Nikon 800mm 6.3 PF Z Lens announced

AdamSi

AdamSi

Suspended / Banned
Messages
4,209
Name
Adam
Edit My Images
Yes
Now Nikon really are back at the top of the table, first the Z9 and now a new announcement about an 800mm 6.3 PF Z mount lens, this really is a wildlife photographers dream for portability and reach, the Z7 and 500 is a dream but imagine a Z9 and 800mm reach and still be very much hand holdable !
 
It's certainly an impressive looking lens. Out of my price range, but for birders an enticing option that's a lot more portable than F-mount or even competition equivalents.
Paired with a Z9 this is going to attract the attention from other brand users.
 
Am guessing this is not going be a cheap option going on 500 PF price can see this being 6K or more, hopefully not ?
 
That's really cool. I do wonder what the size and price will be like.
 
mufftrix said:
Am guessing this is not going be a cheap option going on 500 PF price can see this being 6K or more, hopefully not ?
Click to expand...
I think 'cheap' is a term that can be used relatively in the case of supertele lenses..... WEX list the 500 f/4 from Nikon at just under 10k.... and the 800 5.6 is on sale at the moment for a steal at a little over 16.5 k - these things are hugely expensive! The 500 5.6 pf is listed at 3 k - even at 6k it'll be a 1/3d of the price of the 5.6, which sounds like that may be the price of this new lens. However, it could be closer to 4.5-5 we don't know. I wouldn't be surprised to see a 6k usd price tag, which whilst hard to stomach, does represent good value for money in this market.
 
mufftrix said:
Am guessing this is not going be a cheap option going on 500 PF price can see this being 6K or more, hopefully not ?
Click to expand...
I am guessing between £4K-£5K if it comes in £3999 I think it have a huge backlog for sure, saying that the Z9 at £5200 is one of the largest pre-orders they have seen !
 
sk66 said:
800mm isn't hand-holdable regardless of the weight... not on a high resolution sensor.
Click to expand...
I was more meaning it could be on lap in car and rest on window, leaning against something and a good light day high enough shutter, it will prevent the need for a major tripod and gimbal compared with the 600F4 800 5.6 etc just the sheer size difference makes such a difference. The SEO photos this weekend I would have missed with my 400 2.8 or another large lens as it would have been in my bag and not to hand like the 500PF was
 
Last edited:
Didn't need to see this Adam! Only just finished paying for the 500 PF!! :ROFLMAO: :facepalm:

Could be interesting dependant on weight, but suspect it'll be extremely expensive
 
sk66 said:
With that amount of magnification any bit of movement degrades IQ... might as well use a shorter lens and crop.
Click to expand...
Tis fine, I have done it before
A7RIII, 840mm, f9, 1/640s :)
48860342168_8a4d43a52f_b.jpg

48860809256_e83781e700_b.jpg
 
Son_of_Thor said:
Didn't need to see this Adam! Only just finished paying for the 500 PF!! :ROFLMAO: :facepalm:

Could be interesting dependant on weight, but suspect it'll be extremely expensive
Click to expand...
Hahaha I’m not sure I have enough organs to sell as now want the Z9 and this
 
nandbytes said:
Tis fine, I have done it before
A7RIII, 840mm, f9, 1/640s :)
Click to expand...
Sure; if you are going to use a 42MP sensor to generate images < 1MP in resolution... like I said; might as well use a shorter lens and crop, results will be about the same... or use a cheaper camera with less resolution since you aren't making use of it anyway.

600mm on D850; and I'm pretty sure that's not even the full sensor capability (that's 400% zoom)
(looks like the forum smashed it some)

resolution.jpg
 
Last edited:
sk66 said:
Sure; if you are going to use a 42MP sensor to generate images < 1MP in resolution... like I said; might as well use a shorter lens and crop, results will be about the same... or use a cheaper camera with less resolution since you aren't making use of it anyway.

