p.13 #1 · Official 800PF image and discussion thread
aboutthelight wrote:
Here is exactly what I said to start this "Are people really happy with the performance and sharpness of this lens?
Damn.... So if I had just answered this, we could have avoided all this BS?
Yes, I am VERY happy with my 800PF.
Regards,
Phil
May 20, 2022 at 02:29 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.13 #2 · Official 800PF image and discussion thread
aboutthelight wrote:
Here is exactly what I said to start this "Are people really happy with the performance and sharpness of this lens? I would think it would be on par with the 500PF and 300PF in terms of sharpness and ease of handling. When viewing on my 5k imac many of the images posted seem to have very unflattering backgrounds and I am not blown away at all with the sharpness either. Maybe just some growing pains with the lens or eagerness to use and post so not shooting in optimal conditions? Hope I don't sound too much like a bozo but for $6,500 I would want better results than what I am seeing. Hope there is not too much hate flowing after this but just being honest"
I raised the issue of growing pains and eagerness to post with the new lens because it is obvious that there are less than high quality images being posted. I also raised the issue that the lenses should be equally as sharp and easy to use as the 300 and 500 PF but that I was not seeing similar results as some of the great images posted in those threads.
With regards to depth of field I have never said that an 800mm lens will have the same DOF as a 300 or 500mm lens. That would be absurd. What I said is that these lenses are particularly susceptible to jittery backgrounds when the subject is too close to the background and people should remember this when out shooting and pay attention to their shooting angles and distance to backgrounds even more because they are shooting with a PF lens. Again I owned the 300 and 500 and shot them in particular situations with careful considerations to the backgrounds and its distance from my subjects. Of course 800mm and 6.3 is different than the others but it is still a PF lens so there are limits to the advantages you mention.
Let me be clear I think that this 800PF is an outstanding lens that will deliver world class results and is incredibly light and hand holdable. In the same way that the 300 and 500PF are benchmarks for affordability and ease of use. Groundbreaking lenses that no other manufacturer has come close to replicating. However after 10 pages of images that look particularly poor in my book I was wondering what others thought or found who were lucky enough to own and shoot this lens. I could never judge a lens that I have not used but I can judge the images I have seen and that is why I asked what I asked and how I asked it. I have owned and shot 600f4's from Canon, Nikon and Sony. I have used them with and without converters thousands of times. I am very well aware of how the focal length and the fstop effect the final product.
I did not nor would I critique this lens, I asked those who own it if they were happy with it because the results being shown were less than stellar. I don't know how to say this any other way ...Show more →
And what I was saying is that it is too early to make any judgments and your questions are premature, IMO. You talk about ten pages of images, but in reality we are talking a small number of photographers that have not had long to use the lens. We will learn more with time, but those ten pages don't tell us much of anything, IMO. Your characterization of the the results as less than stellar doesn't take into account that with this lens as with every new lens when people don't cull the images as much as normal and are eager to post examples, it is to be expected for such early examples with a lens that there will be many examples that are less than stellar, so IMO you make way too much out of those ten pages as they aren't a sufficient justification for your questions.
The second error you make is the clear equating even in the post above of the 300 and 500 PF with this 800 PF. I don't think that makes sense. The 800 PF is much closer to the fastest aperture 800mm lens alternatives than the 300 and 500 PF lenses are to the fastest aperture lenses at those focal lengths. That is a difference you fail to appreciate even in your post above and you lump all PF lenses together. I think that is a mistake.
p.13 #3 · Official 800PF image and discussion thread
Steve Spencer wrote:
And what I was saying is that it is too early to make any judgments and your questions are premature, IMO. You talk about ten pages of images, but in reality we are talking a small number of photographers that have not had long to use the lens. We will learn more with time, but those ten pages don't tell us much of anything, IMO. Your characterization of the the results as less than stellar doesn't take into account that with this lens as with every new lens when people don't cull the images as much as normal and are eager to post examples, it is to be expected for such early examples with a lens that there will be many examples that are less than stellar, so IMO you make way too much out of those ten pages as they aren't a sufficient justification for your questions.
