Nikon 800mm f/6. 3 Pros, Cons, Who is is for?
FEATURED LENS:
tinyurl.com/yu68avb4
Subscribe for editing tips and behind-the-scenes videos as well as community contests and free giveaways:
www.patreon.com/WildlifeInspired
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Best noise reduction and sharpening software: topazlabs.com/ref/351/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
MT FAVORITE GEAR
Nikon Z9: bhpho.to/3rM9O7A
Nikon 400mm 2.8 Z: bhpho.to/3tj806y
Nikon 105mm macro: bhpho.to/3NngzVI
Laowa 25mm ultra macro: bhpho.to/3F405g7
Leofoto monopod: bit.ly/46xfQYE
Robus Tripod: bhpho.to/46eAQn3
Promedia Gear Tomahawk (monopod gimbal): tinyurl.com/4vdkuy98
Promedia Katana Jr (tripod gimbal): tinyurl.com/yjtf4s4a
Leofoto fluid head: bit.ly/3ZFtRB8
AK Diffuser: akdiffuser.com/?wpam_id=30 (COUPON CODE skeys5 for more savings)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shopping for any of these companies? Use these links:
B&H (my online source with great delivery and service): bhpho.to/41vuugj
Promedia Gear: www.promediagear.com?aff=36
Leofoto: leofotousa.com/wildlifeinspired
I have purchased the Nikkor AF-S 800mm f/5.6 FL with the match TC 1.25x in 2018. I sent the lens back. The autofocus speed is way slower then the AF-S 600mm f/4.0 with the TC 1.4 X III on the D5 and D500 and it's way heavier as well. I did no like that lens at al. Now, the Nikkor Z 800 PF mounted on my Z9 it is a leap ahead the older one. There's nothing better out there for BIF. The sharpness is unbelievable. The VR is out of this world as well. I use it all the time even at high speeds not for stabilizing the image but for stabilizing my view. It keeps the subject in my viewfinder less shaken when panning away. I sold my Nikkor AF-S 600mm f/4.0 FL. Once I started using my 800 PF I could not and refuse to go back to my lead like weight 600 + TC 1.4 LOL. The weight difference is ENORMOUS! LOL
I bought 800mm pf Z lens, I don't feel regret....as it is the partner to my 180-600mm Z lens. 400mm f2.8 with tc or 600mm f4 with tc is out of my reach in term of prices, so these 180-600 and 800mm pf are just awesome
As a wildlife photographer, I moved from F mounts and a D850 to Z mounts and the Z9. The only F mount I kept was my 180-400mm f/4E TC. That being said, I watched some KZhead videos, from Henry Hudson & Steve Perry to name a few, to get an honest opinion on the Z800mm. I purchased it just over a month ago and the results I'm getting are unreal. I was out yesterday, chasing Snowy Owls here in Alberta, and the shots I came home with, are steller. As a bonus, I also got a Great Horned Owl. Even in DX mode, and at 1200mm, the rendering is phenomenal !! The only negative, much like you Scott, was all my inflight shots were........going away, and those were crisp as well. The 800, with the Z9, is amazing, and with the cost, you can't beat it. Cheers,
I've had the 800PF for a year now. Going into it, had imagined it being my primary songbird lens, but over time have found it a little less flexible than I had hoped. As mentioned in the review, that 16' MFD, plus the narrow FOV, can make shooting in more complicated/tangled environments a bit challenging. Add to that, I've found that shooting (small birds) with this lens near MFD that you have to be in the neighborhood when it comes to focus, otherwise the AF will easily get stuck on the background. It's a lens that I have to be really careful in setting up my shots and prefocusing, making sure to set my Focus Recall button to near MFD for when it gets stuck on the background. After my year of ownership, I've concluded that the 800PF isn't really that great for generalist/run-&-gun/casual shooting, but when things line up, it is a magnificent optic that delivers perfect results. I also shoot the 600PF, which is a much easier to use. Less focal length = more room for the subjects + environment, but the lens isn't as prone to the AF stumbles that the 800PF is. This has become my casual birding lens due to the low weight and maneuverability, plus 3' more of MFD compared to the 800PF. The real surprise lens of the year though, is the 180-600. Fantastic performance, nearly that of the 600PF, but more versatile zoom + a 7' MFD, which is a huge advantage. I'd go so far as to say it's the perfect wildlife lens. Can't argue with the price either. Too many great lenses to choose from these days from Nikon!
