Anybody have any experience with the 800mm 5.6E? (1000mm wTele).. Images?.. Optical quality?.. Using it for sports?..I will take whatever input you have to offer! Thanks!
I found it a bit too much reach for most things. It was interesting for birds, and would have been great for the eclipse if clouds had not interfered. Would have been good for sports where I didn't have field access.
Past that, excellent build quality, stunning image quality, fairly light as 800mm lenses go, fast focus. Easy to use.
kaplah wrote:
I found it a bit too much reach for most things. It was interesting for birds, and would have been great for the eclipse if clouds had not interfered. Would have been good for sports where I didn't have field access.
Past that, excellent build quality, stunning image quality, fairly light as 800mm lenses go, fast focus. Easy to use.
The OP is looking for info on the F-mount 800mm f/5.6E, not the Z-mount 800mm f/6.3 PF lens. I don't think that Thom ever reviewed the F-mount 800mm lens but there is one on Photography Life: https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-800mm-f5-6e-vr
Wezre wrote:
What’s your reason for looking at the 800 5.6 over the 800 6.3 PF?
I would imagine for ultimate IQ. The 800 6.3 is nice for portability/VR and all but it's not nearly as sharp as the FL, plus you get the PF funk in the bokeh. There's a reason the FL was $10k more when it released.
Kasper6188 wrote:
I would imagine for ultimate IQ. The 800 6.3 is nice for portability/VR and all but it's not nearly as sharp as the FL, plus you get the PF funk in the bokeh. There's a reason the FL was $10k more when it released.
The OP specifically asked about using this lens for sports. Typically, the only photographers I've seen using 800mm+ lenses for sports are those working for major press agencies shooting from baseball stadium stands/rooftops or similar locations to get a unique angle on the playing field. I could also see it being used for motorsports depending on the track. That's a ton of reach though even for field sports like soccer or football. I don't disagree that the FL has its place, but for most people the 800PF or 600TC (if you can afford it) are better choices.
Wezre wrote:
What’s your reason for looking at the 800 5.6 over the 800 6.3 PF?
Well the build quality the 5.6FL is far superior over the 6.3., .6.3 was built with the mindset of "where can we cut back and save money" way to much plastic! Hence the lighter weight. Image quality in the 6.3 is minimally better and subjective in areas, Plus when you can get the 5.6FL at a 1/3 of the original cost is a steal! I will take the high quality Japanese made, carbon fiber hood, metal monster all day long!
Weight and size is not an issue for me.. Bring it on!
Wezre wrote:
The OP specifically asked about using this lens for sports. Typically, the only photographers I've seen using 800mm+ lenses for sports are those working for major press agencies shooting from baseball stadium stands/rooftops or similar locations to get a unique angle on the playing field. I could also see it being used for motorsports depending on the track. That's a ton of reach though even for field sports like soccer or football. I don't disagree that the FL has its place, but for most people the 800PF or 600TC (if you can afford it) are better choices.
Right.. I just was noticing Nikon raving about the 5.6FL being a sports lens but I dont see to much sports talk going on about the 5.6FL... Just got my 5.6FL and actually when I lifted out of the case I almost knock myself in the head!.. I was prepared for it being much heavier due to everyone complaining about the weight... its really not much heavier than my 400FL
It is a very specialized lens and wouldn’t be my first choice for sports based on weight too high, very front heavy, focal length too long, I’d want more light at times, and older focusing mechanics. If I were shooting sports and knew I’d occasionally want 800mm, I’d go for the 400 TC and a teleconverter.
Full disclosure, I carefully considered the 5.6 lens vs the 800 PF for wildlife, especially for large dangerous critters; and small birds. And I bought the PF.
Yes the 5.6 is sharper than the 800 PF, but the PF also splits hairs. It is very sharp lens. Further, the talk about weird artifacts from the fresnel design is way overstated. If I don’t like the background look from the PF it is extremely likely it would also have been too distracting with any lens of similar focal length. It might look worse at times, but both would suck anyway. Exceptions occur but are not common.
The build quality on the PF is excellent. I’ve shot with it in light rain and snow and in dust, and I stalk subjects through heavy brush and mud and along the waterline laying down on beach sand, often hiking with it slung across my shoulder and hip without a thought. I did upgrade the hood to a modular two-piece Zemlin and I protect the front element with a cap. But it comes out of the box field ready. Nikon designed it for work in wilderness.
It focuses slower than the 400 or 600 TC, but again we’re splitting hairs as it produces fast-action keepers at rates more limited by my technique than by the lens’s AF tracking on the Z9.
