p.75 #2 · Official 800PF image and discussion thread
OwlsEyes wrote:
I've been following the last two pages of this thread regarding the 800PF and its minimum focusing limits. To your point @molson@ ... I photographed both hummingbirds and chipmunks with the 800PF and 180-600 in September prior to the hb migration.
1. There were times when the minimum focus distance did pose a problem, but that was rare. The hummers I photographed did not have a specific target flower or feeder, but a field of flowers from which to choose. As such, I had to find the bird with that narrow field of view, and when the birds were closer, this was very difficult. In the end, I chose, when necessary, to shoot and crop to DX or so size images.
2. The bokeh on 800PF is better than the bokeh on the 180-600 @600. This was significant to me because my backgrounds had flowers and vines.
3. The AF acquisition with the 800PF was quicker to lock on with initial focus.
4. With respect to the 180-600, the lens was/is more flexible to use. It is easier to find the bird, zoom in and maintain its location in the viewfinder.
5. Focus tracking is as good as the 800PF and seemed to have little issues with the flitty flight patterns.
6. I found that I could hand hold the 180-600 much longer than the 800PF and thus move in for tighter shots,
7. In good light, I found the images from the 180-600 indistinguishable from the 800PF, while in low contrast light the 800PF edged out the 180-600.
Disclosure... I recently sold my 800PF/400 f4.5 and replaced them with the 400 f2.8S. I kept the 180-600 and will add a second 1.4x to my 400S when I need the reach an 800PF offers. This is no dig on the lenses that I sold, but was an opportunistic move that I always wanted to make.
The only real "problem" is that I failed to realize how little MFD I would gain putting extension tubes on the 800 PF. I find them indispensable on my 400 f4.5 for hummingbirds, and naively assumed I would have similar results wtih the longer lens, which is obviously not the case - so it's a "me" problem, not a lens problem.
I threw the discussion off track when I started looking at other lenses for comparison, and kept getting that erroneous google result that sent me to the old Canon EF lens page...
Back in the Sony world I used my 200-600 (and 100-400) for the backyard birds, and they worked great; ditto for the Fuji XF 100-400 and 150-600 zooms, and the best of the bunch was the Olympus 150-400mm f4.5 TC lens (which took the hummer photo above). I still have reservations about the Nikon 180-600, and really don't want to deal with the weight of the Nikon 400 f2.8 TC lens, so I think I will continue using my 400 f4.5 in combination with teleconverters and extension tubes. I've noticed a lot of people have been selling their 800 PF's lately, so I guess I'm not the only one having second thoughts about it.
p.75 #3 · Official 800PF image and discussion thread
molson wrote:
The only real "problem" is that I failed to realize how little MFD I would gain putting extension tubes on the 800 PF. I find them indispensable on my 400 f4.5 for hummingbirds, and naively assumed I would have similar results wtih the longer lens, which is obviously not the case - so it's a "me" problem, not a lens problem.
I threw the discussion off track when I started looking at other lenses for comparison, and kept getting that erroneous google result that sent me to the old Canon EF lens page...
Back in the Sony world I used my 200-600 (and 100-400) for the backyard birds, and they worked great; ditto for the Fuji XF 100-400 and 150-600 zooms, and the best of the bunch was the Olympus 150-400mm f4.5 TC lens (which took the hummer photo above). I still have reservations about the Nikon 180-600, and really don't want to deal with the weight of the Nikon 400 f2.8 TC lens, so I think I will continue using my 400 f4.5 in combination with teleconverters and extension tubes. I've noticed a lot of people have been selling their 800 PF's lately, so I guess I'm not the only one having second thoughts about it....Show more →
I get your concern about the 180-600... it's hand-holdable, but not anywhere close to the 400 f4.5 in how long you can hold the lens to your eye. I was out shooting long-eared owls buried in thick vegetation today. I left the 400 f2.8 in the bag, and grabbed the 180-600 w/ the Zf (my "other" body). After about 10 minutes I was looking to brace myself on a branch or a way to lean on something... The 180-600 is a fine performer, but it is no featherweight.
