Having previously used a D500 with the 200-500mm f5.6 lens, I found that most my images were taken at an effective focal length of 750mm. When moving to my first full frame mirrorless camera (Z6) I found that 500mm just wasn't enough for the majority of opportunities in the UK. I now have the Z8 and 800mm PF and have set up the Z8 so that the video button can be used to quickly switch to DX mode to give an effective focal length of 1200mm whilst still giving 19.4MP files. These files are still big enough and have some benefits in terms of computer processing and storage. The Z8 and 800mm PF combination is an absolute delight and I would highly recommend it. Thank you for all your reviews and videos which are always informative and a delight to watch.
Hi Jan, I own the 800mm PF with the Nikon Z8 and I have to say I agree with everything you are saying in this review! It is a phenomenal lens with optical quality that is on par with even some of the best lenses. For me, whether it is filling the frame with this lens or shooting from distance, I always get superb results. The only downside is the Arca Swiss cut on the foot, which confuses me because the big companies just don't seem to do it on all their lenses. Just to add also ( I am unsure whether it is in your review), the weather sealing on this lens is great and I have used it in wet conditions; when paired with a weather sealed body like the Z8, I would say that this is workhorse of a setup, even in adverse conditions. Great review overall and hope this helps some people watching and trying to decide whether to buy it or not! It is money well spent in my eyes!
The only downside in Nikon is that Z8/Z9 doesn't have RAW's.. seriously, this is the only ONE feature I didn't change my system into Nikon + 800 mm f6.3. I've waited now a year, for firmware update, but still seems they didn't change that. I know it will be there in Z8II, I am pretty sure, 100%. But that's the reason I didn't invest my money into Nikon yet. I think there is no time anymore to wait, A1-2 just is there.. so.. I am a little upset.
@@pentagramyt417 I mean it's a small thing that really isn't a limitation in my eyes and it's not something I use all that often. I think we are talking about very niche things in general that maybe the other camera companies offer. But the Sony A1II is mega ££ and the R5 II is more reasonably priced. I just find that the other companies don't really do a compact 800mm or 600mm prime lens, like the pf lenses.
I wouldn't be chasing birds and stuff if it wasn't this lens. The shortcomings are not in discussion for some like me where even that lens is often short due to the shy birds around. No option to travel abroad. No option for any other 600mm/800mm (the 600mm pf came out recently) so this is literally revolutionary lens and it's one Nikon marvel! Thank ypu for the review.
Love my 800 PF and the Z8 combo. The stabilization is insane. The one short coming I have noticed is the PF itself those circular lens elements makes a weird darkening which throws me off sometimes. I also pair it with the 180-600mm Z
great review. I've been using this lens for a while now and I fully agree with your review. I also got the 4/600TC a few months after the 800PF but even though I use the 600TC a lot, I also keep using the 800PF because it's a bit shorter, less bulky and almost 1kg lighter. This is great for hiking, hand-holding and when I need some extra space in my backpack (e.g. nya-evo 60). With the 600TC it's a bit of a struggle to add much more equipment to the backpack but with the 800PF I can more easily add additional lenses like the 100-400 and maybe the 24-120 or the 135 Plena. I also love the 600PF. It's often too short here in southern Germany but when it's enough, it's hands-down the most fun lens to use, especially on a Z8 which is not too heavy. BTW: Your LR and PS masterclasses are awesome and much better than anything else I've seen, especially from a bird-photographers point of view.
Do you feel 600 mm f4 has better image quality than 800 mm? Not just sharpness but color rendering as well. I have canon 500 mm f4 is ii often thinking of selling it and getting the 800 mm f6.3 and z8.
I haven't shot any test charts, so I can't tell for sure. But I found both lenses to be very sharp wide open. The 600TC is also very good with the built-in TC. I think from a sharpness point of view, both are awesome. The TC is f4, more flexible due to the extender and lets in a bit more light. The 800PF is smaller and lighter and was only about 5.700 Euros (Nikon had a discount). I like having both, if I had to choose one, then, money aside, I'd go with the 4/600TC.
I have tried this lens. My main birding lens is now the 180-600. The 800 is great value. I was pleasantly surprised how easy it was to hand hold and the quality of the images was amazing considering that hand holding a long lens used to considered totally impractical.
Thank you, Jan, for yet another detailed and balanced review. I do appreciate you and the few other wildlife and bird photographers who use and review gear from multiple brands. That's a great service. Regarding the f/6.3 maximum f-stop of the 800mm PF, folks should keep in mind that, at 800mm, f/6.3 translates to a 127mm extrance pupil. The only lenses offering noticeably better light-gathering are the 600mm f/4 (150mm) and 400mm f/2.8 (143mm) primes. So, when it comes to low light performance, this 800mm lens is among the best options for bird and wildlife enthusiasts.
Funny, Bill, I was going to comment on the same thing - no one makes an f/4 800 full frame (looks like Pentax actually offered one for 6x7!); the best are at f/5.6, and this isn't that far behind.
