ChrisMak wrote:
Yes, I saw your very nice long eared owl images taken with the 800PF. What I like about the lens, is that you have the reach without needing a TC, without having to put up with an extremely large size and without having to carry a hefty weight. It is straight and simple and gets you close, and delivers prime quality.
I believe the consensus is that it is a clear step below the Sony 600GM regarding image quality, rendering flatter images and lacking the ultimate contrast and clarity of the 600/4 lenses, but it is clearly still a high quality prime lens. And the AF is allegedly a step below. For me, choosing between the Nikon 800PF and the Sony 600GM is nearly identical to the choice between the 500PF and a 500/4 lens: do I want the ultimate clarity and IQ, and top level auto focus, but with the price of large size and weight, and a hefty cost, or do I want very good prime IQ a step below the top-level lenses, but have the substantial weight and size advantage and half the price? I have decided to choose the latter option. ...Show more →
At this point I do not think it is fair to characterize the optical performance of 800PF as a notch below any of the current batch of 600mm f4 lenses when a 1.4x is used to extend their focal length to 840mm. I have a friend who sold his 800mm FLE f5.6 for the 800PF and he claims that the performance is essentially the same. To be clear, I have not had, nor used, the 800PF long enough to make any grandiose claims about the optics. I am comfortable saying that it is as sharp as my 500PF (without converters), and does not exhibit the onion ring speculars that I've seen from my 500PF lens.
When comparing the 400 f4.5 to the 800PF, the 400mm lens seems to have a slightly more responsive AF, but I am not expecting lightning AF speed from an 800mm lens.
In my opinion, the one thing lacking with my 800mm PF lens is a photographer with prior experience with an 800mm lens. My longest lens to date has been 500mm. When used on the D500, I was at a 750mm field of view. The 800mm PF is longer and heavier than my prior long kit, and it will take time for me to refine how I will use it. Based on my day with swans, owls, and chickadees, I am confident that this is an excellent optic... I am hoping that the photographer will eventually catch up to its capabilities.
OwlsEyes wrote:
At this point I do not think it is fair to characterize the optical performance of 800PF as a notch below any of the current batch of 600mm f4 lenses when a 1.4x is used to extend their focal length to 840mm. I have a friend who sold his 800mm FLE f5.6 for the 800PF and he claims that the performance is essentially the same. To be clear, I have not had, nor used, the 800PF long enough to make any grandiose claims about the optics. I am comfortable saying that it is as sharp as my 500PF (without converters), and does not exhibit the onion ring speculars that I've seen from my 500PF lens.
When comparing the 400 f4.5 to the 800PF, the 400mm lens seems to have a slightly more responsive AF, but I am not expecting lightning AF speed from an 800mm lens.
In my opinion, the one thing lacking with my 800mm PF lens is a photographer with prior experience with an 800mm lens. My longest lens to date has been 500mm. When used on the D500, I was at a 750mm field of view. The 800mm PF is longer and heavier than my prior long kit, and it will take time for me to refine how I will use it. Based on my day with swans, owls, and chickadees, I am confident that this is an excellent optic... I am hoping that the photographer will eventual catch up to its capabilities.
You are very right to point out that the 800PF is an 800mm lens and can not really be compared to the 600MM f4 lenses. Since I have not used either (yet) I cannot say much of sense about the optical quality of both, but since I have been going through the process of deciding on a Sony 600GM and a Z9+800PF combo, I have especially followed the very few posts about people having used both, and they seem to be in agreement that the 600GM is the superior lens optically.
But what does that mean at all anyhow? When I get the 800PF soon and I am content with the images it produces, that's all that matters. What I have seen from the 800PF has convinced me that it is a true prime level lens. F4 lenses have this wow factor, but when you put a 1.4TC on to get to 840mm, most of that wow factor abates anyhow, and it becomes simply a very good 840mm lens. I had the Sigma 500mm f4S for a while simultaneously with the 500PF, and I could certainly appreciate the F4 brilliant and clear look, but still preferred the 500PF in the end.
