Nikon 800mm 6.3 PF Z Lens announced

[mufftrix]

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
View attachment 338523
View attachment 338528


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.

You say there no point but what you don't mention is your shots are taken with a x2 converter and you stepped down to F8 on a 400mm F2.8 lens lens

I would never use a x2 as in that case I agree cropping would be better !

I happily shoot wide open handheld at F5.6 if the light conditions are not great or F6.3/ F7.1 If the light allows as the combo is sharp without needing to stop down to F8 all the time

The quality won't be as good with a x2 converter I would never consider putting one on a FL lens or any other for that matter, and in and the examples you posted lack in feather detail proves the quality loss that I don't experience using 600mm + 1.4TC

another couple examples of shots that can't be done handheld below !

• ƒ/7.1 850.0 mm 1/1000 450 ISO

Waxwing (Staffordshire) by Mick Erwin, on Flickr

• /8.0 850.0 mm 1/2500 560 ISO

Tree Sparrow by Mick Erwin, on Flickr

 

[sk66]

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.

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

Not sure what you are referring to... quoted from that post:
"Image Resolution Determines the Amount of Diffraction
Diffraction is always occurring. But the lens opening or aperture is determining how strong the diffraction will be. When the Airy disk becomes larger than a single pixel, diffraction will become visible."

Or if you prefer, a scientific paper on the topic.

 

[sk66]

Ok, it all makes sense now. I’ll be better off using something that you will profit from rather than continue doing my own tried and tested techniques.

gotcha

I'm not selling anything here... and I have not promoted my products either way.

 

[sk66]

The quality won't be as good with a x2 converter I would never consider putting one on a FL lens or any other for that matter, and in and the examples you posted lack in feather detail proves the quality loss that I don't experience using 600mm + 1.4TC

It's not the lens/TC. D810 image at 800mm and a 100% crop (and I had to compress the quality/resolution to get them to load here). That hummingbird is about the size of your thumb...





You're not getting the point, nothing improves when you go to a longer focal length. And it doesn't matter if you use a longer FL prime lens, zoom w/ a variable aperture lens, or add a TC to a prime... in fact, if anything it is worse.

• The subject didn't suddenly become any closer to the lens (making details larger/easier for the lens to resolve). In fact the subject is probably farther away/smaller, which is why you might choose a longer FL to start with.
• The increased magnification at the exit pupil (additional/stronger telephoto elements) spreads the image circle out farther and causes your sensor to function as a crop sensor (that's really all it does, everything else is a result).
• The increased magnification and spread of the image circle also results in less light density at the image plane... this is why the f/# becomes larger (e.g. your f/4 becomes f/5.6 w/ a 1.4x).
• The reduction in light requires slower SS's or higher ISOs (typically the latter), both of which detract. Less light/pixel causes more noise and lower resolution.
• The increased magnification and spread of the image circle also causes any resolved detail to cover more pixels (4x as many pixels w/ 2x FL).
• Similarly, the increased magnification and spread of the image circle also causes any blur (motion/diffraction/DoFocus) to cover more pixels as well.

All of that causes a reduction in image resolution at the image plane, along with other "low light" issues... regardless of the resolution of the sensor (the sensor cannot record what isn't there).

When longer FL is of benefit:

• When the lens is also sharper (very unlikely with the long telephoto lenses and resulting slower apertures, but possible if changing manufacturer/technology)
• When the shorter lens is resolving more than the sensor can (extremely unlikely at long FL's handheld, slower apertures, especially w/ high resolution sensors)
• When the longer lens is also at the same aperture; results in more light/subject area (e.g. 200/2.8 vs 400/2.8)

 

[sk66]

the quality loss that I don't experience using 600mm + 1.4TC

All of the facts I posted above makes it literally impossible for there to not be a reduction in lens resolution when you add a TC... even Nikon can't prevent it when they make the same lens design of greater magnification.





If you are not seeing a reduction, then something else is limiting it to less than the full potential (like hand holding).

 

[nandbytes]

All of the facts I posted above makes it literally impossible for there to not be a reduction in lens resolution when you add a TC... even Nikon can't prevent it when they make the same lens design of greater magnification.

View attachment 338687



If you are not seeing a reduction, then something else is limiting it to less than the full potential (like hand holding).

Not sure I totally believe your theory tbh....
DXO mark and their pixel scores aren't always reliable.... and not mention its rather dubious what they even mean
the two lenses you compare are from different decades
And if we compare canon equivalents from roughly similar release dates.... it tells a different story

 

[mufftrix]

It's not the lens/TC. D810 image at 800mm and a 100% crop (and I had to compress the quality/resolution to get them to load here). That hummingbird is about the size of your thumb...