I agree, I wasn’t necessarily implying that it’s bad for low light. But when I used it in low light next to a F4 lens, its was quite a disadvantage, especially because in that case the 800mm wasn’t needed. If you look at 800mm the fastest you can get is 5.6, so for 800mm it’s right in line with everything else
@@jan_wegener no worries. I didn't get that impression, at all. I was sharing more for the benefit of some of your viewers. Thank you, again, for such a thorough and balanced review.
A very accurate review Jan, I have used this lens almost daily now for over a year and have obtained some beautiful images with it. You will need to factor in the extra cost of a decent lens foot, lens cap and possibly a third party lens hood as the plastic contact point on the hood tends to stick over time. Filling the frame at really high iso settings is possible with this lens with a small amount of LR noise reduction. I would recommend this lens especially if you use a Z8 or Z9.
Another amazing unbiased review Jan. You have covered all the critical aspects of this lens. After lot of consideration I have gone with the Z 600 F4 TC lens for my bird photography
I love my Z8 and 800pf. Your videos and images are simply incredible! They’ve inspired me to bird Australia someday. I’d love to see your masterclass for Lightroom Cloud sometime. Cheers!
Agree that the value of these PF lenses is through the roof. For the price point they are unparalleled. The main reason why I dumped Canon was for the Nikon lens lineup
Canonrumors posted patents on 400 through 800mm RF lenses. Here's hoping us Canon shooters get a few of those to come to market. Everyone I know with the Nikon 800 PF loves it and uses it as their main bird photography lens.
The patent for the RF 300-600mm F2.8-4.5 is more interesting to me though, as it would also offer RF 420-840mm F4.0-6.3 as well when using the 1.4x extender. It would offer way more flexibility than the Nikon 800mm F6.3 PF - albeight at a much higher price point and most likely weight as well. But it would be way more interesting to save up for a higher quality and larger aperture zoom lens at 12’000 to 15’000.- than a prime lens at 6’000.- that ist very limited to one long focal length.
I got this lens about a year or a year and a half ago and I've run into some of the issues that you mentioned but I've also really enjoyed having it and have gotten some incredible shots with it
Thx Jan for video, I think if someone can’t get close enough to wildlife - crops hard or use teleconverters with 600 mm f4 , better to choose 800 mm pf. Because it’s very light and half of the price. I own one and love it to use for snow leopard photography.
I've been shooting eagles, which have their nests in protected areas surrounded by fences. A 600mm is too short, but my Z800mm with a 1.4 TC works great for getting in close. At Lake Casitas, CA, only one other bird photographer has an 800mm, but it's a Canon EF f5.6 and it's big and heavy. She has a really hard time walking around with it, especially uphill. In San Simeon, CA, a family of eagles adopted a baby Red Tailed Hawk. The eagle tree was on a ranch with a perimeter fence and we had to shoot from the road. The longest lenses being used by the other photographers were 600s. My 800mm with the 1.4 TC worked great again at capturing the juvenile RTH hanging out with his juvenile eaglet brothers. I also used this lens to photograph a family of hummingbirds which had attached their nest to an electrical cord at a neighbor's front porch. She let me setup my Z9 with the 800 on a tripod, in her kitchen, aimed out the window at the nest. The momma bird would come by every 20 minutes to feed the two babies. I was able to fill the frame. Great lens.
Excellent video and analysis. I have been nusing the Z 800 PF for two years now and it has been my regular "go-to" lens for bird photography ever since i bought it. Howevder, you are perfectly correct in that there will often be situations when it is too powerful. I used to carry the Z 100-400 as my second lens but that left a big gap between the 400 top end and the 800 so I bought the 180 - 600 to cover the ranges the 800 couldn't cope with. Today I almost always go out with th e800 on my Z9 and the 180-600 on my Z8 using the Black Rapid double harness so i can carry both without any trouble. Nikon have some fantastic telephoto Z-mount glass - absolutely second to none and competitively priced. My only real issue with the 800 is that it tempts one (well, me, anyway) to tryt to take photos at extreme ranges and then they suffer from heat-haze, but, this is down to the user, not the lens!!!
Yes, I guess we all fall into that trap sometimes, especially with TCs as well. Just because we have crazy long focal lengths doesn’t mean it allows us to shoot at great distances with much success
Great review Jan, the Painted Finch photo is amazing! If I was shooting Nikon I would have to flip a coin to decide what lens to pick, you can't go wrong with any of the telephoto lenses. It would be such a hard decision between the 600pf and 800pf, or the 100-400 and 400 f4.5, the 400tc and 600tc, etc.
Another excellent review, thanks! It is also worth noting that although f6.3 sounds a little slow, the fastest available at 800mm is f5.6. So only 1/3 stop faster, albeit an extra 40mm longer.
I primarily use Canon gear, but purchase the Nikon 800 mm PF and one Nikon body just so I could have a lightweight 800 mm setup. The only other option for a 800 mm lens is the Canon RF 800 mm f5.6 which retails for $17,000 in the US.
Great video about a great lens! Had one for a couple of years, sold it, and went with the 600PF instead. The MFD + tighter field of view on the 800PF made it a challenge for me to use for small birds in closer situations. Will have to disagree about the VR modes: Normal is too herky-jerky, how it re-centers itself after every shot is so jarring. Prefer Sport mode, which doesn't have this issue.
