p.11 #1 · Official 800PF image and discussion thread
aboutthelight wrote:
I don’t own an 800pf and never will so I won’t post images on this thread. But like everyone else I am entitled to my opinion and trust me I am not alone in thinking that this lens is not being used to even close to its full potential. I know many people that are interested in it and check these boards as a reference. Many people have commented to me about these 10 (not 8 like I said previously) pages and questioned if I think the lens is as good as the other pf lenses. It is because they also saw results that they were not happy with.
And if you really care to check click on the link to my Instagram that I very recently started to put some recent images on. For clarity they are a combination of Sony and Nikon images. If you like them great, if not that is also fine. Either way it is irrelevant to the performance of a lens that I don’t own.
Ok so you're telling us what we are doing wrong with a lens you've never shot and will never own yet are an expert about how we should use it. Most people just got this lens and are using it where they can. Me in the back yard or a local park. We all don't have perfect setups to cut our teeth on with so we use the lens in the best manner we can. I am personally very satisfied with it and as mentioned I have the new 400/2.8S as well and it keeps up. Oh and I've had most all of the Nikon long lenses over the years and have done quite well.
Now this is the last post I'll answer, I've wasted enough time. As to your Instagram account I'll pass I'm sure your images are all perfect!
p.11 #2 · Official 800PF image and discussion thread
I don't own the 800 PF either, but I would like to make a brief comment. Isaac, I understand some of your criticism, but this is about the performance of the 800 PF and not about the photographers. I have since received a few RAW files from owners of the 800 PF. It is super sharp, has great contrasts and the bokeh almost always looks pleasing. But yes, it can also be ugly, like the first photo in p.10 #4. Here you can see the limits of the PF. You can't have everything and what the 800 PF delivers at the price is really great. The fact that expensive equipment does not take perfect photos by itself is not a new finding and George has already mentioned it, at the beginning you sometimes post photos that you would not post in 3-4 months. So thanks to everyone who contributes something here to show the strengths and weaknesses of this lens.
p.11 #3 · Official 800PF image and discussion thread
NaturRosi wrote:
I don't own the 800 PF either, but I would like to make a brief comment. Isaac, I understand some of your criticism, but this is about the performance of the 800 PF and not about the photographers. I have since received a few RAW files from owners of the 800 PF. It is super sharp, has great contrasts and the bokeh almost always looks pleasing. But yes, it can also be ugly, like the first photo in p.10 #4. Here you can see the limits of the PF. You can't have everything and what the 800 PF delivers at the price is really great. The fact that expensive equipment does not take perfect photos by itself is not a new finding and George has already mentioned it, at the beginning you sometimes post photos that you would not post in 3-4 months. So thanks to everyone who contributes something here to show the strengths and weaknesses of this lens....Show more →
Agree on that shot you mentioned as I wasn't fond of the background either I liked the bird. I'm not so sure any lens would do better on that background, maybe it would though I'm not sure. It was shot from the car window and it was pretty far away. Lens was pointing at a downward angle so the grass in back of the bird was obviously the background and way too close.
Anyway each day I try to get 4 or so decent images to post which I will continue to do, it let's me learn the nuances of the new gear. They certainly won't all wind up in the wildlife photographer of the year contest! 🤣
p.11 #4 · Official 800PF image and discussion thread
I should also mentioned that I intentionally included some photos where bokeh was not very flattering to the lens. Afterall, this is a new lens and we are still trying to figure out what the lens can do and what is its weakness so I think it is better to show not just the good but the ugly as well.
If this lens has been around for awhile when the novelty is already gone and quality of the lens is known, I certainly would concentrate more on only showing good (or acceptable) pictures (hopefully).
p.11 #5 · Official 800PF image and discussion thread
I am also following this thread closely as a former 500PF owner (and a fan), and I am on a waitinglist for this lens. I have also sidestepped into Sony with the A1 however, since I prefer that body over the Z9 due to size and weight, and I don't yet know for sure whiich route I will take going forward.