After shooting with the Canon 800 F11, with a 19.6ft MFD, for the last 18 months, I don't think a 16ft MFD would be too bad 🙂 I can imagine struggling a bit, to get enough DOF with small birds from say 17 to 20 ft. Also, having to shoot with a FF body, 800mm would seem very short for me. Heck, at 1280mm, I rarely have too much reach. But more often, just enough.
that's been my experience. 800mm lenses are good in theory but in reality the lack of versatility doesn't make them very fun to shoot with and opportunities will be missed due to being fixed at 800mm. I'd just go with the 180-600
Honestly in that situation I'd be using a 400 f/4.5/100-400/180-600 if I want to get in tighter for small birds in bushes. For me the 800 would be for shore birds, most birds in flight, wildlife where for safety you have to keep healthy distance etc. It's to compliment my 400 f/4.5. I'd consider the 600 PF but in Australia I can get a barely used mint 800 for less than 600 new.
Excellent review of a great Nikon lens Scott!! I have been using the 800 on a Z9 for about 6 months and I just love the lens. As you said it is a great lens for birds in flight. I just did a shoot of Short Eared Owls and Northern Harriers and the performance with the 800 and Z9 was incredible. It is not a light lens but so well balanced that I have never had it on a tripod. I am 75 years old and I have carried the lens on 3-4 hour hikes without any issues. Thanks for all your great work and have a Very Happy Holiday Season!!
Honestly, this is my dream lens. But there are only two problems 1) I'm a Canon guy, so Id have to spend another $4K on a body too (I'm not a fan boy of Canon, or ANY specific brand though) and 2) a straight 800mm is almost never long enough for me :( I HAVE to have an APS-C body, to get the reach I need. Currently I shoot with a couple of R7's, and for all their issues (and their are plenty) I kind of feel like I don't have much choice. To buy this lens thinking from day 1 > I can just {always} use a teleconverter, would tell me, its just not the right setup :( So I guess I can only dream of this lens AND a Nikon pro level APS-C body. BTW, I currently shoot a lot of my birds with a 1280mm equivalent, with my 800 F11 on my crop body R7, from about 20-22ft (often in low light). And its funny, a lot of guys think that F11 is too slow, but in my personal experience, F11 often gives me "just enough" DOF to get most of my bird in focus. Of course I've dreamed of a much faster lens, however I can only imagine, that all else being equal, but shooting with F4, vs. F11 I'd barely be getting any more than the birds eyeball in focus ! While I really prefer to get at least from the tip of its beak, to the base of its tail in focus. And how goofy would it be, to be using a $16K, F4 lens, and stopping it down to F11, to get enough DOF ? But I'll probably never have to worry about such things :)
Great video, Scott! I shoot the 800 PF on the Nikon Z9 with firmware 4.1. It is an excellent lens for photographing birds in flight, and even mammals when you are not able to get closer to the subjects. I find the 180 to 600 f/5.6-6.3 lens to be lighter, faster focusing, and more versatile for subjects that can be approached more closely. The narrower field of view of the 800 mm lens makes it more challenging to find and quickly focus on birds in flight, especially as they approach the camera. The 180 to 600 mm lens is a better fit when birds are flying directly toward the camera. I also shoot the 400 f/4.5 which is an excellent lens in low light when photographing larger mammals, and when you can approach birds more closely.