View attachment 338672
View attachment 338673


You're not getting the point, nothing improves when you go to a longer focal length. And it doesn't matter if you use a longer FL prime lens, zoom w/ a variable aperture lens, or add a TC to a prime... in fact, if anything it is worse.

• The subject didn't suddenly become any closer to the lens (making details larger/easier for the lens to resolve). In fact the subject is probably farther away/smaller, which is why you might choose a longer FL to start with.
• The increased magnification at the exit pupil (additional/stronger telephoto elements) spreads the image circle out farther and causes your sensor to function as a crop sensor (that's really all it does, everything else is a result).
• The increased magnification and spread of the image circle also results in less light density at the image plane... this is why the f/# becomes larger (e.g. your f/4 becomes f/5.6 w/ a 1.4x).
• The reduction in light requires slower SS's or higher ISOs (typically the latter), both of which detract. Less light/pixel causes more noise and lower resolution.
• The increased magnification and spread of the image circle also causes any resolved detail to cover more pixels (4x as many pixels w/ 2x FL).
• Similarly, the increased magnification and spread of the image circle also causes any blur (motion/diffraction/DoFocus) to cover more pixels as well.

All of that causes a reduction in image resolution at the image plane, along with other "low light" issues... regardless of the resolution of the sensor (the sensor cannot record what isn't there).

When longer FL is of benefit:

• When the lens is also sharper (very unlikely with the long telephoto lenses and resulting slower apertures, but possible if changing manufacturer/technology)
• When the shorter lens is resolving more than the sensor can (extremely unlikely at long FL's handheld, slower apertures, especially w/ high resolution sensors)
• When the longer lens is also at the same aperture; results in more light/subject area (e.g. 200/2.8 vs 400/2.8)

If it so bad why are you using a x2 on your 400mm and not cropping like you keep saying is better?

All these charts and jargon but you using a converter on a super Sharp f2.8 lens and shooting at f8 why not just crop?

You also sell an item for handholding at longer focal lengths and state it possible, so perhaps you should put all your charts etc on your website to say it a waste of time buying it as it will not work, a support or not it still handholding albeit with a small gain perhaps of less fatigue in the short run

Quotes from your website go figure??? Note you don't say impossible only almost??? And the newer FL lenses are significantly better balanced plus less weight than the older ones, I know as I have had them in the past

"Handholding a heavy lens was almost impossible"

and with your riflestock device which just adds support but still at the end of the day fundamentally handheld with a little bit of support it miraculously becomes a breeze! Yes it will help but all of the figures you keep quoting surely it still pointless?

"Most users can easily hand hold a 500mm f/4 lens (3kg, 6.6lbs) for extended periods, some can even hand hold 600mm f/4 and 800mm f/5.6 (6kg, 12.5lb) lenses with stability for short periods."

 

[Mike.P]

This started off looking like it could be an interesting thread .... not so much now.

 

[sk66]

Not sure I totally believe your theory tbh....
DXO mark and their pixel scores aren't always reliable.... and not mention its rather dubious what they even mean
the two lenses you compare are from different decades
And if we compare canon equivalents from roughly similar release dates.... it tells a different story

I agree with you to an extent... DXO's use of variable contrast (the optical response curve) makes it hard to correlate exactly what their P-Mpix means. But if those measurements for the Canon lenses are believed then it means Canon has managed to make a 600mm f/4 that is actually ~50% sharper than the 400/2.8... extremely impressive; and unusual. In order to deliver the same MTF/Mpix the longer lens must be sharper because the test chart must be farther away so it covers the same sensor area (lines/mm); which means the lines are smaller and harder to resolve. I did say that was possible, but very unlikely; and certainly not achievable with a TC.

It is extremely hard to overcome the physics of the telephoto lens design and aperture/diffraction. In almost any comparison the longer/slower lens will come out worse (even giving it generational advantages)... and BTW, the 400 and 600 G's I used are the same generation (~2007). These results are from a variety of lenses, all in the more standard MTF50 LW/PH measurement. (which does make those Canon results remarkable (or erroneous).

 

[sk66]

If it so bad why are you using a x2 on your 400mm and not cropping like you keep saying is better?

All these charts and jargon but you using a converter on a super Sharp f2.8 lens and shooting at f8 why not just crop?