I have a Sony 200-600G, but that is intended as a "temporary" solution, and the way forward is either a Sony 600GM, or a Nikon Z6II with the 800PF (and wait for the Z9 tech to trickle down to a gripless body).
I know there cannot be a fair comparison between the 600GM and the 800PF, since the 600GM alone costs 30% more than a Nikon Z6II+800PF combo, but of course I also notice that the Sony 600GM does not produce images (unless people refrain from posting them) with background rendering like some of the images here show. In short, the 600GM seems elevated above possible criticism by being immaculate. So I guess it is fair to highlight the weaker sides of the 800PF, knowing that in practical shooting it will affect only a small percentage of your shots.
On top of that, the 800PF is smaller and far more prortable than a 600GM+1.4TC, so you get a unique opportunity to shoot at 800mm that no other brand offers.
p.11 #6 · Official 800PF image and discussion thread
At this point, I think that all of the this criticism about the images and photographs is unfair. Much like the images posted in the 100-400mm thread, most of what we see is pretty average work. This is not a reflection of the photographers in question, but rather the opportunity to make photographs.
Let's be clear, not every photograph is a perfect work of art. The images that we lean into and define as artful are due to a culmination of factors that happen infrequently. When light, weather, subject, and distance are optimized, our opportunity to make something artful increases.
Rather than a thread on the FM Nature Forum where each of us strives to share our best work, this is a thread about a new lens. Much like the 500PF was and the 100-400 is, the 800PF is a rare commodity. Very few have been released and are in the hands of photographers. If one does not live near a national park or going on some kind of photo safari, our targets are limited.
In the US, we are in the peak of migration and if you live near the rivers or forests, warblers and small birds are passing through. While these are great subjects for an 800mm, they are rarely cooperative and tend to hang out in brush. As such, the 800PF is being challenged by some of the hardest species to photograph.
So what to do... enjoy the images being posted and wait for lenses to arrive in more hands around the world.
@ChrisMak Unless you are planning on buying a Z9 (or Nikon releases the phantom high performance small body), don't get the 800PF. Coming from an A1 you will not like the performance of a Z6ii. I have a Z9, I have shot w/Z6/Z6ii/Z7/Z7ii since their introduction. While I have learned to leverage their strengths and balanced their shortcomings with D500 cameras, they are not my preferred cameras for wildlife photography.
The Z9 is a huge step forward and has a performance that parallels the A1. You left Nikon for Sony... if you return and do not get Nikon's high performance AF camera, you will be leaving Nikon again...
Note, this is not a dig or criticism... it is simply my hypothesis based on the many prior posts you have made throughout the years.
p.11 #7 · Official 800PF image and discussion thread
There’s no need for conjecture about the difference between an 800mm f/6.3 and a 600mm f/4. We have depth of field calculators. At 30 meters the depths of field are as follows—
So, if one is shooting a 600mm f/4 versus an 800mm f/6.3, the 800mm with have slightly shallower DOF. But an 840mm f/5.6 will beat out the 800mm. Of course, the difference between 0.52 meters and 0.42 meters is 4 inches, not exactly world changing in my book. Therefore, I don’t think there are any special considerations necessary for the 800mm f/6.3. None of the images posted in this thread would look meaningfully different if shot with a 600mm f/4 (with other without a teleconverter). Indeed, Steve Perry commented very specifically about how pleased he was with the bokeh transitions of the lens. I think he’s very credible, if one is looking for further validation.
p.11 #8 · Official 800PF image and discussion thread
groob wrote:
There’s no need for conjecture about the difference between an 800mm f/6.3 and a 600mm f/4. We have depth of field calculators. At 30 meters the depths of field are as follows—
So, if one is shooting a 600mm f/4 versus an 800mm f/6.3, the 800mm with have slightly shallower DOF. But an 840mm f/5.6 will beat out the 800mm. Of course, the difference between 0.52 meters and 0.42 meters is 4 inches, not exactly world changing in my book. Therefore, I don’t think there are any special considerations necessary for the 800mm f/6.3. None of the images posted in this thread would look meaningfully different if shot with a 600mm f/4 (with other without a teleconverter). Indeed, Steve Perry commented very specifically about how pleased he was with the bokeh transitions of the lens. I think he’s very credible, if one is looking for further validation. ...Show more →
Apart from different DOF, lenses can have vastly different OOF rendering. This is true for e.g. 35 or 50mm primes, and it is also true for 500 or 600mm primes.