Hi Scott, great review! I have had the 800mm 6.3 lens for 6 months and love it. I previously had the 800 5.6 and basically traded it in for the 6.3 after using it for many years. The 5.6 is sharper but at 10 lbs almost impossible to use hand holding. The focus was also slower with the 5.6 compared to the Z mount. I recently purchased the z400 2.8 and 2x TC and have been trying to compare the two. So far I don’t see much of the difference as far as sharpness. Not sure if I should keep both or sell the 6.3. Both are great options at 800mm. I’ve been using the 400mm 2.8 in low light, then switching to 560 f4, then to the 800mm as the light increases. The 800mm 6.3 is and feels much lighter hand holding. There are advantages and disadvantages for all lenses.
Very thorough and in-depth review. Thank you so much for sharing.
Great video Scott. I own the 800mm pf with the Z9. I absolutely love it. Hummingbirds are my favorite subject. I thought it might be overkill for hummingbirds, but I gave it a try and I ended up useing it all season long. I used it for kinglets and warblers this year too and I really was pleased with the results. It is light enough to hand hold for short periods. I do have a bad spine so I am still trying to find the perfect solution to carry and shoot supported.
This is my main bird lens since June. I mostly agree, but find that small/fast BIF are very challenging to frame and track at 800mm. Also, 800 PF focus is noticeably slower than 600 PF (or presumably 400 TC or 600 TC, which I don’t own). With ‘meh' Z8 bird detection (catching up to Z9 v4.1 when ??) BIF is frankly less than ideal, except for large birds. However, 800mm reach gives subjects more distance for a given comp, lessening their stress and adding many opportunities to capture shy species without influencing behavior. For me this is a huge advantage.
Thanks Scott,,,great video. This was my main lens on the Z9 shooting in the Bosque del Apache this past November. Awesome once the light was there. Cranes and snow geese in flight were great subjects with this lens...
loved your photos!
Wow. Awesome review . Liked and subscribed. 🎉
Great review, Scott. Would like to know your thoughts on the 600mm 6.3 pf if you have a chance to use it in future. That's more my sweet spot focal length.
Hey Scott, nice video. My one difficulty with birds in flight is being able to track them with 800mm. It takes practice! Coming from a D850 and 400mm 2.8, I have no regrets in getting the Z8 and Z800 6.3. It’s accompanied by the 100-400 and TCx1.4 and that’s generally all I need out in the field. The 400mm wasn’t working as well on the Z8 and the value was starting to drop. Trading in was a no brainer as it didn’t cost me much to do it.
perfect lens for small birds if your aesthetic is natural environments and no feeders. Use on Z8, usually on gimbal and the quality is superb. Does need care in selection of backgrounds, but skills always should matter. The detail is magic.
I bought the 800 last falls… I had some kind of regrets … bigger to use and carry than expected… I am in the Costa Rica … I love it so much!! Fast,gorgeous color and contrast. Need some practice to find small birds! But less cropping, better pictures… for birds… 500 was not enough, and TC limits the fun of the lens…
Great video Scott. I've owned the Z800 for about 6 months and it rarely leaves my Z9. Unlike you I rarely get closer than 16ft to my subject. BIF is my favorite. Recently shot Northern Harriers, Red tailed hawk and Kingfishers. The detail is unsurpassed by any other lens I own.
Thank you for the video, I'm thinking about getting either this lens or the old 600mm f/4 E FL used. They're about the same price where I live, the old 600 F4 being slightly more expensive used. I already got the 180-600, and I think having an option that works better in lower light would be great, but that lens weighs 3.8KG, so probably not that great for hand holding, which is what I do. The additional range would be great for many situations, but I'm still going to struggle with low light situations early in the morning or during sunset.
Good review, and good editing ethics
Rented this lens for a trip to Yellowstone this fall. I loved it even with the 1.4 tele converter. Thanks for your review.
Were you shooting bigger subjects (not birds)? If so, did you like it? Really considering this lens but I'm hesitant if it's good for bigger wildlife. I could see this being great for distant wolves in YNP though.