I find Normal to be more effective with stabilization and much prefer it in stills mode. If it's being jerky it's because you are actually moving around a lot, calming movements will reduce jerkiness. You can see how more effective normal is in video mode. I typically will watch the 'drift' in viewfinder which indicates how stable I'm being. I'll definitely switch to Sport in video mode if moving or panning though (wide of telephoto).
I've always found 600mm w/TC's to be the sweet spot for wildlife if I'm only going to have one lens but there are certainly advantages to having an 800mm. Nice lens but if I were a Nikon shooter I think I'd go for the PF600. No mention of the STM motors used for focusing? No real world issues pushing AF during fast action?
And again - Nikon is cashing in on wildlife shooters, as Canon can only offer f11 at half the price or f5.6 at triple the price :( At those moments I am thinking again if I shall not switch to Nikon, while I can still sell the Canon gear without too much money (value) lost...
Could hardly compare the 1000 dollar RF800/11 with this lens! Maybe the Canon 200-800 6,3-f/9 is a better comparison, half the price of the Nikkor 800 PF
I ordered this lens 3 years ago but I had no Time to wait IT over half year and I passed IT. Now I have nikkor 180-600 which is very flexible. And now Im getting Z50 ll which gives Max. 900mm eqw. focal lenght with birds eye AF. The other drawback was last August when I ordered Z6lll and noticed that this body had no special birds eye AF and I draw my order back again. Its very odd for Nikon to do so -like givin up for Canon. Thanks for excellent review Cheers
Canon does also have the 200-800 f9. Yes it's slower but it's also a zoom which is nice. Still hopefully canon brings those patents on some fast super telephotos soon.
Jan It's just a simple fact , that Nikon is coming up with great lenses and Canon has nothing but overpriced and way too big and way too heavy of lenses .
Switched to Nikon over a year and a half ago from Canon because they had nothing like it on the horizon and my older EF lenses were long in the tooth. Couldn’t be happier with this lens along with the 180-600 albeit the Z8 is heavier and the AF is not on par with Canon. Alternatively, the 100-400 and 600 PF are an excellent combination for those who don’t need the longer FL’s and want a compact, lightweight WL solution.
I have the 100-400 lens, which I can DX mode to become 600mm, so the 800pf is quite tempting because it would give me extra reach. That said, I find primes quite limiting compared to zooms because you miss a lot of shots when things move too close and you can't zoom out.
So, the biggest con of the 800 PF is not a zoom lens? That should be obvious from the start, Jan, and also applies to every single other prime lenses you'll ever use including the 600/f4's and 400/f2.8's. As for wanting a faster aperture, the only faster aperture is f5.6 at this focal length. There is no 800mm f4 or f2.8 available, or any wider lenses in combination with TC's that is faster than f5.6 at this focal length. IMHO, it is at least as likely to happen that I wish I could get closer to the target as I wish I was able to be one stop faster, so the focal length vs aperture debate is along that same thread. As for distance, getting closer is much more often a problem vs stepping back. These things aside, I actually think you gave this lens a somewhat negative review on a relative basis. I have seen you give far inferior "wildlife" lenses that also were a far worse value gushing/raving reviews, while this review overall sounded lukewarm at best. It makes no sense. The only 800mm lens that better optically than the 800 PF is the totally not handholdable and extremely difficult to get around F 800 f5.6 FL ED VR, which right now is on fire sale is $11500. The 800 PF is better in every other way, however, including the AF, VR, weight, balance, size, etc. The only other lens/TC combo that is better optically is the Z 600 f4 TC with the internal TC engaged, but that lens is $14500 and is heavier and larger to the point where I consider beyond handholdable and does not fit in a carry on (the 800 PF does). No other lens or lens/TC combo from any manufacturer is better optically or as a whole lens than the 800 PF at 800mm+, and it can be gotten right now for $5600. All three of Canon's currently available 800's are easily worse than this PF, and two of them cost three times more. The RF 200-800 is a child's toy next to this. Sony doesn't even have an 800 prime. I'm sorry, but you really missed the boat on this one. The 800 PF is a phenomenal wildlife lens at a sensationally low price.
I think you misunderstood a bit what I said. I think it’s a fantastic lens and it seems like everyone understood the video that way. I think it’s fair to say so that 800 can be a bit long sometimes, which is not anything negative about this lens but all 800mm focal lengths. And the aperture I didn’t compare it to other 800mm lenses and 6.3 isn’t bad at all like I said in the video. I said in certain situations a 2.8 or 4 lens had big advantages even when it’s shorter. So that was apples to oranges and maybe I didn’t say it clear enough, but I don’t think this review is negative or lukewarm. In saying that tho I personally prefer 600 over 800mm
When we were photographing displaying birds of paradise we had an F4 600 and the 800. And with the 800 it was a big challenge to get enough shutter speed and even at F4 on the 600 it was hard. I don’t think I implied anywhere that the 200-800 would be even somewhat close or similar to this lens Given the choice I’d pick the 600pf over the 800 for how i shoot. But I think both are great and some of the best lenses ever made
@@jan_wegener I never said you mentioned the RF 200-800 in this video, but I do remember you just pouring out gushing over it when you reviewed it. It just makes no sense, Jan. The Z 800 PF as a whole product and price is one of those lenses you only see about released once every 10 years (of all lens releases from all manufacturers, only one total lens like this comes out every ten or so years). That is how insanely good and insanely cheap the Z 800 PF is. Nikon could have charged $10k for this lens and it would be worth every penny. The Z 600 PF is also on a deep sale, but there is a big difference between being 1/3 stop away from the magic focal length to aperture ratio and 1-1/3 stop.