I became especially aware of this when I had the Sigma 500/4 and Nikon 500PF simultaneously and set both lenses to f5.6 and compared. The difference was striking with the Sigma having much smoother bokeh, which gave the impression that DOF was less than with the 500PF, but both were at f5.6.
Since then, I don't take any long lens' OOF rendering for granted anymore. Admittedly, there is also the preference factor, but the Sony 600/4 falls into Sigma 500/4 territory bokeh. I don't think this is the case for the 500/800mm PF lenses.
B.t.w. I don't always like smooth bokeh. I have the Sony 35GM and have a love/hate thing for it, because I have been used to Zeiss primes for many yeras, and smooth as the bokeh is, I greatly prefer the Zeiss lenses with more pronounced bokeh. In the same way I ultimately preferred the Nikon 500PF over the Sigma 500/4 because of better color and contrast, and I sold the Sigma and kept the 500PF before switching to Sony..
The Sony 600GM however seems to be a cracking lens in all regards, hence my remark that it seems elevated above criticism. I am not sure the 800PF is, but neither does it have to be, contrast and color are top notch as already shown, and that is very important.
p.11 #9 · Official 800PF image and discussion thread
The biggest problem with this lens is that it’s an 800mm, f6.3, very light weight and balanced, super high IQ, and for only $6500. The wait list is super long and there’s nothing like it from competitors. So there MUST be something wrong with it.
FWIW, I looked over the Sony 600f4 thread and couldn’t make past the 3rd page. Very average pics with not so good bokeh either. I can say that in all the initial images on any new gear thread. People are just excited to share their new gear. And this is what revive a lot of our interest in getting out and shoot again.
When you’re in the right time and the right place, the spectacular image can be taken with a very average camera and lens.
p.11 #11 · Official 800PF image and discussion thread
I just wanted to say that I certainly appreciate seeing all of the photos here and appreciate the time those posting the images took to do so. We’re not paying to see these images. And yet there are numerous examples of gorgeous birds including egrets, Sandhill Cranes, warblers, wood ducks, blackbirds, owls, woodpeckers, buntings, swallows, and others presented here. (I couldn’t include Cardinals in the list because I’m a Brewers fan, lol) I look forward to seeing many more great new photos taken with this lens come in. Thanks to those making it happen.
p.11 #12 · Official 800PF image and discussion thread
this is me wrote:
The biggest problem with this lens is that it’s an 800mm, f6.3, very light weight and balanced, super high IQ, and for only $6500. The wait list is super long and there’s nothing like it from competitors. So there MUST be something wrong with it.
FWIW, I looked over the Sony 600f4 thread and couldn’t make past the 3rd page. Very average pics with not so good bokeh either. I can say that in all the initial images on any new gear thread. People are just excited to share their new gear. And this is what revive a lot of our interest in getting out and shoot again.
When you’re in the right time and the right place, the spectacular image can be taken with a very average camera and lens. ...Show more →
Yes, of course.
The point though is not at all that people are looking for something bad to say about the 800PF.
Like any new lens it is scrutinized, and if many agree on something particular, then it is usually at least partially true.
Like I said, the images where the PF type bokeh will surface are limited, and you can even make sure it doesn't happen at all by simply not taking such images.