600mm on D850View attachment 338113
Click to expand...
I am making use of it and its perfectly fine.
For one I cannot post full res images here and I generally don't post full res images online unless its needed (its not really needed in this case, my birds are pretty sharp with plenty of details, don't need a full res image to see that).
Anyway my point is I am able to handhold @800mm (considering lens isn't too heavy) without any issues.
 
nandbytes said:
I am making use of it and its perfectly fine.
For one I cannot post full res images here and I generally don't post full res images online unless its needed (its not really needed in this case, my birds are pretty sharp with plenty of details, don't need a full res image to see that).
Anyway my point is I am able to handhold @800mm (considering lens isn't too heavy) without any issues.
Click to expand...
sk66 said:
With that amount of magnification any bit of movement degrades IQ... might as well use a shorter lens and crop.
Click to expand...

I often handhold my 600F4 with TC attached so 840mm and it perfectly fine for short periods before my arms give in to the weight
 
Last edited:
mufftrix said:
I often handhold my 600F4 with TC attached so 840mm and it perfectly fine for short periods before my arms give in to the weight
Click to expand...
What is "fine?" What are you comparing the results against?
Most do not realize that anything above ~ 10-12MP of actually recorded resolution will appear quite good in any "normal" viewing situation... and when an image appears obviously lacking it probably has an effective resolution of less than 8MP. Hell, most images are put/viewed online at no more than 3MP resolution.

So, if that is your standard of "fine," then yeah... you can get away with hand-holding long FL's at least sometimes.
 
sk66 said:
What is "fine?" What are you comparing the results against?
Most do not realize that anything above ~ 10-12MP of actually recorded resolution will appear quite good in any "normal" viewing situation... and when an image appears obviously lacking it probably has an effective resolution of less than 8MP. Hell, most images are put/viewed online at no more than 3MP resolution.

So, if that is your standard of "fine," then yeah... you can get away with hand-holding long FL's at least sometimes.
Click to expand...

I shoot with D850 at 46mp so fine for me has got to be sharp and detailed or it in the bin if it isn't in focus it would soon become apparent on close inspection, I have taken plenty of my shots that are handheld with and without 1.4 TC

While It not ideal and I obviously prefer support I certainly would not say it impossible

Couple examples below that I remember being handheld

Red-backed shrike - Sutton Park, Sutton Coldfield by Mick Erwin, on Flickr

Wren (Troglodytes troglodytes) by Mick Erwin, on Flickr

Gannet - Morus bassanus by Mick Erwin, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
mufftrix said:
I shoot with D850 at 46mp so fine for me has got to be sharp and detailed or it in the bin if it isn't in focus it would soon become apparent on close inspection, I have taken plenty of my shots that are handheld with and without 1.4 TC

While It not ideal and I obviously prefer support I certainly would not say it impossible

Couple examples below that I remember being handheld
Click to expand...
Those images are all at less than 1MP... how do they hold up to 200-400% zoom/cropping? Compare that to the example I posted above at 400%...
If your images start to degrade prior to pixelating, then you are not making full use of the sensor's resolution.

I'm not saying you necessarily need full sensor resolution at 36+ MP; you very well might not (probably not)... which then begs the question, "why pay for/use such a high resolution camera in the first place?" I use a D850 for the (rare) occasions I can make near full use of it's capabilities. And I do handhold (rifle stock setup) at 600+mm at times; but I am also fully aware that I am discarding the majority of the sensor's capability when I do so.
 
sk66 said:
Those images are all at less than 1MP... how do they hold up to 200-400% zoom/cropping? Compare that to the example I posted above at 400%...
If your images start to degrade prior to pixelating, then you are not making full use of the sensor's resolution.