@@jan_wegener The same can be said about 400/f2.8's, and that was the point I was making. I think it's fair to say so that 400 can be a bit short sometimes, which is not anything negative about this lens but all 400mm focal lengths. You can also replace "400" with "600" and say "bit short sometimes and bit long sometimes." They are primes, Jan. They are primes. You spent quite a lot of time talking about something that is completely irrelevant, when, respectfully, you should have been comparing to other lenses capable of reaching 800mm such as other primes or lenses with TC's that get around 800mm and the typical aperture's you were working with there. The reality is that only two lenses exist that are better at or near 800mm than the Z 800PF, and they both cost far, far more, are much heavier, much larger, and are just a pill to shoot with. As mentioned in my original comment, they are the Z 600 f4 TC and the F 800 f5.6 FL ED VR. That's the company the Z 800 PF is in...the absolute best 800mm and 600mm lenses ever made. Respectfully, that's how far you missed the boat on this one, Jan.
@@KungPowEnterFist I'm not quite sure what you are so upset about. If you watch the video from start to finish you will hear me mention all the points you say I didn't make. For instance I say word for word: Overall I think this is on the of best and most attractive lenses for many wildlife shooters on the market". How much more positive can one be?
Got a mint 800 PF with 3D printed spring loaded lens cap, custom lens foot with arca quick release built-in for $7000AU or basically $4000US. Bargain of the year and better yet I sold my old Canon 500 f/4L II for $6500 to pay for it. 800mm has been a game changer for me for waders, as they are often small and very skittish. 600mm was doable for things like red-capped plovers but required extensive cropping, as they are such small birds. 800mm allows me to start further away from them to then be able to slither over the sand and get nice semi-frame filling shots. Being able to get 1120 f/9 is also handy but not required often and only for decent light. As for the 600 PF, I think it is way overpriced consider the 500 f/5.6 PF was $3499, Nikon has priced the 600 closer to what it should be if it were f/5.6 and I wish they had of done so. It would still be under 2kg and a better option than using a 300 f/2.8 + 2x or 400 f/4 + 1.4x IMO. I often walk around with two bodies, Z9 and 800 PF and A1 + 100-400 GM or200-600G which will be on a black rapid RS strap. Also, a good combo for airshows not just birding. I just wish Sony would also innovate like Nikon in the supertele range, but have zero expectation they'll ever offer similar lenses as 400 f/4.5, 600 f/6.3 or 800 f/6.3 even as normal lenses, let alone ever often PF/DO lenses.
Awesome video! I do miss the 800mm reach since most birds in NZ are small, but I opted for the 600pf because I wanted something lighter and easier to carry while traveling. If possible, I would really appreciate it if you could get your hands on the Z50II and share your thoughts on it! Would love to pair it 600pf. Thanks a lot.
Hi Jan, another very informative video ! Thinking of buying this lens but have seen several reviews that mention that this lens is more sensitive to thermal distortion c.q. heat haze with this lens due to its 800mm. What or was your experience with this lens. Thanks for your comments. Tom
Heat haze can affect any lens. But the more focal length you have the more it can show up. But it’s not worse on this lens than any other 800mm lens imo
The line up of Nikon super tele lenses for wild life and sport photography is far ahead of Sony and Canon, there was in fact never in the past 30 years one brand taking such a huge lead in this segment... and that is prior to Nikon releasing their super tele pro zoom lenses which, I believe, will be game changers as well. I personally work with the 400mm f2.8 TC S and it's so good with Z tele converters, that it's basically 3 lenses in one, including a very good 800mm f5.6 (probably not as good optically as the 800mm PF, but still very good in absolute terms). Not the lens I would recommend for birders, but IMHO the most flexible super tele lens ever designed. I am very happy with the AF performance of the Z6III, Z8 and Z9 but a Z9II can only be a few months away now and it's probably going to push the envelope further still.
this lens is one of the reason I switched from Canon to Nikon... more lens choices... I can say I miss the RF 100-500, but the 100-400 and 180-600 are good choses from Nikon too
Nikon rules the telephotos like they always have. I think the 400 2.8 TC is just insane. I think the Z6 III may have a tad better stabilization since it’s rated for 8.5 stops
Hi Jan, even for a Canon shooter it was nice to watch this review with some more awesome birds ! For this price point, I'd hope Canon makes the longest and fastest possible zoom without exceeding 2kg (like 300-600/2.8-4.5 or 300-700/2.8-5.6), rather than a prime. And when comes the variable extender ?? .. it's been very silent about that lately ..