I disagree though about the 600GM, even though good images depend on the photographer, subject and the occasion, the 600GM adheres to all requirements for an immaculate super telelens. That does not mean though, that the Nikon 800PF may not have the edge when it comes to color rendering or contrast. The Sony 600GM appears to be very neutral, like all Sony GM lenses. It seems Sony has this neutral look as a priority..
p.11 #13 · Official 800PF image and discussion thread
ChrisMak wrote:
... but of course I also notice that the Sony 600GM does not produce images (unless people refrain from posting them) with background rendering like some of the images here show.
All great points Chris.
I think the "unless people refrain from posting...." caveat is closer to accurate.
I occasionally see that "nervous Bokeh" in shots from the 600GM too.
Just as the 800PF can produce nice creamy BG's, the 600GM can produce the ugly, nervous Bokek that people love to hate. It really comes down to conditions - although any "quality" F4 lens is likely to handle challenging conditions easier than an F6.3 lens.
Below are examples of each.
Note: screen grab from another site for demo purposes only
p.11 #14 · Official 800PF image and discussion thread
EyeSpyEagle wrote:
All great points Chris.
I think the "unless people refrain from posting...." caveat is closer to accurate.
I occasionally see that "nervous Bokeh" in shots from the 600GM too.
Just as the 800PF can produce nice creamy BG's, the 600GM can produce the ugly, nervous Bokek that people love to hate. It really comes down to conditions - although any "quality" F4 lens is likely to handle challenging conditions easier than an F6.3 lens.
Below are examples of each.
You raise a valid issue Phil, and that is also amongst my considerations: the 600GM needs a 1.4TC to get to 800mm, and a TC tends to harm OOF rendering.
You of course know my preference when it comes to the look of the images for wildlfe/birding, So for IQ alone, Nikon absolutely has first place in my book. If I could get a small Nikon body with A1 auto focus, I would have my choice limited to the 800PF instantly.
I have though wrestled with the PF bokeh at times. People should not take offense at all, the 800PF looks véry promising. And then that price and weight, goodness...
p.11 #15 · Official 800PF image and discussion thread
aboutthelight wrote:
I don’t own an 800pf and never will so I won’t post images on this thread. But like everyone else I am entitled to my opinion and trust me I am not alone in thinking that this lens is not being used to even close to its full potential. I know many people that are interested in it and check these boards as a reference. Many people have commented to me about these 10 (not 8 like I said previously) pages and questioned if I think the lens is as good as the other pf lenses. It is because they also saw results that they were not happy with.
And if you really care to check click on the link to my Instagram that I very recently started to put some recent images on. For clarity they are a combination of Sony and Nikon images. If you like them great, if not that is also fine. Either way it is irrelevant to the performance of a lens that I don’t own.
I kind of get what you're saying, however you have to understand this thread isnt a photo contest. The lens has been out 1 month, and most that actually have it have had it less than 3 weeks. So I'm sure you've heard of GAS before, where you WANT to get what just came out...what you see on threads like these is NGAS lol...New Gear Acquisition Syndrome. People are excited to get the lens and are simply posting their first shots.
Steve's youtube video showed plenty of shots like what you are talking about. Close subjects with very distant background.
Some obviously arent even trying to pass them off as "great shots", because that's not the only, specific goal of this thread. Bokeh isnt everything. Some are just trying to show how low of a shutter speed can be used while handholding. Some are showing extreme crops to give an idea of what that looks like. Some are showing what it looks like with a TC.
And you are definitely entitled to your opinion, but in the same breath saying "people should not use it like a $13,000 lens" is a little ridiculous.
WHEN mine eventually shows up, I am sure I will post whatever I consider was the best pic I got that weekend, no matter what the background looks like. After that...I will be more selective on what I post
p.11 #16 · Official 800PF image and discussion thread
I think there is a fundamental difference on how I view these boards compared to others. Same goes with photography in general I guess. Seems like I am the odd man out and I am perfectly fine with that.
