woodstork wrote:
A $13k Z 600/4 is the ideal focal length at an unattainable price for me. The 500mm 5.6 PF with TC 1.4iii is the lens I’d consider versus the Z 800 PF. BUT, if the Z 800 PF is handholdable and has a decent mfd, then I’d have to go for it (assuming IQ and AF are at least on par with the 500/TC combo).
If the 800PF is not much better than the 500PF+1.4TC, then I don't expect Nikon to sell a lot of them. The 500PF is the only long lens that I never used with the 1.4TC since images become really uninspiring. I don't think PF lenses are ideal for use with a TC to begin with because they simply don't have the type of clarity and contrast that the large super telelenses have. Without a TC though, the 500PF is very good, even though I am still not a big fan of the PF rendering of f5.6 backgrounds.
I will wait until the 800PF is announced to see the weight and cost, and then will decide whether to go for it, or whether to cross over to the Sony 600GM. The past years have taught me that the truly expensive lenses are the compromise lenses, because you start looking onwards too soon. If I get the 800PF, I will forego on the 1.4TC, and the 800mm reach (on a Z7II or Z9) should be enough to be able to do so.
arbitrage wrote:
Any TC whether internal or external is going to degrade IQ to some extent. 2x more than 1.4x, stacked 1.4x more than single 1.4x. Who knows if stacked 1.4s are better or worse than 2x.
Ironically with my Canon 200-400 the external was slightly better than the internal. But that was early days of these built-in TCs.
Nothing wrong with a bit of stacking though....
I agree, nothing wrong with stacking converters. I particularly like using them w/my Olympus 150-400 when I'm trying to increase magnification for pseudo-macro shooting or to get better framing during video without having to crop in post.
In my case, the 2x with the internal 1.25x TC off works quite well, 2x with internal on is passable, 1.4 with internal off is basically just as good as the 1.25 with a bit of extra reach. My feeling is that the TCs are inconsequential for weight, so it's nice to have them around even if they don't do miracles.
One drawback is when the TCs go on I'm usually working from a tripod to get the best results given the insane focal lengths involved. As for the 800 PF, it will be very interesting to see how good the stabilization is as I imagine it will be marketed as a "handheld optic". If I spring for one, it will probably live on a compact tripod and gimbal setup or a monopod, not for weight reasons but just to get the best image quality.
As for TCs on the 800PF, if the 100-400 truly exceeds the sharpness of the 180-400 as some are noting, I suspect the Z super tele primes will follow suit and supersede all the F-mount lenses before them. In other words, they'll be insanely sharp and probably take TCs very well.
ChrisMak wrote:
If the 800PF is not much better than the 500PF+1.4TC, then I don't expect Nikon to sell a lot of them. The 500PF is the only long lens that I never used with the 1.4TC since images become really uninspiring. I don't think PF lenses are ideal for use with a TC to begin with because they simply don't have the type of clarity and contrast that the large super telelenses have. Without a TC though, the 500PF is very good, even though I am still not a big fan of the PF rendering of f5.6 backgrounds.
I will wait until the 800PF is announced to see the weight and cost, and then will decide whether to go for it, or whether to cross over to the Sony 600GM. The past years have taught me that the truly expensive lenses are the compromise lenses, because you start looking onwards too soon. If I get the 800PF, I will forego on the 1.4TC, and the 800mm reach (on a Z7II or Z9) should be enough to be able to do so....Show more →
Like you, I am waiting to see what the 800 offers. I believe the 800 PF will out perform it, but wouldn't say the 500+TC1.4 is uninspiring. For context, I tend to either shoot very close to subject or against simple relatively distant backgrounds. I also shoot backlit a lot. I recently rented the 500PF with TC1.4 to determine if I really needed f/4 (I owned a 500/4 for many years and more often than not had TC1.4 on it). To my pleasant surprise, I found the 500 PF rendered great for over 90% of my needs with and without the 1.4x converter. The 10% lost opportunity was mostly during very low light conditions when 1 or 2 more stops would have made a huge difference in noise. I did find the 500PF+2x TC to be uninspiring, as expected. Based on these tests I have high hopes for the 800 PF.
Despite the loss of a stop or two, the ability to easily handhold and untether myself from a tripod is a game changer that so greatly enlarges the pie of spontaneous capture that I do wish to own a PF lens. It is a net win for me versus owning a heavier, bulkier 500/4, 600/4 or 800/5.6 because I will use it more often. I view the PF lenses not as a competitor to the front-heavy faster exotics, but as something rather different. If I was younger and made my full-time living shooting action or wildlife, I'd own one PF lens, a Z 600/4 or Z 400/2.8, and a solid close-focusing zoom like the Z 100-400. As a part-timer, with aging knees and back, I'm focused on obtaining a PF as my only supertelephoto prime. The render, weight, balance, VR, MFD, and price of the 800 will determine which one I get. Very excited to see...