That is physically impossible, unfortunately. Disregarding the zoom, if it were primes: A 600mm f4.5 needs a 13,3cm front element, and a 700mm f5.6 a 12,5cm front element. That are really big glass elements. The Nikon 800mm PF also needs a 12,7cm front element and weighs 2.4kg. There is just no chance whatsoever for a zoom with these specs and under 2kg. Even for primes.
@@andreasbuder4417 Maybe I was dreaming a little too hard. But my beloved 200-800 is just a tad above 2kg, and when reducing the zoom from 4x to 2.3x or 2x you can make a faster lens for the same weight, certainly when that's an L at a higher price point. Perhaps 700/6.3 could be more realistic ?
Hallo Werner, ich wechsel mal zu deutsch, ist einfacher. Der ganze „Trick“ einschätzen zu können, wie groß und schwer ein Objektiv sein wird, ist tatsächlich die höchste Brennweite zu nehmen und durch die Blende zu teilen. Das ergibt den Mindest-Durchmesser des Frontglaselements in Millimeter. Dein 200-800 hat die Blende 9 und daher muss das Frontglaselement mind. 89mm haben. Alles was so um 90-95mm hat, kann als Festbrennweite deutlich unter 2kg wiegen, ein Zoom ist eher um die 2kg. Das ist so ungefähr die Faustregel. Z.B. wiegen fast alle 200-600 F6.3 Zooms ebenso um die 2kg, während Festbrennweiten wie 400mm f4.5, 500mm f5.6 oder 600mm f6.3 eher so um 1,3kg wiegen. Alle haben aber einen Filterdurchmesser von 95mm, weil das Frontglas um die 89mm bis 95mm misst. Ein 700mm 6.3 hätte schon ein Frontglas von 111mm und wäre damit sehr viel größer und hätte wie das 800mm 6.3 kein Filtergewinde mehr, sondern am Bajonett einen Filtereinschub. Bei langen Brennweiten hat auch die Sensorgröße keinen echten Einfluss mehr. Das war für mich sehr spannend herauszufinden, weil ich anders gedacht habe. Viele Grüße!
@@andreasbuder4417 Hallo Andreas, Danke fürs ausführliche Antwort. Kein Problem auf Deutsch, ich sollte aber besser nicht auf Flämisch antworten, oder ? Das Frontglaselement ist ja wichtig, aber trotzdem ist Canon da in der Lage beim Gewicht zu sparen .. Der 100-500 ist klar leichter als der EF100-400Lii, den 200-800/9 eben leichter als die meiste 150/180/200-600/6.3 und dir beide RF 70-200/2.8 sind fast 500g leichter als die EF Vorgänger.
When this lens first came out, I got really excited about it (and I'm currently a Canon guy) But jumping ship, and having to buy both a $6K lens + a new $4K body, was just about too much for me. And their was always two big problems..... 1) being a prime lens, no versatility, and 2) Nikon doesn't make a new Mirrorless APS-C.... So I'd be stuck at 800 mm, which is rarely long enough for me. Yes, I could "always use" a teleconverter, but Im of the belief that if you "always" have to use a TC, that combo just isn't long enough for you. Ended up getting the RF 200-800, which for me, is the Holy Grail of small bird photography. I love / hate my R7's :) lol SO many weaknesses that have to be worked around, but if you need the extra reach of an APS-C, you just don't have any choice. Inevitably, some folks will try to tell me that 800 mm is plenty, but when I see their work, it's either 1) more larger stuff than I usually shoot, or 2) their small birds are not as close as I prefer. 800 mm might be long enough for most, but it's definitely not long enough for me. Excellent video as usual Jan :) Your photography is the best !
Well, a 800mm PF + 1.4 converter on a Z8 cropped to 32.5 MP gives a 800 x 1.4 x sqrt(45.7/32.5) = 1300 mm f/9 equivalent focal length A little bit more than the R7 + a 200-800mm (ie 1200 mm f/9)
@@Kliffotand I get that this would be that many mm's on a WAY better, full frame camera. But my biggest thing is not having the versatility, and the extra $10K... Also, this lens plus a Z8 is a good chunk heavier than my R7 + 200-800. I do believe the PF 800 + Z8 would have better image quality, but it would be mostly pixel peeping at 100%, because the image quality I'm getting now is surprisingly good 🙂👍
Oh ha! Als Canon Shooter wird man da ziemlich neidisch. Für einen Hobbyfotograf ist das klassische 600mm f4 halt leider ein bisschen absurd teuer, und so ein PF Objektiv würde mir völlig reichen. Mal schauen, ob Canon da langfristig nachzieht.
Great video, thanks. Would love for Canon to have a 600mm L version of this lens, preferably with built in 1.4 teleconverter, for times when IQ is paramount. I'd keep it in my bag along with the 200-800 lens.
@@christophercarlimages9003 The Nikon version is $4300 USD for the 600mm f6.3 PF lens. I figured adding an integrated 1.4x teleconverter to it would add about $1-2 thousand dollars more to the cost.
