p.14 #1 · Official 800PF image and discussion thread
Got bokeh? Someone was complaining about background rendering and contrast of this lens...And oh yeah, the silly MFD and the most silly lack of Arcas Swiss bevel lens foot...
p.14 #3 · Official 800PF image and discussion thread
Really hoping I'll get the notice sometime soon, but thanks so much to those that share these photos. It really supports the decision to order the 800PF.
p.14 #6 · Official 800PF image and discussion thread
robert_in_ca wrote:
Fantastic shot George. How are you finding the 800 PF vs your 400 S?
Thank you!
Wow they are both awesome lenses but the 400 is much more versatile! If I had to choose one it would be the 400. Both are sharp and fast but it's hard to beat a lens you can use from 400mm-800mm in any situation and with any combination of TC's.
That said if I can take the 800 and know it's not too much focal length I'm taking it, lighter and easier to handle!
p.14 #11 · 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
I received a prototype foot from Hejnar Photo yesterday. I will be using it for several days and will then provide feedback. It currently has 1 x 1/4x20 threaded hole and 2 x QD holes for straps & such. I tested balance on a gimbal with the heaviest and lightest Z bodies I have a available (Z9 + 2xTC and Z50). I also verified balance with Z6II both with & w/o a grip, native, w/ 1.4xTC, and 2xTC. No balance or clearance issues whatsoever. I also verified clearance between the front of the foot and the hood when reversed - with and w/o cover.
These should be listed on their site soon. I have several of their feet on other lenses and have been very happy with fit, finish, function, and feel - 4 F's, HA! (http://www.hejnarphotostore.com/category-s/190.htm)
Pics below is an unfinished prototype, but should be very close, if not exact (only missing final polish & anodizing).
1) Clearance between foot & backwards hood
2) Clearance between Z9 grip (no TC) and foot
p.14 #12 · Official 800PF image and discussion thread
EyeSpyEagle wrote:
I received a prototype foot from Hejnar Photo yesterday. I will be using it for several days and will then provide feedback. It currently has 1 x 1/4x20 threaded hole and 2 x QD holes for straps & such. I tested balance on a gimbal with the heaviest and lightest Z bodies I have a available (Z9 + 2xTC and Z50). I also verified balance with Z6II both with & w/o a grip, native, w/ 1.4xTC, and 2xTC. No balance or clearance issues whatsoever. I also verified clearance between the front of the foot and the hood when reversed - with and w/o cover.
These should be listed on their site soon. I have several of their feet on other lenses and have been very happy with fit, finish, function, and feel - 4 F's, HA! (http://www.hejnarphotostore.com/category-s/190.htm)
Pics below is an unfinished prototype, but should be very close, if not exact (only missing final polish & anodizing).
1) Clearance between foot & backwards hood
2) Clearance between Z9 grip (no TC) and foot
Finally! I will order one when available. Thank you!! Still waiting on the lense. I received my lencoat and lenscap. ...Show more →
p.14 #18 · Official 800PF image and discussion thread
suteetat wrote:
I would agree that background blur is not always flattering but it also depends on the background and distance to the subject. I have seen some excellent bokeh and some not so good.
I could see some difference between 400/2.8s+ TCx2 so 800/5.6 equvalent vs 800PF but I have not seen a sample under the same setting where 400/2.8S+TCx2 bokeh is excellent but 800PF is ugly.
Sharpness is hard as it really depends a lot of post processing. I do add sharpening in some images but not always. Sometimes I use sharpening unmask, sometimes I use high pass filter. It really depends on my mood or than anything else
I have no idea how other people add sharpening if at all in their images but I can say this much, on my monitor, the picture that I see on my monitor in PS always look better than what I see the same image that I posted in FM. I used 500/4e FL and 600/4e FL a lot in the past and still own 400/2.8S, I still think that 800PF is the best lens when I need focal lenght around 800mm of all the lenses that I have or had. ...Show more →
Firstly Suteetat I must say your images are superb regardless of lens, 800pf or otherwise, thank you for posting, the owls really capture my imagination though
Interesting to see your comments on processing and sharpening, I do quite a lot of processing both for work and pleasure, having used many various software programs over the years, including Nikon's own I still find that DXO Photolab is doing wonders for me. I have run various RAW files through it from Sony and Nikon, the raw sharpening works well and the PureRAW noise reduction is incredibly good whilst still retaining detail. I do not work for DXO and did pay for my copy
In the meantime I am seriously considering a pre-order on the 800PF, if I do go all in it would be a jump from 300f4+1.4TC to the 800, this makes me a bit nervous but 420 or 510mm has never been enough reach for me even with DX. Jumping to either 600 or 800 full frame will be nice I am sure. The f6.3 aperture concerns me a bit, light is not great where I live but IBIS and my steady breathing should help
Keep up the good work, pleasure to view your images.
Thanks for posting these and at such high resolution, gives a far better idea of sharpness and detail. Compared to the 400 2.8 this 800 is still producing great detail, I suspect the biggest issue could be framing and potentially controlling the background/bokeh. Oh my goodness when the planets align, in those images at least it can certainly shine.
Detail looks pretty close to the 400, in fact I would say hard to tell in many cases, pop seems better on the 400 which it should be and of course the bokeh is superior. With all that said, 800mm f6.3, lighter and less than half the price, very interesting indeed.
p.14 #20 · Official 800PF image and discussion thread
snapquacky wrote:
Thanks for posting these and at such high resolution, gives a far better idea of sharpness and detail. Compared to the 400 2.8 this 800 is still producing great detail, I suspect the biggest issue could be framing and potentially controlling the background/bokeh. Oh my goodness when the planets align, in those images at least it can certainly shine.
Detail looks pretty close to the 400, in fact I would say hard to tell in many cases, pop seems better on the 400 which it should be and of course the bokeh is superior. With all that said, 800mm f6.3, lighter and less than half the price, very interesting indeed.
