issues. Shutter speed limits will be amplified if the subject is moving - you may keep still but the subject may not. If your subject is moving even slowly, then you may require 1/1600sec which results in high ISO then any decent acuity is starting to fade quickly! Then there is atmospherics and shutter speed issues which can combine together and then add that ISO will be taking any acuity you may have had and taking the edge off the result. As you also so correctly add, there are not many longer than 800mm lenses out there. In decent conditions, you can shoot longer but "the planets all have to line up", as they say.

 

[Doug Herr]

cameras and lenses have to obey the laws of physics. If you can’t get close enough to get the subject big enough in the frame the subject is too far away.

I also think that shooting beyond 800mm focal length compounds the difficulties that are already there. I have done a lot of shooting at 800 and I have found some great shots with a 50% and even more crop but there is a limit to what any lens can do. This might be different with a lens shooting in outer space Where there is no atmosphere.

Generally the longer the focal length the greater the problem with distance. I have relatively few problems at 400 but 600 gets difficult and 800 is worse. Perhaps that is why nobody makes a native lens longer than 800 full frame.

Custom-built for an arabian prince. I suspect atmospheric distortion was one of several limiting factors.

 

[SCoombs]

Custom-built for an arabian prince. I suspect atmospheric distortion was one of several limiting factors.

I'll have to remember this for when I become an Arabian prince.

 

[nmerc_photos]

As matter of interest, how much of a crop on the Great Blue Heron is there at 140mts? I mean, that must be one hell of a crop!

enough that I suspect it wasn't a keeper. I was just testing distances and lenses this morning. haven't uploaded the files yet. I suspect it was as much as the 300GM + 2x was for the ospreys, so like a 90% crop

cameras and lenses have to obey the laws of physics. If you can’t get close enough to get the subject big enough in the frame the subject is too far away.

I also think that shooting beyond 800mm focal length compounds the difficulties that are already there. I have done a lot of shooting at 800 and I have found some great shots with a 50% and even more crop but there is a limit to what any lens can do. This might be different with a lens shooting in outer space Where there is no atmosphere.

Generally the longer the focal length the greater the problem with distance. I have relatively few problems at 400 but 600 gets difficult and 800 is worse. Perhaps that is why nobody makes a native lens longer than 800 full frame.

I have thoroughly explored the practical limit and I have thrown away a lot of useless images that were taken while the subject was too far away.

I agree, everyone generally says "has to obey the laws of physics", but it seems many (myself certainly included) don't know which exact laws they are obeying.

In hundreds of thousands of images, I've probably had only triple digit images that filled the frame. On modern equipment, I have no problem TC'ing and cropping a metric sh** ton.

When I had my Canon setup, 840mm and 1200mm were my most used focal lengths and I didn't really have much difficulty with any sort of shooting. I almost exclusively shoot during the first 2 and last 2 hours of light though which helps cut down on atmospherics.

I'm still very much in the exploration phase, trying to figure out how much I can push a lens and get good results. I've surprised myself often with the good results I can get. When I was with Canon I was always playing with stacking extenders and focal lengths up to 2240mm

Completely agree. My "limit" is generally 800mm due to the fact that any longer than that, like you say, there are too many factors that will impact on the result. Shutter speed, high ISO, atmospherics just to name the most logical of issues. Shutter speed limits will be amplified if the subject is moving - you may keep still but the subject may not. If your subject is moving even slowly, then you may require 1/1600sec which results in high ISO then any decent acuity is starting to fade quickly! Then there is atmospherics and shutter speed issues which can combine together and then add that ISO will be taking any acuity you may have had and taking the edge off the result. As you also so correctly add, there are not many longer than 800mm lenses out there. In decent conditions, you can shoot longer but "the planets all have to line up", as they say.

I think it's pretty common that 800mm is a limit. That's probably why so many people love the 400TC/800PF combo. Both get you to a very good 800mm if you can get a subject close enough.

I tend to like to push the envelope, and have a ton of great images at 1200mm, and probably will go back to that range and including 1680mm now with stacked TC's on the 600TC.