@@jefferyrobbins3468 I think you need to examine Canon's lens road map and prices. First, they don't currently make a lens of this type, so we can only speculate by what they currently offer. In the RF mount, they don't even offer a 300 or 500 prime anymore like they did in the EF mount. And the zooms they do offer or are rumored to be coming are super expensive. Their lightest telephoto prime was the EF 400 DO II and that is one of kind made over a decade ago and it was over 6K at its release. They haven't yet made a lightweight prime other than the plastic fixed aperture gimmicky f11s. Then you are hoping for a built in TC. Seriously doubt it will happen, and if it does, it will be super expensive. But it certainly would be innovative and revolutionary, something Canon is usually not.
Not sure l understand Jan you talk about the slow 6.3 aperture yet both Nikon & Canon 800mm lenses that cost more than my car are 5.6 aperture can we really tell the difference. You say it does not get shots like at f4 or 2.8 but no 800mm lens does we have to compare 800mm with 800mm not 400 or 600mm.
Correct. It’s right in line for 800mm, but when I shoot with it side by side with an f4 600mm lens, having the ability to shoot at f4 can be big sometimes. So I guess I compared apples to oranges 😆
Thank you Jan for your interesting and informative Video. The 800 PF is a great lens. I personal own the 600 mm PF as a hobby photographer. My decision in February this year for the shorter lens was the more flexiblity, it is shorter and lighter. The most advantage for the 800 mm PF is the f6.3 at 800mm compared to f9 at 840mm with the 1.4 Konverter. When you shot most times at 800 mm and more the 800PF is the better choice. Best wishes Roland
I don't think 800mm f6.3 is slow. It is only 1/3 slower than the fastest options available in that focal length. 840mm f5.6 is max what you can get with TC and 800mm f5.6 is the fastest option with bare lens. Actually I'd be happy to have 800mm f8 prime with say 4,5mm minimum focus distance for RF mount.
As a Sony shooter, I am very envious of Nikon's lens line up. I doubt Sony will ever make their own PF version lenses in the 400, 500, 600 or 800mm range. A third-party manufacturer can try, but Sony will just cripple the lenses by reducing the FPS and no TC use. The Sigma 500 f/5.6 is the best we have, but again, crippled.
As a Sony R series user I'm not too concerned about FPS and would be willing to live with the lack of a TC at focal lengths of 700mm and above. In fact, Sigma registered patents not only for 500/5.6, but also for 700/8. But I'm not sure that this lens will ever see the light of day. It's probably just a concept that was rejected in favor of the 500mm. If nothing appears, then I'll think about switching to Nikon with the next upgrade.
@@pentagramyt417 I am sure they could all do an 800mm F8. My point is the minimum focus distance is 16 feet on the NIkon and I believe 19 on the the Canon, so both are long.
@@b.g.4277 Ah, if we go this way, yes, the MFD is the biggest opponent there. 5 meters is just ridiculous if you can measure it, even walking trough your home. And then predict your placement out of the trees, to be sure you are this distance in nature. You could lose a lot of phootage with this MFD.
@@pentagramyt417 Nobody is using an 800mm prime to do macro work, and attempting to track a subject with this much magnification at 15 feet is basically impossible. Even an MFD of 20ft+ would be acceptable on this lens.
@@pentagramyt417 "Sony could do, the 800 mm f8.0. " f8 mind as well be f11, and this is before we talk about the quality of the lens elements inside and how well it would deal with less then good light because that is the real trick. The Z 600/800 PF are both excellent in less than good light...better than the f6.3 maximum aperture would imply. The Z 180-600 is poor in less than good light despite also being f6.3 maximum aperture, and images very quickly turn to mush as the light falls away and I find it to be almost unusable near sunrise or sunset. What I am saying here is you can't have your cake and eat it too. It is impossible to make an f8 that is "not that dark," "best long range," and lightweight, and small, and have the good lens elements, and cheap, etc. All the Nikon PF's, 300/500/600/800, are a tough act to follow. It's not that Sony/Canon doesn't want to make them. It's that they are quite difficult to make with high enough optical quality, wicked fast AF, excellent VR, super sharp, doesn't turn to much in less than good light, light, small, cheap, and so forth.
Yea i wish other brand has these option. Not everyone can afford or even if can afford not everyone want to bring around the 3KG and very big/heavy 400 2.8 or 600 f4… its really quite a hassel to bring that oversea and on the plane..
Canon needs to make some of the patents they have to compete with nikons "mid tier" range RF 400mm f/4.0 RF 500mm f/5.6 RF 600mm f/5.6 RF 600mm f/6.3 RF 800mm f/6.3 Rf 400 do with a built in 1.4tc would be fantastic too
Canon misfired on their long RF reach glass in a lot of ways. Many of them feature recycled optical formulas, and the only real improvements were minor improvements to AF, VR, shave a little weight, etc. Nothing innovative about f11 primes and f9 zooms.
If the PF is the same tech as Canon’s DO, then it certainly does effect Bokeh quality. I just sold my 400 DO ii for that reason, as I was sick and tired of my bokeh looking messy. Shooting Nightjar on the ground with lots of distracting twigs in the background, I found myself really disliking the images. Yet same scenario with the 300 2.8 and those images were worlds apart in bokeh quality. Anything backlit and you notice it even more
@@jan_wegeneragreed. That said, some of my favourite bird photographs were also taken with the 400 DO ii with a 2x, even though they aren’t the sharpest they were sharp enough stopped down to f/10 and still gave me 800mm, which is where it’s at for bird photography if you ask me. Especially on a full frame camera, 800+ is invaluable. If Canon made an 800 DO I think it would be a big hit but can’t see them doing that now they’ve made that 200-800. It doesn’t seem Canon are in the affordable prime market anymore.