That's what I've been saying... for the last ~2yrs I have been cropping instead (D850) of using TC's or 800mm of any sort when handholding... not that the results are better, they aren't; they just aren't really any worse.
I had to go through my archived files to find original uncropped files using TC's.

I'm not saying don't buy the 800mm PF lens (assuming it's decent); there are certainly reasons why smaller/lighter would be a very significant plus (e.g. air travel/trekking). But I am saying it is not really reasonable to expect great/better results hand-holding it.

Yes it will help but all of the figures you keep quoting surely it still pointless?

Yes, and I said that as well; I don't see the benefit to the really high magnifications/TC's/etc when handholding high resolution cameras *even with the rifle stock*. Back when the cameras were often sensor resolution limited to less than what the lenses could do, then it made more sense (the same two lenses on the D3).

 

[AdamSi]

Please take this discussion to a new post if you want to debate, I set this up to discuss the new development of the Nikon 800mm Z mount.

 

[mex]

.....just gonna have to wait for them to release a ZTF adapter.

 

[nandbytes]

.....just gonna have to wait for them to release a ZTF adapter.

I doubt that'll happen.... It'll need glass in the adapter to correct for the lower flange distance and probably degrade performance in the process. Assuming that's even possible....

 

[Peter123]

Looks like Nikon F mount is at an end for new developments, so I agree with Nand.

 

[HoppyUK]

The thing about hand-holding long lenses and camera-shake is that it is very inconsistent. When you're around the limit for safe hand-holding, if you shoot say six frames in continuous drive, a couple will be rubbish, a couple may be okay-ish, and another two pretty good. There's even a chance that one might actually show no detectable movement blur because by happenstance the camera/lens was effectively stationary at that precise moment - just like a trampoline gymnast is momentarily stationary at the top of each bounce.

When pushing the limits with hand-holding and you've run out of shutter speed options, playing the law of averages can pay handsomely. Put the camera in continuous drive mode and shoot LOTS. It increases your chances of getting at least one sharp frame dramatically, possibly even pin sharp.

 

[Darren]

Now confirmed 2.3kg and £6299, they're going to sell thousands and thousands

Nikon Nikkor Z 800mm f/6.3 VR PF S lens officially announced - Nikon Rumors

As already reported, Nikon officially announced the Nikkor Z 800mm f/6.3 VR PF S lens. Here are the details – pre-orders are now open (pre-order now even if you are not sure you need this lens, you can always cancel later – the wait time for this lens will be very, very long): Americas Europe […]

nikonrumors.com

NIKKOR Z 800mm f/6.3 VR S | Professional 800 mm super-telephoto lens

Feel the freedom of a portable super-telephoto build and outstanding image quality. This tough full-frame NIKKOR Z lens gives you 800 mm of reach—in a body that’s light enough to wield without a tripod.

www.nikon.co.uk

 

[nandbytes]

Now that's a beauty! I totally want one, too bad it won't fit on my cameras mount

 

[Mike.P]

Hmmm, almost worth buying a Nikon Z9 to have that

I imagine it's going to be hard to find for the first 12 months, bit like the 500mm PF

 

[nandbytes]

Hmmm, almost worth buying a Nikon Z9 to have that

I imagine it's going to be hard to find for the first 12 months, bit like the 500mm PF

Yes almost
but Z9 is quite expensive and I wouldn't use it for anything else. We are looking at a £11k combo, if I only shot with long lenses or was making money out this I'd certainly consider it.

May be there'll be a Nikon that's more like Z7ii (Z7III?) in terms of price, form factor and Z9 AF features. I'd consider that for sure.

 

[Peter123]

I think a 400PF is on the cards.

 

[Mike.P]

Yes almost
but Z9 is quite expensive and I wouldn't use it for anything else. We are looking at a £11k combo, if I only shot with long lenses or was making money out this I'd certainly consider it.

May be there'll be a Nikon that's more like Z7ii (Z7III?) in terms of price, form factor and Z9 AF features. I'd consider that for sure.

Personally I have no problem with the form factor of the Z9 and I only shoot long lenses (within my budget)

At the moment I have too many makes of camera and I need to really try and move to just one ... If I sold everything I could afford a Z9 and the 800mm plus have some over for a few zooms.

When you put a pre-order in how much do they normally take as a deposit and is it refundable?