I'm not saying you necessarily need full sensor resolution at 36+ MP; you very well might not (probably not)... which then begs the question, "why pay for/use such a high resolution camera in the first place?" I use a D850 for the (rare) occasions I can make near full use of it's capabilities. And I do handhold (rifle stock setup) at 600+mm at times; but I am also fully aware that I am discarding the majority of the sensor's capability when I do so.
Click to expand...
How do you come to the conclusion they are less than 1mp I really don't know? The original files are not shown on Flickr only a max 1600 image to stop people stealing the full file? I can see the full image being the owner of them and they are 4mp 19mp and 14mp. If the image is razor sharp and I can crop in to see every feather before any sharpening or adjustment I know I have nailed the shot. Your argument is you can't handhold at 800mm but if I can fill more of the frame at 840mm how can that not be better than a short lens with cropping which will reduce the quality in itself

that the reason I have 46mp so I can crop and still have a detailed sharp image as birds do not always play ball, on many occasions you need a large crop to get a useable image so the bird is not a dot on the screen, even 840mm sometimes isn't enough so that where the cropability of the high res sensor comes in. The top one of my previous shots being an example it is a massive crop and if I had been using 300mm say the image would have been not able to crop in and still have a sharp image.

Ideally I would like to fill the frame with every shot but when you do get a close image like below having 840mm gave me a 30mp plus image

https://flic.kr/p/2jLtbM8
View: https://flic.kr/p/2jLtbM8
 
Totally agree with you there Mick - to give such a misleading statement as an 800mm cannot be handheld with a much MP camera is questionably misleading at best. Everybody has different physical abilities and fine motor skills. I know a whole legion of bird in flight photographers using converters to make 840mm and 1200mm lenses, all handholding and using Canon R5 and Sony A1 bodies.

Granted it's not for everybody, nor every circumstance, but I certainly manage with my R5 / 600mm f4 / 1.4x setup, and I'm a tad picky about IQ

Any doubts maybe look at the work of Arash Hazeghi (Sony A1) or Geoff Newhouse (A1 and has had an R5 as well) and tell me you can't get sharp results.

Mike
 
mufftrix said:
How do you come to the conclusion they are less than 1mp I really don't know? The original files are not shown on Flickr only a max 1600 image to stop people stealing the full file? I can see the full image being the owner of them and they are 4mp 19mp and 14mp. If the image is razor sharp and I can crop in to see every feather before any sharpening or adjustment I know I have nailed the shot. Your argument is you can't handhold at 800mm but if I can fill more of the frame at 840mm how can that not be better than a short lens with cropping which will reduce the quality in itself.
Click to expand...
The image cannot contain more resolution than it is presented at... i.e. if you put it online at 1024x long edge it cannot contain more than 1MP of resolution. Cropping doesn't necessarily reduce IQ any more than increased magnification does... i.e. more magnification causes greater image blur (motion), more light spread (a slower aperture), and greater diffraction.

pooley said:
Totally agree with you there Mick - to give such a misleading statement as an 800mm cannot be handheld with a much MP camera is questionably misleading at best.
Click to expand...
It's the same as most things with the modern high resolution sensors... the results won't be any worse; they just won't be any better either.

E.g. if you use a longer FL handheld (with insufficient stability or SS) you eliminate the "crop ability," and the ability to print/display larger, that the higher resolution sensor can provide. The increased magnification the longer FL provides also magnifies any movement/blur and spreads it across more pixels. The net result is that the longer FL provides no benefit... i.e. it is not hand-holdable.
 
sk66 said:
The image cannot contain more resolution than it is presented at... i.e. if you put it online at 1024x long edge it cannot contain more than 1MP of resolution. Cropping doesn't necessarily reduce IQ any more than increased magnification does... i.e. more magnification causes greater image blur (motion), more light spread (a slower aperture), and greater diffraction.


It's the same as most things with the modern high resolution sensors... the results won't be any worse; they just won't be any better either.

E.g. if you use a longer FL handheld (with insufficient stability or SS) you eliminate the "crop ability," and the ability to print/display larger, that the higher resolution sensor can provide. The increased magnification the longer FL provides also magnifies any movement/blur and spreads it across more pixels. The net result is that the longer FL provides no benefit... i.e. it is not hand-holdable.
Click to expand...
Have you ever tried the FL 600 or used it?