I am living in the Netherlands , and I have also the Nikon Z 800 mm F6.3 using for bird and wildlife photography All I can say this lens is very sharp , and hand holdable. The difference in price between the Nikon Z 600 mm F4 and the Nikon Z 800 mm F 6.3 was for me way too much , more than 10.000 Euro and this was also the main reason to buy this lens For shorter ranges I use the Nikon Z 400 mm F4.5 also freaking sharp and not too expensive.
I am too old now for Lenses that big and heavy, if I was young and strong, I could see myself with a 800mm 6.3 on one camera and a 400mm 4.5 on an other camera, a perfect combo. I do not like the "Arca Swiss style" tripod mount. My thought on Nikon´s 600mm and 800mm Lenses are that Nikon have been too "lazy" making the Lens design with PF element, take a look at Sigma 500mm DG DN OS Sports Lens which are compact and light weight without a "PF" element in the Lens design ! Canon and Sony are missing Lenses in their line-up, like 400mm 4.5, 500mm 5.6, 600 and 800mm 6.3 !
Iàm sure it is a good lens but I prefer my 400 2,8 VR and 2.0 TC, that gives me 800/5,6 but also the flexibility of 400/2,8 and 560/4 with the 1,4 TC. Hard to beat but I would like the weight of the 800/6,3!
Of course if getting close is not problem, when you can fill up the frame it is correct, but lets be honest that is pretty rare, or well made hide is needed.
Such an odd review and a totally inappropriate title! Your main criticism seems to be the focal length itself, bizarre. All the way through you seem to resent listing all the great features! It’s like you were irritated not to find any decent faults with it...
I have always said from the moment this lens was announced, if I could only have just one lens, this would be the one. But, as you know I am a Canon shooter, my concern has always been the AF of the Z9. I was shocked when you said the Z6 III could not track/focus during BIF when pointing the lens right at the sky be it an overcast day?? Are you kidding me? To me, f/6.3 is more than generous especially for BIF because most people start off with shooting f/6.3 on the Sigma or Tamron 150-600mm f/6.3. I have never had a single problem shooting BIF with f/6.3 on my R5. Seeing the footage of the Z6 III, that tells me its AF especially the tracking is pretty bad. I am sorry, there is just no other way to say it. I hope that doesn't happen on the Z9? I remember when the Z9 was first launched, you have always flagged its AF and tracking as being problematic. That was a few years back, if you tell me now the Z9's AF and tracking are much improved or even fantastic, I would be more than happy to jump ship from Canon to Nikon. I am done waiting for crappy lenses that I don't want from Canon. My last point is on your comment about the 800mm PF being too long saying the 600mm PF is just as good. I disagree because the 600mm PF is only at f/6.3 which is the standard for all 600mm lenses in the market for both zooms and PF primes apart from the true big primes. Meaning the 800mm PF is actually amazing because you have gained 200mm and still be on f/6.3. Comparing to a true big prime 800mm f/5.6 you are only losing 1/3 of a stop, that is unbelievable! This is why I still haven't bought the RF 200-800mm f/6.3-9, 1) as you know I have always hated external zooms and 2) f/9! Is Canon taking the mickey? That is why I love the Nikon 800mm PF so much, super long, sharper than zooms and f/6.3.
I left Canon for Nikon and have no regrets. The Canon claims of unmatched autofocus seem like a huge stretch. In fact I think the af of both the Z8/Z9 are way better than the R5 and on par with the R5 MK2. But Nikon lenses are way better options for wildlife and superior value. No regrets leaving Canon whatsoever!
@@jan_wegener more than 180cm!? Oh my, I will sticking with smaller body then. Although my favourite lens is oldie sigma 150-600mm, it's too cumbersome for longer day shooting. Anyway, thanks for your answer!
There are 2 RF800mm lens, either end of the price range. This Nikon lens is priced completely different to both canon lenses so it doesn't directly compete with either, the nikon lens has no competition, but I understand what you mean, it's competing against canons 800mm F5.6 which is much more heavy and expensive and only 1/3stop brighter.
I totally agree.. even the OM-1 mark ii paired with the 300mm f4 + 1,4x tc brings you at 840mm at f5,6 with minimum focus distance of 1,4m. Not to mention the much smaller form and weight factor 👍😊
+ RAW pre-capture at 50 fps. ;) Nikon doesn't have RAW, and even newest Sony A1 is stuck at 30 fps - in this case only A9III can be the leader of C-AF 120 fps but that's still only 24 mpx, and you have limit of 200-600 lens at 840 mm f9.0 light gathering vs 1000 mm f5.6 from Olympus..
