Z 800mm PF for mammals

[Wade Abadie]

Is anyone here frequently using their 800 PF to shoot mammals? Particularly larger mammals (deer sized and up). If so, what are your thoughts and experiences?

I know that it’s mostly birders who flock to this lens (pun intended)….but I’ve been doing a little brainstorming. I have a 500mm f/4 G that is a wonderful lens but I rarely take it out due to the weight (8.5 lbs). For several years, I was using a D500 with the 500 G, making for an effective 750mm field of view….which should be close to the 800 on a full frame (I’m now shooting with a Z8). Also, theoretically, subject isolation and background blur should be similar.

I just really hesitate to get rid of my only f/4 long lens in exchange for something f/6.3. Ideally, someday I will be able to justify the cost of a 600 TC, but until then I’m struggling with my options.

 

[ajrmd]

It would be helpful to know where and what you shoot? It can work for distant subjects (think wolves from a distance) though for most applications a 400, 600 PF, or even a 186 might be better substitutions. Look at the FL's of your images and then decide.

 

[DRwyoming]

If so, what are your thoughts and experiences?

There's nothing really wrong with the focal length itself for larger subjects but using 800mm or more on a deer, elk, moose or other large mammal for full body or environmental shots implies you're working from very long distances and shooting through a lot of atmosphere, water vapor, dust, etc.. Even without big thermal differentials that can lead to soft images but add thermal issues in on hot or cold days and it's asking a lot.

I've definitely shot at 800mm for larger subjects on occasion but it wouldn't be my go-to focal length for larger subjects due to the implied working distance. I think of the longest lenses or long lenses with TCs as great tools for smaller subjects at moderate to short working distances but not so great for larger subjects at long distances. YMMV...

 

[JAS]

I regularly use the 800 PF w/ and w/o TC for prairie dog towns in Colorado. Smaller mammals where they don't let you too close. Also used for Bighorns at RMNP where they were close to the road but access limited by the Park Rangers. Also works for shooting deer across a wetlands area or other inaccessible locations. Also, hillside elk in RMNP and other places where zooming by foot is not an option and you want to fill more of the frame.

 

[ricardo00]

As others have said, nothing wrong with using the 800mm PF for any animal. And like you, came from the D500 with a 500mm lens (though the 500mm PF), so not that different. Depends on distance on whether you want a tight crop of the animal (for example, just the face, etc). When I carry my 800mm PF for a short hike, I can't carry another camera with a smaller lens (my knees and back won't allow it), so if the animal I am going after gets too close (ie. a bobcat, etc) then just focus on the part I am most interested in. Have also deliberately done this even if I had the other camera with a shorter FL next to me on a safari vehicle.
For example,

https://flic.kr/p/2ph74pt

https://flic.kr/p/2pygsTu

 

[BLev65]

I shot the 800PF for a little more than a year and decided to sell it. While I do shoot some smaller birds, I prefer photographing mammals and larger birds. I found that the 800PF was far too limiting for the way I like to photograph mammals. In particular, I like to show the environment and give my subjects a bit of breathing room. Furthermore, I found that having 800mm made me a bit lazy, and I thus spent less time moving closer to my subjects or looking for the optimum subject to camera distance. While I never believe in getting too close, at 800mm I found that my willingness to shoot from a farther distance caused many of my photos to suffer from heat-haze / differential effects.
In terms of mammal photography, I found that the 800PF was perfect for squirrels, chipmunks, muskrat, and beavers. These animals are smaller and I could get reasonably close, reduce haze effects, and get the magnification I desire.
In the end, I sold the 800PF and 400 f4.5... I now use a 400mm f2.8TC, 100-400, and 180-600mm lens. Were I not be able to afford to buy the latter kit, I'd be shooting with the 100-400S and 600PF... I think that this pairing makes for a good all around and professional wildlife kit.

cheers,
bruce

 

[nmerc_photos]

I don't have a ton of large mammals where I live (biggest is white tailed deer) but when I took it to Yellowstone/Tetons I found it was largely useless.

I was clipping ears and body parts at 600mm, and should've been using 400mm or less. The 600mm was pretty much a strictly portrait lens, and an 800mm lens would be if I was only interested in iris pictures.

On the other end of the spectrum, if subjects were much further away - I found that the "normal" (IE non PF lenses) handled things like atmospherics much better. IE a 400 f2.8 + 2x greatly outperformed the 800PF.

IMO - the 800PF is relatively niche, and excels as a lightweight lens for small subjects at short to medium distances.

What Bruce describes above is pretty much exactly my experience as well after owning the lens for almost 1.5 years.