@hkentstuart I waited 10 months for the 600 f4 TC & still had no eta. I decided to go for the 800mm PF & 100-400mm Z. At first I was a little disappointed but that was because of the increase in atmospheric interference & narrow depth of field. After 2 months I am getting the hang of it and am very pleased. I think the ability to hand hold is a plus over the 600mm f4, As far as birds in flight, it was a bit challenging at first bur I have many now that I am very happy with, Diving Terns, Herons, Egrets & Harriers. Small birds are not an issue. I rarely am able to get closer than 16 feet unless the site is baited or feeders and I am looking forward to doing more songbird work in 2024.
Superb review; Very objective. Will you please review this lens vis-a-vis 600mm f-6.3
I like the breakdown on each lens you did, these videos give me something to dream about, but only dream. Can’t afford any of them. I do have the 180-600, and use DxO mode at times and still have a 20 megapixel image. I would be interested in what your opinion of the lens is.
this is spot on, i have one and experienced exact same things. just to add it is great video lens, beautiful colors from 8k down. it is gorgeous S line up lens. and yeah very light for 800mm handheld down to 1/50 OR 1/25.
Scott, I have owned the 600 mm f/6.3 for over a year. I do photograph birds in flight a lot, and it is superb for that application. I recently photographed some Northern Harriers in good diffused sunlight, with this lens and my Z9 and the results were excellent. I was shooting at 1/3200th. I would be happy to share a few images if you would like to see them. Last summer, I got images of a perched Great Gray Owl, hand-held at 1/160th of a second and the photos were very sharp. The image stabilization is amazing. I do a lot of walking around with this lens. I do sometimes find myself too close to the bird, but that has not been a major issue for me.
Great video. Thank you
Excellent work! I'm a bird shooter. The I agree with you; 800 PF is on my Z9 80-90% of the time. The other lenses I use are the 180-600 and old Nikon 300 2.8.
Your opinion on the 180-600 mm? Have a wonderful New Year
Superb, detailed review, thanks Scott! My question is: what about in sharpness comparisions 800 PF vs 400 2.8 + TC 2.0 at DX area and FX corner?
The only lens that is sharper than the Z 800 PF at 800mm+ is the F 800 f5.6 FL ED. No other lens with or without internal or external TC's is sharper at 800mm+, including Canon's latest EF 800 and RF 800 or any of their combinations of 400's or 600's with TC's.
After much humming and hawing, but mostly waiting to see if the expected 600mm PF would be an f/5.6 or an f/6.3, I picked up my copy on Monday. Only been able to test the z 800 briefly on a Z8 with and without a TC 1.4. First impression: WOW.
Your analysis is bang on. Thank you for sharing the huge cost difference vs the small benefits. I was looking to get the Z 600mm prime, but when I saw the results of the 180-600mm I chose that lens, and the money I saved paid for half of my Z 800mm. So I have coverage from 180mm to 1,600mm with these 2 lenses. The 180-600 at 600mm is the same aperture 6.3. Another thing to remember is if you put a TC on the 400mm, imagine the reach advantages when you put the same TC on the 800mm. I love the 800mm and the image quality of this S prime. I am always wanting more reach, so this is my favourite lens now. It is small and light, and even fits into a carry-on bag. I can handhold this lens with my Z9 and carry it for hours. Amazing. If I need shorter reach the 180-600 has great versatility.
I have now switched from the 180-600mm, which is a great lens, to the 100-400mm S lens. This beauty is super sharp and so small. This lens with the TCs and the Z 800mm gives me all the range from 100mm to 1,200mm with 2 lenses. The 100-400 has such a short MFD that I can even use it for closeup work. It is the size of a 70-200mm.
After shooting more with the 800mm and 2X TC I have the most amazing handheld shots that are incredibly sharp at 1,600mm. The IBIS the Z9 is amazing. I would never have thought I could use it handheld at 1,600mm. My F mount 2X TC I can only use on a tripod even with a 2.8 lens. This 800mm lens is amazing. Couple it with the 100-400mm and you are good for 100mm-1,600mm that will all fit in a carry-on bag.
think with this lens offering I am going with Nikon!
Loving the 800 pf . It’s difficult to get close to birds , so I find the 800’s reach excellent. The 600 pf is another great lens for birds… they each have their place …. Absolutely love it !