 

[GeordieStew]

Now that's a beauty! I totally want one, too bad it won't fit on my cameras mount

Answer is: Different camera

 

[Peter123]

Personally I have no problem with the form factor of the Z9 and I only shoot long lenses (within my budget)

At the moment I have too many makes of camera and I need to really try and move to just one ... If I sold everything I could afford a Z9 and the 800mm plus have some over for a few zooms.

When you put a pre-order in how much do they normally take as a deposit and is it refundable?

I've ordered a few lenses from the Nikon UK website. I've also cancelled a couple before despatch without problem (you have to phone them to do this).
They take the money at the point of despatch. No deposit is taken at the time of order.

You go into a first come, first served queue. You never know the length of the queue. So, order quickly if you want one.

Hope that helps.

 

[nandbytes]

Personally I have no problem with the form factor of the Z9 and I only shoot long lenses (within my budget)

At the moment I have too many makes of camera and I need to really try and move to just one ... If I sold everything I could afford a Z9 and the 800mm plus have some over for a few zooms.

When you put a pre-order in how much do they normally take as a deposit and is it refundable?

At least at LCE deposit is 10% and you can cancel anytime.

Still waiting for my tamron 35-150mm preorder
Thinking of cancelling it now and they said it's not a problem they'll just refund my deposit.

If you shoot only long lenses then it makes sense.

 

[nandbytes]

Answer is: Different camera

Well yes but one I'd want doesn't exist at the moment. May be it'll do in the future.

 

[Mike.P]

The weight of it is quite amazing, my Sigma 150-600mm Sport is over 3Kg with the hood and I just about manage to hand hold that with a 7D MKII attached.

I have had long primes before but ended up selling them as I just don't like all the extras that go with them (tripod)

 

[nandbytes]

The weight of it is quite amazing, my Sigma 150-600mm Sport is over 3Kg with the hood and I just about manage to hand hold that with a 7D MKII attached.

I have had long primes before but ended up selling them as I just don't like all the extras that go with them (tripod)

Indeed, assuming it's a optically fantastic using it in a high Res body gives you insane reach overall
Not to mention if you manage to find a bright sunny day (I know its like 3 days in a year in this country) you can get even more reach with 1.4x TC.

 

[toohuge]

I think a 400PF is on the cards.

Agreed.

If they make a 400 f4 pf and price it circa 2500-3000 - it’ll be sold out for years !

 

[robinsslee]

This new Nikon 800mm pf + Nikon Z9 pairing makes me wanting to venture into Nikon lalaland.

Well done Nikon getting the pricing right!

 

[toohuge]

I've just watched a brief review of this lens by Tom Mason and he made a very good point, that I think we can all agree on. This new lens makes the 800mm focal length much more accessible from both a price perspective and from a logistics point of view. It appears small enough and light enough to be taken on an aircraft without consuming all your hand baggage allowance - that's a big advantage in my eyes

 

[Mike.P]

I've just watched a brief review of this lens by Tom Mason and he made a very good point, that I think we can all agree on. This new lens makes the 800mm focal length much more accessible from both a price perspective and from a logistics point of view. It appears small enough and light enough to be taken on an aircraft without consuming all your hand baggage allowance - that's a big advantage in my eyes

If I end up buying this lens and a Z9 I won't be able to afford to get on a plane.

Edit: Actually I may have to, just to escape the wife. And to think they have introduced "no fault divorce" from today.

 

[nandbytes]

I've just watched a brief review of this lens by Tom Mason and he made a very good point, that I think we can all agree on. This new lens makes the 800mm focal length much more accessible from both a price perspective and from a logistics point of view. It appears small enough and light enough to be taken on an aircraft without consuming all your hand baggage allowance - that's a big advantage in my eyes

Indeed, no 400mm f2.8 or 600mm f4 is as light or cheap.

I'm now thinking what other lenses I could buy to make the swap.... The 24-120mm certainly. But they are still lacking some fast primes, only if there was some 3rd party support.

 

[toohuge]

Indeed, no 400mm f2.8 or 600mm f4 is as light or cheap.

I'm now thinking what other lenses I could buy to make the swap.... The 24-120mm certainly. But they are still lacking some fast primes, only if there was some 3rd party support.

I hear you....
I've lusted after a 400 2.8 / 600 4 for a while now - I have a 400 2.8 ais that I use for fun, but it's such a pain to simply move / use as it's so heavy and simply gigantic - as are the tripod and gimbal for such a heavy lens. It really moves the lens from being useful to useless as the faff to actually get it out the house is immense.