RE the 800PF, it is the right lens for the photographer who really enjoys photographing small birds. While I do a bit of it, this is not my preferred nature subject. The 400 f2.8S w/ an additional TC will allow me to photograph warblers when I wish to do so, but allows for a more diverse application when compared to the 800PF.
p.75 #5 · Official 800PF image and discussion thread
Sorry to continue on the off-topic route, but as someone who owned the RF 800 F5.6, I echo what most posters have said. It's a frankenstein overpriced and underperforming lens.
Sure the MFD is nice, but you can get the same thing with any brand's 400 prime + 2x.
To spend that much money and get such subpar results (since it is basically a 400 + 2x), was not great for me. The 800 6.3 beats the pants off the RF 800 5.6 in every matter except MFD and 1/3 stop of light.
to Bruce, congrats on consolidating and getting a 400 2.8!
I'm still trying to decide which lens(es) would be best for me as a walkaround. I've primarily been using the 400 f2.8, but I don't care for it so much when hiking. thinking the 100-400, 400 4.5, 600 6.3, or 180-600 may be better there. but many of those also overlap with my existing lenses.. so seem like a first world problem
p.75 #6 · Official 800PF image and discussion thread
nmerc_photos wrote:
Sorry to continue on the off-topic route, but as someone who owned the RF 800 F5.6, I echo what most posters have said. It's a frankenstein overpriced and underperforming lens.
Sure the MFD is nice, but you can get the same thing with any brand's 400 prime + 2x.
To spend that much money and get such subpar results (since it is basically a 400 + 2x), was not great for me. The 800 6.3 beats the pants off the RF 800 5.6 in every matter except MFD and 1/3 stop of light.
to Bruce, congrats on consolidating and getting a 400 2.8!
I'm still trying to decide which lens(es) would be best for me as a walkaround. I've primarily been using the 400 f2.8, but I don't care for it so much when hiking. thinking the 100-400, 400 4.5, 600 6.3, or 180-600 may be better there. but many of those also overlap with my existing lenses.. so seem like a first world problem...Show more →
The MFD of that Canon 800 f5.6 is obviously the MFD of the 400 f2.8 bare but with the 2x TC welded to it, it gives the same MFD with a bit of fudge factor added in. One of the benefits of using a lens with a TC added, the MFD is same as the master lens.
p.75 #7 · Official 800PF image and discussion thread
Some from today's walk in the city. I just take the Z8 + 1 lens when walking the dog on a 5km trail loop that takes me along Fraser River & a nearby golf course here in Burnaby. The usual suspects are around.
p.75 #8 · Official 800PF image and discussion thread
Hi, so i have been using the PF 800mm for a while now and while i have been quite happy with it, there are a few image quality issues i have stumbled over. And now i am afraid that i have started going down the rabbit hole of taking pictures of test charts and starting to wonder whether there is something going on with the copy i got.
The ghist of it is that while general sharpness is good, i get chromatic aberrations that are not removed by the "Remove Chromatic Aberration" option in Lightroom Classic (my main post processing tool). In parts of the frame this option even adds more chromatic aberrations than there were before enabling it.
The following two images show a test chart captured wide open at f6.3 for which vibrance and saturation have been pushed in Lightroom (lighting was not quite uniform which is why the background isnt perfectly white when pushing the image that much). The first one has the "Remove Chromatic Aberration" option disabled, the second one has it enabled.
Note that even close to the image center these aberrations are very prominent, which is not the case when for example compared to the 300mm PF f/4 lens that i own as well.
I have also now looked at the general distribution of chromatic aberrations across the image with the MTF Mapper tool and compared results with the 300mm PF. Compared to the 300mm lens, the aberrations of the 800m seem to be highly asymetrically distributed over the frame. I assume this is one of the reasons why lightroom struggles so much.
The interesting thing is that Nikons own raw processor NxStudio is able to remove the aberrations of the 800mm lens a bit better, but since the AI denoise feature in Lightroom is currently only applicable to raw files, this is not really a good option for me.