ChrisMak wrote:
I will wait until the 800PF is announced .. then will decide .. Sony 600GM
If you sell the Sigma and have the $ for the 600 GM, I would not wait for the 800.
I've talked to several 600 GM owners, including one last night, who bought it when it first came out and still enjoys it.
You can get so many good images with an a9 or a1 and 600 GM between now and when the 800 PF comes out.
When it comes out and people starting using it, if the 800 PF is more appealing to you, you could easily sell the 600 GM
for not much loss .. it is in demand and the supply chain issues won't get better till 2023.
I would just go Sony if I were you, ChrisMak, and look at Nikon again next year.
If you decide to keep the Sigma, then please use it on a z body and you will be very happy with how freaking sharp
and colorful the images can get, with help from Adobe Raw Enhance. And no need to AF tune!!
saaketham wrote:
If you sell the Sigma and have the $ for the 600 GM, I would not wait for the 800.
I've talked to several 600 GM owners, including one last night, who bought it when it first came out and still enjoys it.
You can get so many good images with an a9 or a1 and 600 GM between now and when the 800 PF comes out.
When it comes out and people starting using it, if the 800 PF is more appealing to you, you could easily sell the 600 GM
for not much loss .. it is in demand and the supply chain issues won't get better till 2023.
I would just go Sony if I were you, ChrisMak, and look at Nikon again next year.
If you decide to keep the Sigma, then please use it on a z body and you will be very happy with how freaking sharp
and colorful the images can get, with help from Adobe Raw Enhance. And no need to AF tune!! ...Show more →
The Sony 600GM is outside of my budget for now. Honestly, if I could part with the cash right now, I would do it and never look back.
But patience is in place for now, and that also adds the Nikon 800mm f6.3 to the possibilities, certainly when it is considerably more affordable, and lighter! But as you know, I am not a very big fan of PF lenses, and a lens like the Sony 600GM could easily be my last birding lens change.
I will make peace with my faltering Sigma for now, and limit its use to slower birding/wildlife. Right now, I don't want to spend a whole lot, but would like a Z body for 1.4 TC use. I will look out for a good offer on the Z6II. Had I really loved the 500PF to death, I would have (reluctantly) traded in my D500 for a Z9 in the next year, but with the Sigma 500+1.4TC that makes a combo too heavy to handhold.
Why switch systems? Nikon will be running circles around Sony in a couple of years. Sony can’t even get enough parts to make all their cameras right now and their service is a nightmare. Why the rush? The Nikon 600mm f4 will be out within 18 months. And mid next year the 800 pf will be out.
saaketham wrote:
If you sell the Sigma and have the $ for the 600 GM, I would not wait for the 800.
I've talked to several 600 GM owners, including one last night, who bought it when it first came out and still enjoys it.
You can get so many good images with an a9 or a1 and 600 GM between now and when the 800 PF comes out.
When it comes out and people starting using it, if the 800 PF is more appealing to you, you could easily sell the 600 GM
for not much loss .. it is in demand and the supply chain issues won't get better till 2023.
I would just go Sony if I were you, ChrisMak, and look at Nikon again next year.
If you decide to keep the Sigma, then please use it on a z body and you will be very happy with how freaking sharp
and colorful the images can get, with help from Adobe Raw Enhance. And no need to AF tune!! ...Show more →
Chris has been going back n forth for a while now
I see his posts on the Nikon forum and Sony forum
Was helping him out a bit .. suggesting 2 diff options
Nikon may run circles around Sony in 2 years, but till now they've simply been running around in circles by themselves. So, my suggestion of using Sony for now, till Nikon brings out the native z superteles in a year or two. Then he can decide if he likes them better or not.
And before you start shooting at me, I shoot both and got over the brand loyalty nonsense, after Nikon leveled the playing field (as far as cameras go), with the z9.
Maybe I’m getting cheap at my age, but why spend that much to switch systems twice? It’s not like you can’t use current gear to take pictures while we all wait. But hey it’s not my money.
saaketham wrote:
Chris has been going back n forth for a while now
I see his posts on the Nikon forum and Sony forum
Was helping him out a bit .. suggesting 2 diff options
Nikon may run circles around Sony in 2 years, but till now they've simply been running around in circles by themselves. So, my suggestion of using Sony for now, till Nikon brings out the native z superteles in a year or two. Then he can decide if he likes them better or not.
