p.36 #1 · Official 800PF image and discussion thread
Eric214 wrote:
You have to realize this is an f6.3 and due too the compression of 800mm this lens really punches much higher than it's f6.3 weight class. I think it does better than the 500 F5.5 PF
I agree with your sentiment 100%. At this point, I would never spend the premium for an 800mm f5.6 when this PF lens is available. In fact, one of the local shops in the Twin Cities had a mint 800mm f5.6 w/ the 1.25 converter (used) on a holiday sale for $7600. As tempting as it was, I pre-ordered the PF and was more than happy to give up the 1/3 stop to save the weight an size of the F mount f/5.6 lens.
p.36 #2 · Official 800PF image and discussion thread
Second outing, cloudy day & flat light. Happy with what I'm getting with it so far.
I didn't know that grebe (in 3rd photo) can squeeze out the air trapped in its feathers and internal air-sacs, and sink effortlessly. I watched this one go underwater like a submarine.
Beautiful shots Lance. These images reveal both detail and the capability to isolate small subjects...
I've found the lens a bit addicting. Maybe it's the novelty, but I am constantly looking for reasons to shoot with it.
p.36 #7 · Official 800PF image and discussion thread
OwlsEyes wrote:
Ok... thanks for the details, as this is what I thought
I find that the 800PF does a nice job knocking out the background when a heavy crop is not required (let's say a final file of 30MP w/ a Z9/Z7), but as you reveal... there is no "magic bullet" when the subject to lens difference is large.
The coyotes I posted were DX crops (about 20MP), and I was disappointed by the lack of isolation. My subject to lens distance was huge... 100 meters, maybe more... This is a reminder that getting close (enough) with the right lens matters more than just having the right lens. ...Show more →
It doesn't matter what the depth of field is, what matters is how far outside of the depth of field the BG is. I have images taken at 400mm f/16 where the BG is complete mush. I.e. the difference in subject distance and BG distance matters much more than aperture.
Cropping doesn't affect this... if you crop the depth of field decreases in the final image; doesn't matter if it's done with crop factor, DX mode, or in post.
p.36 #8 · Official 800PF image and discussion thread
sk66 wrote:
It doesn't matter what the depth of field is, what matters is how far outside of the depth of field the BG is. I have images taken at 400mm f/16 where the BG is complete mush. I.e. the difference in subject distance and BG distance matters much more than aperture.
Cropping doesn't affect this... if you crop the depth of field decreases in the final image; doesn't matter if it's done with crop factor, DX mode, or in post.
I beg to differ with the last statement. While at a technical level, depth of field is depth of field... thus, you are correct that the background focus relative to the subject focus is a function of the total area of confusion in a frame. However, when you crop deeply into an image, the depth of field in the background becomes more prominent because you have narrowed the viewer's field of view. On the other hand, in the case of the eagle shots, if the photographer chooses to show a small eagle in a larger frame to emphasize the eagle's place in its landscape, then the background will appear less distracting relative to the totality of the frame.
I will site my own coyote images as an example. The two images presented below were taken right after each other (7238 v 7241), however I chose to crop one. The trees in the cropped image appear to be more distracting relative to the focus on the coyote. In the uncropped shot the brain perceives the trees relative to the coyote in a very different manner. I feel as if the narrower field of view increases the negative impact of a relatively close background.... however, all brains are function of our living experience, so my perception of this difference may be different from yours.
bruce
NIKON Z 9NIKKOR Z 800mm f/6.3 VR S lens800mmf/6.31/1000s6400 ISO+1.0 EV
NIKON Z 9NIKKOR Z 800mm f/6.3 VR S lens800mmf/6.31/1250s6400 ISO+1.0 EV
p.36 #9 · Official 800PF image and discussion thread
This may be of interest to those looking to carry a pack with the 800PF in a "ready to shoot" orientation.
I have been a huge advocate and lover of FStop-Gear bags, but short of buying a bigger bag with the very expensive cinema ICU, I have not been able to love the way the 800PF plus other lenses fit.
The purchase of the 800PF led to the subsequent purchase of the Mindshift Backlight 36L. While the harness and waste belt are less robust than the FStop Gear bad, the interior compartment holds the gear more efficiently than the XL Pro ICU.
If one adds the @zemlin 82mm hood to their 800PF, it is possible to pack the 800PF w/Z9 and 82mm hood in shooting position. What's more, there is enough room for another mounted longish lens (like 70-200, 100-400, 400 f4.5, 500PF), and a 3rd mounted body w/ a wide to normal zoom (here I have the 24-120 attached).
For those looking for a compact and well made bag for field hikes, this might work as well for you as it does for me.
cheers,
bruce
p.36 #10 · Official 800PF image and discussion thread
OwlsEyes wrote:
I beg to differ with the last statement. While at a technical level, depth of field is depth of field... thus, you are correct that the background focus relative to the subject focus is a function of the total area of confusion in a frame. However, when you crop deeply into an image, the depth of field in the background becomes more prominent because you have narrowed the viewer's field of view. On the other hand, in the case of the eagle shots, if the photographer chooses to show a small eagle in a larger frame to emphasize the eagle's place in its landscape, then the background will appear less distracting relative to the totality of the frame.