 

[fcotterill]

My favourite telephotos for mammals are the 180-400 f4E TC14 and a 800, or lighter equivalents if hiking... So 500 PF, 100-400 S or 400 f4.5S. Previously I often used a TC2 III on a 400 f2.8E FL . More details in links below

Yes heat haze is an omnipresent hazard

Nikkor 800mm f6.3S PF with Z-TC's for African mammals and Birds

My 800 PF arrived early May not long before I left on a long (and long awaited) trip into northern Kruger Nat Park. (Edit, more test results here, also comparisons with the 800 f5.6E FL with respective Teleconverters)...

bcgforums.com

https://bcgforums.com/threads/wildlife-photography-in-afrotropical-savannas-a-few-lessons.10953/post-111874

 

[wotan1]

I agree the 800 can be long for closer mammals but it works at longer distances.

My three main wildlife lenses are the 800mm pf, 400mm f4.5 and the 70-200mm f2.8. Whether it is mammals or birds, in some areas where the creatures are frequently fed by humans, they show no fear and will get up close. Even the 70-200 can be too close to get them into the frame sometimes.

Having a choice of focal lengths definitely helps. Both the 70-200 and 400mm f4.5 are good IQ lenses and easy to work with handheld. I usually shoot with two bodies in this kind of environment so I can switch easily between two lenses as appropriate. The 80t0 is the ultimate long reach wildlife lens and is always there when I need it. In the Pacific Northwest it is my most treasured wildlife optic.

It is also the case that possibilities depend substantially on location. The needs for the area where you typically shoot will dictate lens needs. What works for me may not work for you.

 

[jpgrove]

I have used the 800 for Deer (Red and Fallow) as I like to keep my distance as it helps with field craft and also the deer have such good sense of smell etc. The other great thing about it is the weight. Sometimes the narrow field of view can be a pain, but it's a compromise.

 

[BLev65]

I have used the 800 for Deer (Red and Fallow) as I like to keep my distance as it helps with field craft and also the deer have such good sense of smell etc. The other great thing about it is the weight. Sometimes the narrow field of view can be a pain, but it's a compromise.

Were I a wildlife photographer in Europe where red and fallow deer roam, I think I'd have kept my 800PF. Other than in some very well protected areas or shooting from a blind, getting "close" to European wildlife is very difficult. Because we have so many state parks, national parks, and undeveloped land in the US, we have a fairly robust wild mammal population. While there are places that these animals are extremely skittish, there are many locations where a 400mm is too long .
regards,
bruce

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

 

[nmerc_photos]

additionally @Wade Abadie, although you didn't ask for input on this area... a very good way to get equipment now and pay later is just to get a 0% APR credit card

instead of paying $12.5K one time for a 600TC, you could pay $520/mo if you are disciplined and have decent credit. I know a lot of people that do this so that they can enjoy the equipment for the full time they are paying for it, instead of having to spend years saving up.

 

[Calson]

When shooting in places like Yellowstone I used the 600mm f/4 with the TC-14 teleconverter for a 840mm focal length. Handy when maintaining a safe photographer to bear distance, in particular with a sow and her cubs. Even in a place like Yellowstone there are small birds and rodents where the 800mm is very useful.

Where I do not use the 800mm is when shooting from a small boat or with large birds where tracking them in flight is better done with a shorter focal length zoom lens.

 

[fcotterill]

In the broader context the underlying question is about composition. What frame do you seek for the subject, and thus field of view? This dictates the choice of lens.

800mm or longer on a FX camera is either for tight framing of a large mammal, or perhaps a smaller carnivore or rodent etc, or it's for an Animalscape. The latter tends to be less common and it's often that bad atmospherics trash such scenes!

Brad Hill has reported in detail on his shifting perspective of the 800 PF, and include many excellent images taken with his 800 PF. It's become one of his preferred lenses

Natural Art Images: Brad Hill: Stuff I Use Part II: Lenses

Camera gear and related accessories regularly used by Brad Hill in the field. Part II - Lenses I currently use or have used.

www.naturalart.ca

 

[mdirvin]

You are really the only person that can answer that. Subjects and distances can very so much. Each person draws on their experience which can be far different from yours. In my case 800mm is far to long. Other than birds, and butterfly's I really don't need that long of a lens. Here is a typical deer for me uncropped, full frame at 300 mm.

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

 

[Halfblindphoto]

I'm very happy with my 800mm lens. During my last wolf and bear trip to Finland, I captured some shots that I wouldn’t have been able to get without a lot of cropping.
I've also attached a screenshot showing how my shots are distributed across my lenses during that trip.

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.

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

 

[Wade Abadie]

Thank you everyone for the input…as I think more about it, I would prefer to stay in the 500-600mm focal length.

Perhaps I should look at getting a used 500 f/4 E FL…they are very reasonable right now. That lens is nearly 2 pounds lighter than the G model, and presumably has slightly better AF and VR capabilities.