And before you start shooting at me, I shoot both and got over the brand loyalty nonsense, after Nikon leveled the playing field (as far as cameras go), with the z9....Show more →
I don’t know why any bird photographer wouldn’t be interested in an 800mm f/6.3. It’s a great focal length, and it’s going to be very light for its focal length. I shoot at 700mm f/6.3 quite a bit. Adding 100mm, decreasing weight, and improving AF speed by removing a teleconverter would be a dream.
groob wrote:
I don’t know why any bird photographer wouldn’t be interested in an 800mm f/6.3. It’s a great focal length, and it’s going to be very light for its focal length. I about shoot at 700mm f/6.3 quite a bit. Adding 100mm, decreasing weight, and improving AF speed by removing a teleconverter would be a dream.
It’s definitely on my radar.
I often shoot my 500PF with a 1.4x and am pretty happy with the results. An 800/6.3 would be longer and faster, and probably AF a bit better. If it also is usable with a TC (darn tiny songbirds), and the weight and price aren’t too bad, it could replace my 500PF entirely.
I think I could be pretty happy with a 100-400 and 800PF. It would probably be enough to stop these insane urges for a 600/4.
I often shoot my 500PF with a 1.4x and am pretty happy with the results. An 800/6.3 would be longer and faster, and probably AF a bit better. If it also is usable with a TC (darn tiny songbirds), and the weight and price aren’t too bad, it could replace my 500PF entirely.
I think I could be pretty happy with a 100-400 and 800PF. It would probably be enough to stop these insane urges for a 600/4.
Ha. I completely agree with you. I’ve been planning for several years to grab a 600mm f/4 FL once the new Z telephotos are out. But this 800mm has me rethinking that. I suppose my ideal setup would be a 400mm f/2.8 and the 800mm PF, but it seems unlikely that I’ll be able to afford both, at least not for a while. That leads me to the 100-400 or the 200-600 and the 800mm as possibilities. I guess I could still get the 600mm and use a teleconverter so as to have one lens. It’s an interesting thought exercise because they’re all good options.
Yeah, for a system that was very recently a "no telephoto zone", we're about to be absolutely spoiled for options!
Z 70-200/2.8
Z 100-400
F 180-400
Z 200-600
F 500 PF
Z 400/2.8 (with built-in TC)
Z 600/4
Z 800 PF
When all that stuff hits the market, Nikon quickly goes from last-to-first for wildlife systems, and I don't see any significant holes (except perhaps a cheap 300mm telezoom). Hopefully a cheaper body with a Z9-like AF system quickly follows.
Maybe he won't feel the need to switch once he decides firmly on 1. I sent him several .NEF and Adobe Enhanced .DNG files of images taken with z6ii and z7ii, on a Sigma 500. I believe he decided to get a z6ii and use his Sigma on it. I was just trying to help him out. Peace! 🙏🏼😁
jwolfe wrote:
Maybe I’m getting cheap at my age, but why spend that much to switch systems twice? It’s not like you can’t use current gear to take pictures while we all wait. But hey it’s not my money.
As soon as the Z9 is out the next thing Nikon will do is pull that AF technology down to the Z6/Z7/Z50 series. It’s gonna kick ass.
saaketham wrote:
Maybe he won't feel the need to switch once he decides firmly on 1. I sent him several .NEF and Adobe Enhanced .DNG files of images taken with z6ii and z7ii, on a Sigma 500. I believe he decided to get a z6ii and use his Sigma on it. I was just trying to help him out. Peace! 🙏🏼😁
That is not true at all. Look at Canon’s lineup. The R5/R6/R3 all share similar AF capabilities. Same with Sonys lineup. People need to stop being so down on Nikon. They know what they are doing. They are building the best lineup in the industry.
1bwana1 wrote:
A few things maybe, but performance no. They lack the hardware.
jwolfe wrote:
That is not true at all. Look at Canon’s lineup. The R5/R6/R3 all share similar AF capabilities. Same with Sonys lineup. People need to stop being so down on Nikon. They know what they are doing. They are building the best lineup in the industry.
I don't think any of us doubt that the AF capabilities will end up in the Z6/Z7 III but it's very questionable how much will end up in the Z6/Z7 and the Z6/Z7 II via firmware given that Nikon have explicitly said that the chip in the Z9 is about 10x faster than the previous chip. I think that's what Steve means when he says they lack the hardware.
philwaring wrote:
I don't think any of us doubt that the AF capabilities will end up in the Z6/Z7 III but it's very questionable how much will end up in the Z6/Z7 and the Z6/Z7 II via firmware given that Nikon have explicitly said that the chip in the Z9 is about 10x faster than the previous chip. I think that's what Steve means when he says they lack the hardware.
I agree that the Gen III of the Z cameras will get much improved hardware and so AF performance.
In the current generations the processors, the sensors, and bus hardware lack the speed, architecture, and power to do much of what the Z9 does.
That being said, I do believe that Nikon will be able to implement some level of "Real Time Tracking" in the current generation Z6 II /Z7 II This will be a big improvement operationally, but not so much performance wise.