So now i wonder, whether other 800mm PF users have seen similar issues and are just working around them a bit better (i could go into photoshop and remove the worst of these color seams manually...) or whether i really got a sub par copy which might be fixable by sending it to Nikon for servicing/repair.
If anybody is interested in the raw files, they are available here 800mm 300mm
And since this is also an image thread, here is at least one that is not just a test chart
p.75 #9 · Official 800PF image and discussion thread
Try processing the files in DxO PureRAW 3. It not only does a better job with noise reduction, it also has much better lens correction modules than what are available with Adobe products.
p.75 #10 · Official 800PF image and discussion thread
PhilippM wrote:
Hi, so i have been using the PF 800mm for a while now and while i have been quite happy with it, there are a few image quality issues i have stumbled over. ....
Access denied for all of those links apart from the second one. Looking at that it seems your lens is de-centred.
p.75 #11 · Official 800PF image and discussion thread
Unable to access any raw files posted above (no permissions). I don't even use the 'remove chromatic aberrations' option in Lightroom, but also I don't photograph charts or use any special software to analyze the results. I've never really noticed any aberrations tbh.
p.75 #12 · Official 800PF image and discussion thread
molson wrote:
Try processing the files in DxO PureRAW 3. It not only does a better job with noise reduction, it also has much better lens correction modules than what are available with Adobe products.
Thanks for this suggestion. When running both, the 300mm and the 800mm raws through PureRaw 3 the issue looks very similar to what Lightroom creates. The following image is from the center of the frame, again, with pushed saturation and vibrance in lightroom.
The left one is the 800mm and the right one the 300mm. It is pretty clear that center sharpness of the 800mm is not on par with the 300mm and that chromatic aberrations are controlled significantly better for the older lens after processing.
---------------------------------------------
Alistair1 wrote:
Access denied for all of those links apart from the second one. Looking at that it seems your lens is de-centred.
Sorry about that, the access issue should be fixed now. And yes, i also suspect that some pieces of the optical assembly might not be centered correctly.
---------------------------------------------
lukemeup wrote:
Unable to access any raw files posted above (no permissions). I don't even use the 'remove chromatic aberrations' option in Lightroom, but also I don't photograph charts or use any special software to analyze the results. I've never really noticed any aberrations tbh.
A bunch from today's walk in nearby Richmond.
Thank you for the nice example shots. And it is good to know, that you are not required to touch the chromatic aberration setting when processing.
p.75 #13 · Official 800PF image and discussion thread
This is longest FL I've used so far. Almost unreal what we can capture when we can handhold an 800mm as low as 1/200 sec shutter speed @ 45MP!
The VR is amazing. Way better than Sony 200-600.
Sharpness is good. But from what I read 600 PF is sharper. This is sharp enough for me.
Love the bokeh. Should be pretty similar to 400/2,8 except for those PF specific situations.
All taken with Z8. Just trying to find out how much I can crop.
The king bird was cropped to 4K size (1600mm angle of view) and I think I can make decent print from the file. From what I can see, I'll be able to use this setup as an 800mm-1500mm zoom
1/400sec, f/6.3, ISO 2000, 21.3MP(5700X3729), Effective FL 1160mm
1/320sec, f/6.3, ISO 640, 20.2MP(5504X3669), Effective FL 1200mm
1/250sec, f/6.3, ISO 560, 11.2MP(4097X2731), Effective FL 1610mm
1/400sec, f/6.3, ISO 1800, 21.8MP(5448X3993), Effective FL 1210mm
1/500sec, f/6.3, ISO 200, 15.6MP(4842X3229), Effective FL 1360mm
p.75 #14 · Official 800PF image and discussion thread
Firstly, at first glance, the 3rd bird down looks like an Eastern Phoebe; I don't think it's a Kingbird, but both catch flying insects for a living . I should say that it looks that way to me; i.e. I was a not there.
The excitement you express for Nikon's long PF's is ... well......... exciting. I shoot the Z8, 500PF and 200-500 for now. My next one will be the 180-600 for sure (mostly for video on a stable platform). Will love that internal 70-degree one-finger throw. After that I think it will be the 600 PF. The reason is its lack of weight and size. I'm used to getting the results I want at 500 (or 700 with TC), so I can do that at 600 and 840 (wTC). But I may just keep shooting the 500PF.