ChrisMak wrote:
You are very right to point out that the 800PF is an 800mm lens and can not really be compared to the 600MM f4 lenses. Since I have not used either (yet) I cannot say much of sense about the optical quality of both, but since I have been going through the process of deciding on a Sony 600GM and a Z0+800PF combo, I have especially followed the very few posts about people having used both, and they seem to be in agreement that the 600GM is the superior lens optically.
But what does that mean at all anyhow? When I get the 800PF soon and I am content with the images it produces, that's all that matters. What I have seen from the 800PF has convinced me that it is a true prime level lens. F4 lenses have this wow factor, but when you put a 1.4TC on to get to 840mm, most of that wow factor abates anyhow, and it becomes simply a very good 840mm lens. I had the Sigma 500mm f4S for a while simultaneously with the 500PF, and I could certainly appreciate the F4 brilliant and clear look, but still preferred the 500PF in the end....Show more →
I dont have 600/4S TC but I compared my 800PF to 600/4e FL with TC14e iii and 400/2.8S TC + TCx2, as far as center sharpness is concerned, 800PF is actually a nudge ahead at 100% magnification. 400/2.8s + TCx2 does have a slightly smoother bokeh when you have busy background close to the subject but otherwise, a part from 1/3 stop of light, 800PF is holding its own pretty well in my opinion.
Steve Perry did a comparison video of optical performance. 800pf>z600/1.4>G600/1.4 but all so close it doesn't matter.
OwlsEyes wrote:
At this point I do not think it is fair to characterize the optical performance of 800PF as a notch below any of the current batch of 600mm f4 lenses when a 1.4x is used to extend their focal length to 840mm. I have a friend who sold his 800mm FLE f5.6 for the 800PF and he claims that the performance is essentially the same. To be clear, I have not had, nor used, the 800PF long enough to make any grandiose claims about the optics. I am comfortable saying that it is as sharp as my 500PF (without converters), and does not exhibit the onion ring speculars that I've seen from my 500PF lens.
When comparing the 400 f4.5 to the 800PF, the 400mm lens seems to have a slightly more responsive AF, but I am not expecting lightning AF speed from an 800mm lens.
In my opinion, the one thing lacking with my 800mm PF lens is a photographer with prior experience with an 800mm lens. My longest lens to date has been 500mm. When used on the D500, I was at a 750mm field of view. The 800mm PF is longer and heavier than my prior long kit, and it will take time for me to refine how I will use it. Based on my day with swans, owls, and chickadees, I am confident that this is an excellent optic... I am hoping that the photographer will eventual catch up to its capabilities.
Z9 Burrowing Owl that has showed up multiple winters at a local reservoir ,favoring an old floating dock as its office. Bird does exhibit a deformity in its right eye like the pupil is torn.
Taken several days ago at Semiahmoo Spit, with the Z9, 400mm f/4.5, and the 1.4x TC. All images were shot wide-open at 1/2500th of a second. The first four images are of white-winged scoters, while the final two images are of surf scoters. I find it amazing that scoters will eat clams (and other hard shelled animals) whole. I have read that they swallow sand, pebbles, and small rocks to assist with the digestion of hard shelled animals.
The IQ with the Nikon Z 2x TC wide open is quite impressive. I have tried the Z TC 2x on the Z 100-400 and was very disappointed in term of IQ and AF speed.
The Z 2x TC works best on the Z9 but the small Z fc can do a good job too:
Nikon Z fc, Z 400/4.5 + Z TCx2.0 (@1200mm FOV), wide open (f/9)
An example of a very backlit situation with harsh light. Spec highlights in the bokeh are to be expected in such scenario. I don't get this effect very often but it does sometimes happen.
I have a bit of an ethical issue photographing that owl - there were 20 photographers crowding in front of that tree and only deep, water filled ditch was saving the relative peace of this bird.
lukemeup wrote:
I have a bit of an ethical issue photographing that owl - there were 20 photographers crowding in front of that tree and only deep, water filled ditch was saving the relative peace of this bird.
At least the bird is protected by a 'moat' and doesn't appear stressed. The most common indicator of stress in Long-eared Owl is the straight-up pencil thin posture. The 'I am not really here look.' Thanks for examining your ethics not all wildlife photographers do.
I say this as a longtime field biologist who has worked extensively with birds. I have to check myself too when I am out taking photographs. Because the temptation to get closer is always there.