I have been using it since it came out and at 45mp the shots are either in focus or soft there no fine line at this resolution. I know if my images are in focus or not, if they aren't it obvious as soon as you review the images

This could go on forever but the fact of the matter is 800mm is hand holdable and I could provide shot after shot in focus when i have been stood up hand holding it so go figure?

Cropping wise if this was true no one would buy 600 or 800mm lenses they would just buy a 400 and crop for the same result

But the matter of it is 840mm puts more pixels on the subject than 400mm or 500mm does and if you crop them heavily the first image to deteriate in quality will be the one with less pixels on the subject.

Like I say this could go on forever and short of doing some shots at different focal lengths (even them I am sure you would find a technical reason it was wrong) I will leave it there that I am happy to shoot at 840mm hand held and people can make there own mind up who right or wrong
 
Steven,

you’re really clutching at straws now.

Is it really that difficult to accept that some people are capable of getting pin sharp results at long focal lengths without trying to prove those of who can manage it wrong by posting ridiculous statements like ‘it has no advantage’.
For me shooting birds in flight and being able to move freely in the field, hand holding is a huge advantage.

this new Nikon lens has great potential for wildlife given the modern sensor and software improvements that allow higher ISO use. All that’s missing is the ‘F4 look’.

if you prefer tripod use, great. I’m assuming you keep it fully locked down to make it better than handholding - otherwise it’s pointless, and for me trying to shoot moving subjects on the moors I’d be lucky to get anything worthwhile using a locked down tripod.
Mike
 
mufftrix said:
Have you ever tried the FL 600 or used it?

I have been using it since it came out and at 45mp the shots are either in focus or soft there no fine line at this resolution. I know if my images are in focus or not, if they aren't it obvious as soon as you review the images

This could go on forever but the fact of the matter is 800mm is hand holdable and I could provide shot after shot in focus when i have been stood up hand holding it so go figure?
Click to expand...
No, I have not purchased any of the PF lenses (and don't intend to). I own 300/2.8, 400/2.8, Sigma 60-600, and I have owned (but sold) 500/4, 600/4, and 800/5.6.

"In focus" and "sharp" are relative terms and apparently quite subjective. If you can immediately tell your images are not in focus with normal viewing, then they are probably at less than 8MP recorded. If you can zoom in until the image pixelates before the finest/sharpest details start to appear soft, then it is in focus/sharp down to the sensor resolution (pixel level) whatever resolution that is.
mufftrix said:
Cropping wise if this was true no one would buy 600 or 800mm lenses they would just buy a 400 and crop for the same result

But the matter of it is 840mm puts more pixels on the subject than 400mm or 500mm does and if you crop them heavily the first image to deteriate in quality will be the one with less pixels on the subject.
Click to expand...
More pixels on subject is only a benefit if the optics, settings, and technique (blur) are not the limiting factor; but they usually are at the long end... for example, you add a TC to a prime and wind up at f/5.6, and you stop down to f/8 to compensate for the TC; you are now limited to ~ 30MP max due to diffraction. There is a reason the professional action cameras are still at 20MP (D4/5/6, 1D X mk1-3)... and the longer/slower FL lenses (and handholding/monopod/unlocked gimbals) make more sense with them.

The only thing a lens does is crop and enlarge (spread the light out farther)... i.e. a 400/2.8, 600/4, and 800/5.6 all receive the same scene/light/image; the same as your eyes do. It's not really any different from cropping/enlarging in post. The only question is does the lens/projected image, or the sensor, have more resolution? You can't crop the lens/technique limited image in post the same... and technique with the longer/slower lenses are typically going to be the limiting factor first.

I have many examples of D850 images taken handheld at 400mm that hold up at 400% zoom, some at 600mm, none at 800mm. Since switching to only high resolution sensors (30MP+) I quit using the longer FL's/TC's and crop instead if necessary.
mufftrix said:
Like I say this could go on forever and short of doing some shots at different focal lengths
Click to expand...
IMO you would do well to do some testing and save your money...
 