These images *are* very nice...exciting. Is that horsehair in the breeze under the Phoebe?
p.75 #15 · Official 800PF image and discussion thread
bs kite wrote:
Firstly, at first glance, the 3rd bird down looks like an Eastern Phoebe; I don't think it's a Kingbird, but both catch flying insects for a living . I should say that it looks that way to me; i.e. I could be wrong too.
The excitement you express for Nikon's long PF's is ... well......... exciting. I shoot the Z8, 500PF and 200-500 for now. My next one will be the 180-600 for sure (mostly for video on a stable platform). Will love that internal 70-degree one-finger throw. After that I think it will be the 600 PF. The reason is its lack of weight and size. I'm used to getting the results I want at 500 (or 700 with TC), so I can do that at 600 and 840 (wTC). But I may just keep shooting the 500PF.
These images *are* very nice...exciting. Is that horsehair in the breeze under the Phoebe?
Thank you for the detailed reply and that correction. Interesting fact about Eastern Phoebe vs Kingbird. Now I remember looking it up. It make sense.
Yes 500 PF was the first miracle by Nikon back in 2019? I had it with D500. Then moved on to Sony and now back (almost) to Nikon. I'd have gone for 600PF too. For now I want to see what's possible with 800mm.
I watched Ricci's video on 600 PF. He says 600 with TC is as sharp as bare 800 PF. But 600 PF with TC is one stop slower compared to 800 PF. So the bokeh won't be this smooth.
I always wanted to get 400/2.8 or 600/4. But for the moment I don't want to spend that kind of money and also not ready to take the tripod out yet. 800 PF gives pretty similar bokeh hand held. 400/2.8 and 600/4 will be better for BIF because of better AF and 1.3 stop faster aperture. I wish if the 600 PF was a 4.5 lens. That'd make it hand holdable 600/4.5 and 840/6.3!!
The white hair like thing on Phoebe image shouldn't be horse hair. It's farm where there are only cows.
p.75 #16 · Official 800PF image and discussion thread
Jemini wrote:
Thank you for the detailed reply and that correction. Interesting fact about Eastern Phoebe vs Kingbird. Now I remember looking it up. It make sense.
Yes 500 PF was the first miracle by Nikon back in 2019? I had it with D500. Then moved on to Sony and now back (almost) to Nikon. I'd have gone for 600PF too. For now I want to see what's possible with 800mm.
I watched Ricci's video on 600 PF. He says 600 with TC is as sharp as bare 800 PF. But 600 PF with TC is one stop slower compared to 800 PF. So the bokeh won't be this smooth.
I always wanted to get 400/2.8 or 600/4. But for the moment I don't want to spend that kind of money and also not ready to take the tripod out yet. 800 PF gives pretty similar bokeh hand held. 400/2.8 and 600/4 will be better for BIF because of better AF and 1.3 stop faster aperture. I wish if the 600 PF was a 4.5 lens. That'd make it hand holdable 600/4.5 and 840/6.3!!
The white hair like thing on Phoebe image shouldn't be horse hair. It's farm where there are only cows. ...Show more →
You're right... I overlooked that it is a stop slower than the 800. Hope to soon see more of your images from that area.
p.75 #19 · Official 800PF image and discussion thread
lukemeup wrote:
Unable to access any raw files posted above (no permissions). I don't even use the 'remove chromatic aberrations' option in Lightroom, but also I don't photograph charts or use any special software to analyze the results. I've never really noticed any aberrations tbh.
+1, with or without software correction, I'm not sure I have ever even seen CA from my 800PF, even with the 1.4TC, and even shooting backlit birds on branches. If there are situations that cause CA, thankfully I never seem to be shooting in them. I'm sure the lens isn't completely immune to it, but it's remarkably well controlled.
The above poster that is seeing more CA and less sharpness than the Canon 300mm might have a bad copy of the 800PF as that is the opposite of my experience nor have I seen those issues mentioned before. Trying out a second copy (if possible) would be the first thing I would do.