The lens line up for the z mount is a little bare atm for fast primes. I'm a f-mount user and have a (unhealthy) collection of fast primes, however, they need updating, as 200 f2 aside, the af speed of the lenses are all laughably slow and many of mine stay in the bag because of that (I shoot a lot of sport). Hopefully the z mount fast primes will be released with faster af too and that'll make the investment decision easy.

That said though.... I still get great results with my f mount gear and weight aside, I'm happy to stick with it for a while longer and hopefully the used prices of some of these huge lenses will fall.

 

[nandbytes]

I hear you....
I've lusted after a 400 2.8 / 600 4 for a while now - I have a 400 2.8 ais that I use for fun, but it's such a pain to simply move / use as it's so heavy and simply gigantic - as are the tripod and gimbal for such a heavy lens. It really moves the lens from being useful to useless as the faff to actually get it out the house is immense.

The lens line up for the z mount is a little bare atm for fast primes. I'm a f-mount user and have a (unhealthy) collection of fast primes, however, they need updating, as 200 f2 aside, the af speed of the lenses are all laughably slow and many of mine stay in the bag because of that (I shoot a lot of sport). Hopefully the z mount fast primes will be released with faster af too and that'll make the investment decision easy.

That said though.... I still get great results with my f mount gear and weight aside, I'm happy to stick with it for a while longer and hopefully the used prices of some of these huge lenses will fall.

yeah the 400mm f2.8 on Sony is really expensive
The 600mm f4 is just too heavy for me to carry around and expensive of course.

I have 24mm, 35mm and 85mm f1.4 primes set. Those are the main prime I want. Sigma make 35mm and 85mm f1.4 for e-mount and l-mount only
I also have a 16-35mm f2.8 but I am not wedded to it like my primes. I could just as easily get one of the laowa UWA primes like the 15mm f2 and make it work. so that's not an issue.
I have the 200-600mm on Sony which is in all honest really great but its no 800mm prime. Its weight 2.1Kg anyway so the 800mm prime won't add much weight.

At this point for me either Sony makes a similar lens first and I stay with Sony or nikon catches up on primes and the camera body and I will swap.

 

[Hadge]

What an amazing lens. I’ve watched Steve Parry’s quick review and the shutter speeds he could drop to with the VR and IS of the Z9 was insane. It makes it a true hand holdable big telephoto lens - unlike my 400mm f/2.8G VR. Now let me think…………

 

[SFTPhotography]

yeah the 400mm f2.8 on Sony is really expensive
The 600mm f4 is just too heavy for me to carry around and expensive of course.

I have 24mm, 35mm and 85mm f1.4 primes set. Those are the main prime I want. Sigma make 35mm and 85mm f1.4 for e-mount and l-mount only
I also have a 16-35mm f2.8 but I am not wedded to it like my primes. I could just as easily get one of the laowa UWA primes like the 15mm f2 and make it work. so that's not an issue.
I have the 200-600mm on Sony which is in all honest really great but its no 800mm prime. Its weight 2.1Kg anyway so the 800mm prime won't add much weight.

At this point for me either Sony makes a similar lens first and I stay with Sony or nikon catches up on primes and the camera body and I will swap.

Hmm. FTZ adapter and use the SIGMA art F mount lenses.

 

[nandbytes]

Hmm. FTZ adapter and use the SIGMA art F mount lenses.

No thanks
Makes it pointless using mirrorless as sigma art lens are huge and bulky.
My Sony 24GM and 35GM are fairly small light and sharper than sigma art versions. My sigma 85mm f1.4 DN is also considerably smaller and lighter while being optically better than the DSLR version.
Not to mention the subpar AF I'll get with FTZ with 3rd party lenses. Sony's AF motors are top notch

 

[Mike.P]

I sat down and worked out what I would realistically need want

Z mount 14-30mm f/4
Z mount 24-200mm f/4
Z mount 100-400mm
Z mount 800mm f/6.3
Z mount 1.4x
Z9

£17085 at UK best prices according to Camera price busters

 

[LongLensPhotography]

I really like that. Big, reasonably bright for 800mm and very light to be permanently handhold able. Even price is only in the very expensive but not ridiculous category. Only problem I don't shoot wildlife and don't have patience for it

 

[Son_of_Thor]

I sat down and worked out what I would realistically need want

Z mount 14-30mm f/4
Z mount 24-200mm f/4
Z mount 100-400mm
Z mount 800mm f/6.3
Z mount 1.4x
Z9

£17085 at UK best prices according to Camera price busters

Yep, similar here but with the 28-75 2.8 instead of the 24-200 - all looks good until you tot it up!