Good video. As I mainly shoot birds (small ones) and like shooting BIF, I am interested in the 800PF (I have been using the 500PF since it came out). Since I crop 80% of my shots (sometimes heavy crops), what I would have liked to see is more examples of how the 800PF retains detail in heavier crops.
Fair point, but I dont think sharpness will be an issue with this lens.
I started out with the 800PF, later bought the 400/2.8 and still have both. Yes, the 400 is more flexible (min focus, 400+560mm at larger apertures), but I'm still using the 800PF if I'm out for birds in the distance, as the 800 is much easier to handhold for longer periods of time, and it's also the better 1120mm lens (with TC1.4) than the 400 with stacked converters (TC2.0+internal). Having said that, I'll still probably sell the 800 because I simply can't pack both, and I also need to recoup some of the cost for the 400...
Excellent review. I've owned the 800mm PF since it was released. It's a favorite lens for small birds, but can be a little long for wading birds and large mammals. I've done some sharpness testing with feeder birds and came to the same conclusion you did - it's sharp enough that additional analysis was not needed. With small birds in particular, the ideal range is 16-25 feet away - and at those distances the birds are large enough in the frame and you don't need to push closer to the birds. I've paired this lens with the Nikon Z 400mm f/4.5. The two lenses are light enough I can carry them both on walks of 5+ miles. More importantly, there is a clear distinction between when these two lenses are used with little overlap. I use both lenses occasionally with the 1.4 TC. Of course, with the TC your technique needs to be very good with the 800mm PF. I'm planning to use the 800mm PF for the upcoming solar eclipse. One final thought. I'm able to fit both my 800mm PF and the 400mm f/4.5 in my normal Think Tank carry-on bag (along with two bodies and five other lenses). I pack the hoods separately in my checked luggage with plenty of clothing as padding.
Nice combo!
Useful review, thank you. I use my 800mm lens with my Z9 together with my 100-400mm with my Z8 when I’m out in unfamiliar territory not knowing what species might show up. With a x1.4 teleconverter handy that’s me covered for most birds large and small, and I have no envy for those lenses that are twice the price and twice the speed.
I am really disappointed with the Z 100-400. I thought my Z8 was missing focus on birds. I did sharpness tests, and the 100-400 is as soft as butter on the long end. On the other hand, the 180-600 is in a different league at the long end, it is sharp. I am going to sell the 100-400 and a watch and buy the 800pf. Only £4500 landed from Hong Kong. I purchased my Z8 the same way for £2700. Paid by PayPal and sent by FedEx.
My 2 cents about sharpness compared to a 500mm f/4 VRII that I used on a D500 (so 750 mm focal length equivalent) : Same sharpness as my 500 mm f/4 VRII stop down at 6.3-7.1 in the center (which is also the sweet spot for that 500mm) But the 800mm is much better in the field/corners. I confirm best sharpness at f/7.1 or f/8 but f/6.3 is already very sharp, so I would'nt hesitate to shoot wide open, unlike the 500mm which I hate at f/4 and almost always stop down to at least f/5 or f/5.6 The weight and balance is a huge improvement over the 500mm f/4... so yes, certainly a great action/bird in flight lens, especially for shy raptors !
Loved this lens but sold it to get the 600 PF for size and weight
This is a lens I was very interested in but just can’t justify it as someone who can’t shoot as often as I’d like to. So I ended up with a 1.4TC to add on my 500PF and it’ll do. Not quite as good but a lot cheaper.