I will site my own coyote images as an example. The two images presented below were taken right after each other (7238 v 7241), however I chose to crop one. The trees in the cropped image appear to be more distracting relative to the focus on the coyote. In the uncropped shot the brain perceives the trees relative to the coyote in a very different manner. I feel as if the narrower field of view increases the negative impact of a relatively close background.... however, all brains are function of our living experience, so my perception of this difference may be different from yours.
There are many things going on in your example... in the first image the wolf is nearly central and the surrounding trees/branches function overall as something of natural framing. In the crop you have moved the wolf farther away from center which de-emphasises it, moved the adjacent tree/branches more central emphasizing them; and the primary distractors (IMO) are the adjacent branches, not BG.
p.36 #11 · Official 800PF image and discussion thread
OwlsEyes wrote:
This may be of interest to those looking to carry a pack with the 800PF in a "ready to shoot" orientation.
I have been a huge advocate and lover of FStop-Gear bags, but short of buying a bigger bag with the very expensive cinema ICU, I have not been able to love the way the 800PF plus other lenses fit.
The purchase of the 800PF led to the subsequent purchase of the Mindshift Backlight 36L. While the harness and waste belt are less robust than the FStop Gear bad, the interior compartment holds the gear more efficiently than the XL Pro ICU.
If one adds the @zemlin@ 82mm hood to their 800PF, it is possible to pack the 800PF w/Z9 and 82mm hood in shooting position. What's more, there is enough room for another mounted longish lens (like 70-200, 100-400, 400 f4.5, 500PF), and a 3rd mounted body w/ a wide to normal zoom (here I have the 24-120 attached).
For those looking for a compact and well made bag for field hikes, this might work as well for you as it does for me.
cheers,
bruce...Show more →
Thanks, Bruce - you may have just saved me a bunch of money!
p.36 #12 · Official 800PF image and discussion thread
OwlsEyes wrote:
For those looking for a compact and well made bag for field hikes, this might work as well for you as it does for me.
Funny - I just bought that bag in B&S section here last week. Had it shipped to my agent in the US, so still need to hop the border and pick it up. Good to know that stock hood won't fit in the shooting position.
p.36 #13 · Official 800PF image and discussion thread
molson wrote:
Thanks, Bruce - you may have just saved me a bunch of money!
Hi Molson, I'm not sure what you're looking for but the Think Tank Glass limo books the Z9+800PF attached and has some room for some extras. Not sure if you're looking for a small bag or one that is smaller and lighter. I attached an image of my bag full so you have an idea and is about $100 cheaper that the 36L Mindshift bag. To carry it this way I did buy the Zemlin lens cap so I didn't need the leather leans cover
p.36 #14 · Official 800PF image and discussion thread
Eric214 wrote:
Hi Molson, I'm not sure what you're looking for but the Think Tank Glass limo books the Z9+800PF attached and has some room for some extras. Not sure if you're looking for a small bag or one that is smaller and lighter. I attached an image of my bag full so you have an idea and is about $100 cheaper that the 36L Mindshift bag. To carry it this way I did buy the Zemlin lens cap so I didn't need the leather leans cover
Thanks for the info, but my preference is for rear-panel access bags nowadays. I just bought a Backlight 18L for my smaller gear, and was trying to decide between their 36L and 45L bags for when I get the big lens.
p.36 #15 · Official 800PF image and discussion thread
OwlsEyes wrote:
This may be of interest to those looking to carry a pack with the 800PF in a "ready to shoot" orientation.
I have been a huge advocate and lover of FStop-Gear bags, but short of buying a bigger bag with the very expensive cinema ICU, I have not been able to love the way the 800PF plus other lenses fit.
The purchase of the 800PF led to the subsequent purchase of the Mindshift Backlight 36L. While the harness and waste belt are less robust than the FStop Gear bad, the interior compartment holds the gear more efficiently than the XL Pro ICU.
If one adds the @zemlin@ 82mm hood to their 800PF, it is possible to pack the 800PF w/Z9 and 82mm hood in shooting position. What's more, there is enough room for another mounted longish lens (like 70-200, 100-400, 400 f4.5, 500PF), and a 3rd mounted body w/ a wide to normal zoom (here I have the 24-120 attached).
For those looking for a compact and well made bag for field hikes, this might work as well for you as it does for me.
cheers,
bruce...Show more →
This is gold! Having just got my 800PF, Zemlin short hood, and Backlight 36L, I just accepted that it was too big to store w/ hood on. Went back and looked, and found that the that whole the top interior panel could come out, and am happy that I can store the lens w/ hood in ready-to-shoot position!
p.36 #16 · Official 800PF image and discussion thread
OwlsEyes wrote:
Beautiful shots Lance. These images reveal both detail and the capability to isolate small subjects...
I've found the lens a bit addicting. Maybe it's the novelty, but I am constantly looking for reasons to shoot with it.