Last edited:
pooley said:
s it really that difficult to accept that some people are capable of getting pin sharp results at long focal lengths without trying to prove those of who can manage it wrong by posting ridiculous statements like ‘it has no advantage’.
For me shooting birds in flight and being able to move freely in the field, hand holding is a huge advantage.
Click to expand...
What I said is that the additional FL provides no advantage.
pooley said:
if you prefer tripod use, great.
Click to expand...
Nope, I pretty much hate tripods, but I own several along with monopods and bipods. For wildlife I do most of it handheld with the aid of a rifle stock, sometimes with a monopod/bipod, rarely on the tripod/fluid gimbal or beanbag/ground pod panning base (even though I know better). And I agree that trying to photograph moving subjects with a locked down tripod is pointless. Which is why I see this lens as being about pointless... you might be able to do well enough hand-holding it on a D4 or D5/6, but you won't be any better off than using a shorter/sharper/faster lens on a higher resolution sensor.
 
Last edited:
I think the best answer here is - don't buy this lens then Steven.

You stick to what you believe, whilst those of us experienced in handholding can get lovely sharp shots on high MP bodies - such as the D850 and R5 me and Mick own.

It's completely pointless debating this with you further as you obviously know better than the rest of us - just for your own education- https://ari1982.smugmug.com All these are handheld, the vast majority a 600mm f4 with converters on high MP bodies

Now, shall we go back to discussing the lens, rather than assuming it can't be used the way Nikon intend it?
 
sk66 said:
What I said is that the additional FL provides no advantage.

Nope, I pretty much hate tripods, but I own several along with monopods and bipods. For wildlife I do most of it handheld with the aid of a rifle stock, sometimes with a monopod/bipod, rarely on the tripod/fluid gimbal or beanbag/ground pod panning base (even though I know better). And I agree that trying to photograph moving subjects with a locked down tripod is pointless. Which is why I see this lens as being about pointless... you might be able to do well enough hand-holding it on a D4 or D5/6, but you won't be any better off than using a shorter/sharper/faster lens on a higher resolution sensor.
Click to expand...
Can you expand on this rifle stock please Steven .. we have nothing in the u.k that fits that description .. is yours a proprietary unit or something you have made yourself . … photos would be helpful .. either reply in post or message me if you want ?
 
pooley said:
whilst those of us experienced in handholding can get lovely sharp shots on high MP bodies - such as the D850 and R5 me and Mick own.
Click to expand...
That's pretty presumptive of you... I get results as good as anyone else hand-holding long FL's on a high resolution body.

800mm on D850 handheld
_SGK3849.jpg
_SGK0188.jpg


There's just no point to it... The second you switch from 400mm to 800mm any motion shake/blur becomes 4x greater (area), diffraction becomes 4x greater and max resolution (potential) drops to 1/4. And the light intensity drops to 1/4; so either the SS has to be 4x longer (normally unacceptable) or the ISO has to be 4x as high, resulting in much greater noise/pixel and loss of resolution. Sure, the image doesn't need cropped as much, which is good because it can't be. The whole thing is self defeating... you are just buying/using a high resolution sensor with a longer lens in order to achieve the same results (or worse).
Now, if the 800mm PF were to be significantly sharper than your 400mm (highly unlikely), or you were going to do something different in how you use it; then you might see some significant benefit.

I didn't come to this conclusion w/o a lot of trial/error and experience... And I can provide plenty of examples/comparisons, but I don't really have to; there are plenty of examples in your own portfolio.
 
I suggest you have a read of this science based explanation of diffraction on different focal lengths and see how the science squares against some of your assertions based on trial and error.

fstoppers.com

A Closer Look at Lens Diffraction | Fstoppers

Every lens has a sweet spot, the aperture where the image sharpness is at its best. If the aperture becomes larger, lens errors will become visible. When the aperture is closed, lens diffraction will become visible. In this article, I am going to take a closer look at lens diffraction.
fstoppers.com fstoppers.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top