I am a seasoned hobbyist photographer but relatively new to wildlife. Over here in Europe/Germany we do struggle more to get close enough to most species. At least that is my impression if I watch YT videos from Northern America. I will build a winter feeding station where I can determine what distance to my shooting position it has. I decided to go with the 4.5/400mm and 6.3/800mm combination. There was a great deal on the 800mm lately and I couldn’t resist. So far, I am happy with the results I got from the 800mm and small birds.
awesome
At 18:35 your songbird was this handheld or on a tripod , thanks great review
handheld
Nice review. I come from Canon world and just recently I got my Z8, the 100-400 and tested the 800 PF. the 100-400 seems to me faster to focus birds in flight, maybe I am still noob with my Z8.... or maybe because the Z8 does not have all the features as the Z9 on 4.1 firmware, but the Canon R6 mk2 (according me) is a little faster and stickier to capture and keep the bird in flight. Anyway I want a good telezoom lens without selling one of my kidneys... my options now are the AF-S 400 2.8E, AF-S 600 F4E, AF-S 500 PF, Z 600 6.3 or Z 800 6.3... Used AF-S lenses have good value in second hand market. My problem as many other users here is the weight, those PF lenses are good and light, but at the cost of aperture (and low light photos). Another aspect I am curious is how fast is the lens able to focus the subject, for static or slow move animals I don't care, but for bird in flight this is a big factor. Maybe somebody here who had the chance to shot with those lenses can give me an advice. Thanks
With a Fringer EF-NZ II adapter you can use Canon glass amazingly well. For the last few months I’ve been adapting my 500 f4 II with and without my 1.4x III with no problems.
@@travislucas7483 I have the Fringer adapter and I use it with my EF 70-200, but I have to chose between the lens stabilization and the camera stabilization. Both are good, but I don't know about those big lenses (500 - 600)... but I guess you are more expert than me, so I might consider that option too. Thanks
@@michelebelotti2022 that is true you do need to choose one stabilization mode over another. In my testing before I fully committed I th Rated the Canon R5’s hybrid stabilization vs. the Z8’s in body stabilization and found the Nikon was actually easier to hand hold successfully. On this set up I prefer normal mode over sport.
Getting an 800 pf soon. I was wondering about using an extension tube to decrease the minimum focusing distance
I am doing a video (at some point on that) but if you try this get a VERY SOLID tube (all metal and think about bracing the lens and body - not hiking as much etc)
To be honest , I don’t have any of the attachments and it’s so confusing for me lol 😂 but if it can help I’m open to it ❤❤❤
But don't tell me this could beat the 70 to 300mm F/4-5.6 with a 2 and 1.4 teleconverters on it
I think the focus plane is different in the first comparison. 400+ x2 tc has better feather detail.
I missed the 500mm F5.6 pf, cheaper and much more versatile than any of those. That said, I think the 800mm 6.3 is great for raptor people and big mammals shooters.
I own the legendary 800 5.6E FL lens and I also used the 800 PF from a friend. the 5.6 FL is sharper by quite a bit however the 800 PF is half the weight which to me is the biggest appeal. However I am someone looking for extreme optical quality and after test in the field, I decided not to get the 800 PF mainly because I find the background is tad too busy for my taste, in fact that I find all the PF lens shows some unpleasing patterns in the background. I am someone super big on creamy background and nothing compare to the 800 FL. It is truly something special and i will keep it forever. There is a reason why that lens was selling for 20K. on the mobility and practicality, the 800 PF wins hands down.
Why is it the the long lens are not faster ie 2.8?…
Focus speed doesnt depend solely on aperture size, there are many factors (usually the motor speed) that help determine how fast something will focus.
It is necessary to use a CPL filter for this kind of super telephoto lens. I would like to hear your suggestions.
I don't know of anyone that uses these filters regularly with long lenses but I'm always open to look into anything.
Comparing the background from the 400 mm F2.8 with the 800 mm F 6.3 is not relevant Put a 2 time converter on the 400 mm F2.8 ( will be 5.6 ) and then compaire your images The 400 mm F2.8 is freaking amazing but also in the Netherlands very expensive The 800 mm F6.3 is on my wishlist this year For the amount of mony to buy the 400 mm F2.8 I can buy the 800 mm F 6.3 and a second Nikon Z 9 and I have still some Euro's left.