Custom-built for an arabian prince. I suspect atmospheric distortion was one of several limiting factors.

imagine how much fun it would be to have that amount of stupid play money where you can just hire the best people and say "make this happen"

I'd love to see images from that beast

 

[nmerc_photos]

As matter of interest, how much of a crop on the Great Blue Heron is there at 140mts? I mean, that must be one hell of a crop!

you piqued my interest, so here's a blue heron at 140m

here's a fullsize image (45MP), DX mode (19MP) and final crop (3MP)

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.

 

[Lance B]

you piqued my interest, so here's a blue heron at 140m

it was so far I didn't even attempt FX, straight to DX. full sized DX image (19MP) and final crop (3MP)

View attachment 92664View attachment 92665

Doesn't look too bad. A little post processing and it would look fine considering the distance. What lens and camera?

 

[nmerc_photos]

Doesn't look too bad. A little post processing and it would look fine considering the distance. What lens and camera?

Nikon Z9 + 800PF (naked)

Not anything in there that I would post, but I agree for the distance and whatnot it's pretty good. Would make for an excellent ID photo.

 

[Ralph]

30 meters is often on the shortest side of what I usually shoot. I bought a rangefinder recently to specifically check as I go forward. from today's shooting:

osprey nest at 100m
great blue heron at 140m
hummingbird at 3.7m (unusual for me to shoot)
loons at 12 - 40m

as the year progresses, I'll build up a database of all the normal places I shoot and what distance the subjects are. if I had to guess, I'd say my most used range is 30m - 150m. but I've shot as far as 800m for wolf dens and golden eagles in yellowstone

partially laziness, partially subjects that I can't reasonably get any closer to

it looks like the ultimate hack for good photos is to get as close as possible - but when that isn't possible, I want to put myself in the best situation possible to get a keeper

I agree with Lance. Anything more than 100-150 ft is really pushing it.

 

[ajrmd]

Nick, I just looked at your series of Loons and other images over at FM and it appears you're doing very well with your 800PF though I suspect that these images were closer to the MFD rather than at distance. Even the series of shots of the Osprey at 1100+ mm were solid as they appear to have been shot in reasonably good light. Nonetheless, I think your observations hold and again when I compare images shot with a Canon EF 500 f/4 II/1.4x or EF 600 f/4 II/1.4x against those I took with the 800, at distance while the 800's images appear sharp, the color, contrast, and that analog fidelity (glow, creamy) seem better on the other primes.

 

[nmerc_photos]

Nick, I just looked at your series of Loons and other images over at FM and it appears you're doing very well with your 800PF though I suspect that these images were closer to the MFD rather than at distance. Even the series of shots of the Osprey at 1100+ mm were solid as they appear to have been shot in reasonably good light. Nonetheless, I think your observations hold and again when I compare images shot with a Canon EF 500 f/4 II/1.4x or EF 600 f/4 II/1.4x against those I took with the 800, at distance while the 800's images appear sharp, the color, contrast, and that analog fidelity (glow, creamy) seem better on the other primes.

thanks! yes, my recent loon pictures are some of the best pictures I have ever taken. very far from my usual subjects though, as when kayaking they will let you physically pet them if you wanted to

majority of shots were between 10m - 40m, and deep crops

also, even though the pics came out great, I know they'd be noticeably better (to me) if I had been using the 400TC + 2x, or presumably the 600TC. loon eyes are something that the 800PF really seems to struggle with in comparison

400TC and 800PF have been listed for sale... we'll see if I have any regrets going back to the 600TC

 

[Robert S]

I just took a photo at about a metre using my cobbled up version of an 800mm lens with 37mm of extension tubes.

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

BTW I'm off to Darwin and Buffalo Creek in 6 days. Getting all excited. Seems there is a lot of activity on the creek:

Log into Facebook

Log into Facebook to start sharing and connecting with your friends, family, and people you know.

www.facebook.com

 

[John Navitsky]

I don't know, the Sony 300GM that he is using is one of the sharpest lenses I've ever owned. But I've never owned the 400TC so maybe it is that much better??
Sony 300GM is certainly a better optic than the 400GM when TCs are involved.

i just assumed since op said 400 tc and 800 pf we were talking about the nikon ecosystem

no clue on the new sony 300, but it does sound nice

 

[nmerc_photos]

i just assumed since op said 400 tc and 800 pf we were talking about the nikon ecosystem

no clue on the new sony 300, but it does sound nice

Fortunately for us Nikon users, all Sony lenses are part of our ecosystem

 

[John Navitsky]

ok, i suppose