The second error you make is the clear equating even in the post above of the 300 and 500 PF with this 800 PF. I don't think that makes sense. The 800 PF is much closer to the fastest aperture 800mm lens alternatives than the 300 and 500 PF lenses are to the fastest aperture lenses at those focal lengths. That is a difference you fail to appreciate even in your post above and you lump all PF lenses together. I think that is a mistake....Show more →
We are going to continue to disagree. I find your point and your argument absurd and nothing but an excuse for the poor images being posted. You can take really good images the instant you use a lens. This whole time is needed is just nonsense in my book. You can spend your life shooting with poor technique, in mid day light and sub optimal shooting angles and distance to background and the results won't change one bit. Unless the 800PF is your first lens and you have no basis for comparison then you will know what you are shooting with very quickly. And if people chose not to cull that does not in any way negate the fact they they posted less than stellar images. All of the images in my opinion look bad. You are free to disagree. But enough of them were posted that led me want to ask the question. If you think more time is needed and that is acceptable for you then that is fine. But that does not make me wrong in any way if I have a different expectation of the lens and the images posted.
With regards to your other point I simply can't understand why you would continue to talk about aperture and not appreciate that they are all PF lenses. That is what makes them so small and light. They all do share the same tendency for jittery backgrounds regardless of their aperture. If you can't understand that then I don't know what to tell you.
This is completely pointless in my book. Nothing but blind defense of photos that in your words should have been culled and are less than stellar. Nikon has been making some outstanding, industry leading lenses. In my opinion 10 pages is enough of a sample size to be a bit concerned. If you disagree that is fine.
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.13 #4 · Official 800PF image and discussion thread
aboutthelight wrote:
We are going to continue to disagree. I find your point and your argument absurd and nothing but an excuse for the poor images being posted. You can take really good images the instant you use a lens. This whole time is needed is just nonsense in my book. No it isn't. You can spend your life shooting with poor technique, in mid day light and sub optimal shooting angles and distance to background and the results won't change one bit. Unless the 800PF is your first lens and you have no basis for comparison then you will know what you are shooting with very quickly. And if people chose not to cull that does not in any way negate the fact they they posted less than stellar images. All of the images in my opinion look bad. You are free to disagree. But enough of them were posted that led me want to ask the question. If you think more time is needed and that is acceptable for you then that is fine. But that does not make me wrong in any way if I have a different expectation of the lens and the images posted.
With regards to your other point I simply can't understand why you would continue to talk about aperture and not appreciate that they are all PF lenses. That is what makes them so small and light. They all do share the same tendency for jittery backgrounds regardless of their aperture. If you can't understand that then I don't know what to tell you.
This is completely pointless in my book. Nothing but blind defense of photos that in your words should have been culled and are less than stellar. Nikon has been making some outstanding, industry leading lenses. In my opinion 10 pages is enough of a sample size to be a bit concerned. If you disagree that is fine.
You again miss my point. You of course can take great pictures right away, but you can of course take mediocre pictures right away and every new lens thread I have seen people are eager to post new images and don't cull images nearly as much as when they have taken more pictures with the lens. I find it offensive you call this an excuse. I see it as just the way things work with all new lens. Note I don't have the lens and therefore I haven't posted any images with it.
The point you and I disagree on is whether there is a good collection of photos with the lens posted in the first ten pages. You think there is and I definitely do not. I think your analysis is based on way too small of a collection of photos and your evaluation is a rush to judgment and based on way too few pictures. You obviously think you have seen enough and it is that which I find absurd. You say enough pictures have been posted and I don't think enough have been. Neither do I think all the pictures are bad. Some are bad, some are mediocre, some are pretty good, and a couple are quite good. I don't think any truly excellent pictures have been presented yet, but again I wouldn't expect that just yet as it will typically take thousands of shot to get a truly excellent one. My point is that the distribution of pictures look like the pictures I see from pretty much every lens when it is first released and this distribution of pictures therefore tells us nothing about the lens, IMO. That you take this distribution as justification to ask questions about the lens is, IMO, an example of very poor analysis and judgment and the way you raise this point strikes me as not only poor analysis but an attempt to be argumentative and antagonistic. Who goes on a photography forum and starts posting that all the photos there are bad? You really think that is a reasonable analysis and isn't a bit insulting?