Hi Scott, I would like to add that the 800/6.3 is also great for shorebirds, or photographing birds out on a field, lake or sea. When it comes to song birds, I was also concerned about the MFD So I held on to my 500mm PF for songbirds. However, as the year went on I noticed the 500mm was just gathering dust. Even when I went out to photograph songbirds. The benefits of the extra reach at the same magnification outweighed the cons for me. While I have missed some shots by being too close, I have had more situations where the extra reach allowed me to get a good shot.
The difference in MFD between 600 f4.0 and 800PF is only 2.3ft/0.7m (4.3 m (14.11ft) for 600mm and 5m (16.41ft) for 800mm)
but when that is the sweet spot for a subject like songbirds that 2 feet can be really important.
Your making me nervous Scott.. Your 400 2.8 is real close to the edge of that table..
Lol. I got it.
Wow..really good review.. new subscriber. Liked also reading the comments.. very interesting. 👍😀
Who is it for? A Nikon shooter with an extra six grand lying around!
Great video! But you are clearly not a bird photographer.... 😉
I have no idea what that even implies, feel free to elaborate.
probably 99 precent of "wild life" photographers complaining that the 800mm is no enough. But you saying this lens is made for a small birds or for birds in flight or big animals.... Only the people taking pictures of the humming birds on their balconies feeders will say that...
A sharpness test of a super tele at or near its MFD is just about the most nonsensical sharpness test you can do for the sports action and wildlife crowd. It tells you absolutely nothing about how sharp a super tele lens may be at real world distances shooting typical subjects.
One of the main differences in long lens IS the MFD. Now if you shoot at 30 feet for your birds, this is irrelevant. But as i mentioned in the video, MFD can often come in to play with songbirds, and that is the primary subject I had to work with. If you actually watch the video this wasn't a technical breakdown of lens sharpness. My video are aimed at practical differences. I am pretty sure I stated that in the video. My audience is sports photographers. Maybe I didn't make the point will enough or perhaps you didn't watch the whole video.
@@WildlifeInspired Even for songbirds you would still not be shooting right at MFD. You would need to back up and give it a little room for the focus motors to have enough range to reasonably have a chance to keep the bird in focus while it rocks back and forth on the branch, the feeder, whatever. What you have done is basically set up these two super telephoto lenses to do macro work. It is nonsensical for anyone to use either of these lens for macro work. If you have proven anything, its that the Z 400 f2.8 TC is better than the Z 800 f6.3 PF for macro work involving stuffed animals. Its a hill to die on, I suppose.
I regularly shoot songbirds at 10 feet. I have thousands of images (in natural environments) of birds 8-14 feet away (the MFD of many long lenses). The idea that you need space for the focus motors to properly work is silly. I have shot at these distances for years with multiple camera bodies and multiple lenses. Do you actually shoot songbirds seriously? Feel free to link me to your work, maybe I can better idea of why our views are so different.
@@WildlifeInspired The idea that your subject should be within the usable focus range of the lens is "silly?" That is an interesting perspective. 🤔
CONS?? I bet if this lens had a F4 or 2.8 it would have the same bokeh as those f stops. Now put your 400 and 600 at F6.3 and compare bokeh then. Bet they would be almost the same. I have been shooting for over 40 years, used many types of lens. Longer means you will be farther away from the subject. Lots of common sense info..LOL. You will never get the same results when you use different f stops.
I never claimed that different apertures give the same results. I showed real-life examples of how distance impacts bokeh, since there are differences in MINUMUM FOCUS. Feels like this comment is an attempt to be critical just not sure exactly about what, but I appreciate you watching.
A subjective "bargain". Lots of us can't afford to join the mirrorless club just yet. For the majority of us Nikon DSLR users the 2-500 5.6 is the ultimate bargain. DX naturally. Down the line this new fangled quiet stuff will get to us. I wonder just how much of your audience is in this minimum ten thousand dollar club?
I dont argue that and I still point people to the d500+200-500 as best bargain combo. Can deliver exceptional quality and relatively low cost. The "value" on this 800 lens is really when you compare it to the previous 800 5.6
I'm in the minus $2,100 club lol. 200-500 and a D7200. Get some very good images, It is nice to dream of what I could do with another 10k though.