A photo taken with this lens belongs on this board. Sure. But this whole you have to get used to a lens argument is totally bogus. If you have had every long Nikon lens what is so different about this lens that takes getting used to? I have never picked up a lens and thought oh man this is just too light or too sharp and I don't know what to do with it. Come on, that is just an excuse to publish average work and blame it on the gear. I get initial excitement, I get lack of time, but that is not an excuse for poor images either. Viewers learn nothing from viewing dime a dozen grab shots with high end gear other than that the photographer did not take the time or make the effort to do the proper work in the field. Sorry but everything else is just an excuse.
Most people have not been fortunate enough to obtain a copy of this lens and shoot with it. What I am sure they would want to know is how sharp it is, how quickly it autofocuses, how the weight and balance play in the field during real use and maybe how it compares to some other lenses like a 500PF or 600F4 or even lenses from other manufacturers as well. And Since Steve Perry has been brought up the reason his reviews are so well respected is because that is what he talks about. And he backs it up with proper field work and technique.
With regards to that Burrowing Owl above I think the background is nice and not at all the PF type background that I am saying people need to avoid and be sure to shoot with more distant backgrounds. The goose shot background with the Sony is awful but that is why I said it is a problem with all long lenses and even worse with the PF lenses. If you don't get low, or get a shot with your subject in more pleasing environments and did not do the proper work than a $13,000 lens will produce crappy results as well.
p.11 #19 · Official 800PF image and discussion thread
aboutthelight wrote:
I think there is a fundamental difference on how I view these boards compared to others. Same goes with photography in general I guess. Seems like I am the odd man out and I am perfectly fine with that.
A photo taken with this lens belongs on this board. Sure. But this whole you have to get used to a lens argument is totally bogus. If you have had every long Nikon lens what is so different about this lens that takes getting used to? I have never picked up a lens and thought oh man this is just too light or too sharp and I don't know what to do with it. Come on, that is just an excuse to publish average work and blame it on the gear. I get initial excitement, I get lack of time, but that is not an excuse for poor images either. Viewers learn nothing from viewing dime a dozen grab shots with high end gear other than that the photographer did not take the time or make the effort to do the proper work in the field. Sorry but everything else is just an excuse.
Most people have not been fortunate enough to obtain a copy of this lens and shoot with it. What I am sure they would want to know is how sharp it is, how quickly it autofocuses, how the weight and balance play in the field during real use and maybe how it compares to some other lenses like a 500PF or 600F4 or even lenses from other manufacturers as well. And Since Steve Perry has been brought up the reason his reviews are so well respected is because that is what he talks about. And he backs it up with proper field work and technique.
With regards to that Burrowing Owl above I think the background is nice and not at all the PF type background that I am saying people need to avoid and be sure to shoot with more distant backgrounds. The goose shot background with the Sony is awful but that is why I said it is a problem with all long lenses and even worse with the PF lenses. If you don't get low, or get a shot with your subject in more pleasing environments and did not do the proper work than a $13,000 lens will produce crappy results as well.
Yes, people need to get low and keep an eye on their backgrounds, distance to subject, distance to background, etc. That is universal.
But again, this thread is simply about images/discussion of the lens, not showing off what people think are their best wildlife shots. And you also kind of answered your own question with your 1st post on page 10 - "eagerness to use the lens"
Also, if everyone only posted what they consider "perfect" shots on these types of threads, then how would the people that are interested in it or researching it know where that lens has limitations or weaknesses? Would you prefer everyone find that out only after purchasing it? If I am interested in something and am doing my research, I dont only want to know the positives.
I just went through the 1st 12 pages of the Sony 600/4 thread and there are definitely some images with not-very-pleasing backgrounds/OOF rendering as well (even very "PF-ish" if I may say). And there are some not exactly sharp images.
And there are some that look great too.
p.11 #20 · Official 800PF image and discussion thread
This pretty much sums up on how I feel on these my gear is better than your arguments.
Taken with 800pf. Handheld on a windy day. A stupid stick on the lower right corner. Oh well.