As to why not to lump the analysis of this lens with other PF lenses there are at least two important reasons. First, it has much shallower depth of field than the other PF lenses because of its longer focal length and therefore many not render in the same way. Second, it is a newer generation of PF and for that reason it may not render in the same way either. That too will take time to evaluate. I don't expect all PF lenses to rending in the same way any more than I expect all aspherical lenses to render in the same way. In my opinion, I have not seen any technology that totally controls rendering is such a way that different lenses with that technology don't differ in significant ways. I think this is likely to be true with PF lenses too,
p.13 #5 · Official 800PF image and discussion thread
Steve Spencer wrote:
You again miss my point. You of course can take great pictures right away, but you can of course take mediocre pictures right away and every new lens thread I have seen people are eager to post new images and don't cull images nearly as much as when they have taken more pictures with the lens. I find it offensive you call this an excuse. I see it as just the way things work with all new lens. Note I don't have the lens and therefore I haven't posted any images with it.
The point you and I disagree on is whether there is a good collection of photos with the lens posted in the first ten pages. You think there is and I definitely do not. I think your analysis is based on way too small of a collection of photos and your evaluation is a rush to judgment and based on way too few pictures. You obviously think you have seen enough and it is that which I find absurd. You say enough pictures have been posted and I don't think enough have been. Neither do I think all the pictures are bad. Some are bad, some are mediocre, some are pretty good, and a couple are quite good. I don't think any truly excellent pictures have been presented yet, but again I wouldn't expect that just yet as it will typically take thousands of shot to get a truly excellent one. My point is that the distribution of pictures look like the pictures I see from pretty much every lens when it is first released and this distribution of pictures therefore tells us nothing about the lens, IMO. That you take this distribution as justification to ask questions about the lens is, IMO, an example of very poor analysis and judgment and the way you raise this point strikes me as not only poor analysis but an attempt to be argumentative and antagonistic. Who goes on a photography forum and starts posting that all the photos there are bad? You really think that is a reasonable analysis and isn't a bit insulting?
As to why not to lump the analysis of this lens with other PF lenses there are at least two important reasons. First, it has much shallower depth of field than the other PF lenses because of its longer focal length and therefore many not render in the same way. Second, it is a newer generation of PF and for that reason it may not render in the same way either. That too will take time to evaluate. I don't expect all PF lenses to rending in the same way any more than I expect all aspherical lenses to render in the same way. In my opinion, I have not seen any technology that totally controls rendering is such a way that different lenses with that technology don't differ in significant ways. I think this is likely to be true with PF lenses too,...Show more →
Edit: This no longer has anything to do with the lens and everything to do with personal preferences and opinions. Feel free to PM me and we can continue this conversation in private.
p.13 #6 · Official 800PF image and discussion thread
Great Egret with a little nesting material
Z9, 800pf
May 21, 2022 at 10:48 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.13 #7 · Official 800PF image and discussion thread
aboutthelight wrote:
Edit: This no longer has anything to do with the lens and everything to do with personal preferences and opinions. Feel free to PM me and we can continue this conversation in private.
What I said obviously is about evaluating the lens, but I am happy to take our discussion to PM and have sent you a PM.
p.13 #10 · Official 800PF image and discussion thread
Theresa & I stopped by a park yesterday morning to see if we could spot any late migrant warblers, but did not. We saw one Yelow-Billed Cuchoo perched in a horribly busy tree. As we continued to look, we came across a group of folks training Belgian Malinois defence tactics.
Being "dog people" and owners of several German Sheppard's, we were intrigued. After watching for a bit, during a break I asked (from a safe distance!) if they would mind if we photographed the dogs. As I mentioned above, this was supposed to be a quick run to look for warblers so I had only Z9 + 800PF and Theresa had only her D500 + 500PF. Despite knowing we had the wrong gear, we couldn't pass it up "just for fun. We parked our car at a distance and both shot from the car windows.
Here's a few (1-3) specifically for the "haters", followed by a couple more (4-8) for everyone else.
Disclaimer: These are shared as "fun" shots, taken with the gear that was in my hands at the time.
p.13 #14 · Official 800PF image and discussion thread
suteetat wrote:
This would be very nice. Just eye balling it, it looks like 800PF and 400/2.8S use the same foot so whoever comes out with a replacement foot first, I am ready to order 2
This is now coming together. I hope to have a prototype this week. The last model I saw looks really nice. I'll add some pics when I receive the new foot.
p.13 #19 · Official 800PF image and discussion thread
Shots of a Test Target at 8.4m with the 800mm f/6.3 on a Z9 bare lens and with ZTC14 and ZTC20 -- one version has ISO at 100 and the other used auto ISO.