@@christophercarlimages9003 Every sensor is noisy. Untill ISO 3200 every camera can handle it in good lightning. Most of cameras have visible ISO noise since 4000, and over 6400 is mostly served for Fullframe, BUT there is a key, that you have 1 stop of difference in light gathering in the lens for example 150-400 is 4.5, and 200-600 is f6.3 which makes the same situation in both cameras while it comes to noise, only basing on the aperture. OM-1 would hit ISO 6400, while Sony would hit 12.800 in that scenario. And this ISO is usually not acceptable (to professional usage, other than sport photography) even on full-frame - in dark conditions. Not going deep in technical aspects, physics, SNR and etc.
@@christophercarlimages9003 totally agree with you! Many people only multiply 2 times focal range on Olympus lens and forget that bokeh and iso capability will be 2 stops worse than in FF.
![Overrated: Camera features that don't matter [ft Gerald Undone]](/img/n.gif)
Having previously used a D500 with the 200-500mm f5.6 lens, I found that most my images were taken at an effective focal length of 750mm. When moving to my first full frame mirrorless camera (Z6) I found that 500mm just wasn't enough for the majority of opportunities in the UK. I now have the Z8 and 800mm PF and have set up the Z8 so that the video button can be used to quickly switch to DX mode to give an effective focal length of 1200mm whilst still giving 19.4MP files. These files are still big enough and have some benefits in terms of computer processing and storage. The Z8 and 800mm PF combination is an absolute delight and I would highly recommend it. Thank you for all your reviews and videos which are always informative and a delight to watch.
Thanks for sharing!
Hi Jan, I own the 800mm PF with the Nikon Z8 and I have to say I agree with everything you are saying in this review! It is a phenomenal lens with optical quality that is on par with even some of the best lenses. For me, whether it is filling the frame with this lens or shooting from distance, I always get superb results. The only downside is the Arca Swiss cut on the foot, which confuses me because the big companies just don't seem to do it on all their lenses. Just to add also ( I am unsure whether it is in your review), the weather sealing on this lens is great and I have used it in wet conditions; when paired with a weather sealed body like the Z8, I would say that this is workhorse of a setup, even in adverse conditions. Great review overall and hope this helps some people watching and trying to decide whether to buy it or not! It is money well spent in my eyes!
The only downside in Nikon is that Z8/Z9 doesn't have RAW's.. seriously, this is the only ONE feature I didn't change my system into Nikon + 800 mm f6.3. I've waited now a year, for firmware update, but still seems they didn't change that. I know it will be there in Z8II, I am pretty sure, 100%. But that's the reason I didn't invest my money into Nikon yet. I think there is no time anymore to wait, A1-2 just is there.. so.. I am a little upset.
@pentagramyt417 I'm confused what you are talking about. It shoots in RAW and you can shoot in RAW files. Do you mean pre capture??
@@A.Whiteaway Somehow I missed to mension what I am talking about! Of course, I meant pre-capture. :)
@@pentagramyt417 I mean it's a small thing that really isn't a limitation in my eyes and it's not something I use all that often. I think we are talking about very niche things in general that maybe the other camera companies offer. But the Sony A1II is mega ££ and the R5 II is more reasonably priced. I just find that the other companies don't really do a compact 800mm or 600mm prime lens, like the pf lenses.
Thanks for sharing. Since an S line lens is expected to good sealing
I wouldn't be chasing birds and stuff if it wasn't this lens. The shortcomings are not in discussion for some like me where even that lens is often short due to the shy birds around. No option to travel abroad. No option for any other 600mm/800mm (the 600mm pf came out recently) so this is literally revolutionary lens and it's one Nikon marvel! Thank ypu for the review.
Yes, it’s a fabulous lens for situations like that
Love my 800 PF and the Z8 combo. The stabilization is insane. The one short coming I have noticed is the PF itself those circular lens elements makes a weird darkening which throws me off sometimes.
I also pair it with the 180-600mm Z
great review. I've been using this lens for a while now and I fully agree with your review. I also got the 4/600TC a few months after the 800PF but even though I use the 600TC a lot, I also keep using the 800PF because it's a bit shorter, less bulky and almost 1kg lighter. This is great for hiking, hand-holding and when I need some extra space in my backpack (e.g. nya-evo 60). With the 600TC it's a bit of a struggle to add much more equipment to the backpack but with the 800PF I can more easily add additional lenses like the 100-400 and maybe the 24-120 or the 135 Plena. I also love the 600PF. It's often too short here in southern Germany but when it's enough, it's hands-down the most fun lens to use, especially on a Z8 which is not too heavy. BTW: Your LR and PS masterclasses are awesome and much better than anything else I've seen, especially from a bird-photographers point of view.
Do you feel 600 mm f4 has better image quality than 800 mm? Not just sharpness but color rendering as well. I have canon 500 mm f4 is ii often thinking of selling it and getting the 800 mm f6.3 and z8.
I haven't shot any test charts, so I can't tell for sure. But I found both lenses to be very sharp wide open. The 600TC is also very good with the built-in TC. I think from a sharpness point of view, both are awesome. The TC is f4, more flexible due to the extender and lets in a bit more light. The 800PF is smaller and lighter and was only about 5.700 Euros (Nikon had a discount). I like having both, if I had to choose one, then, money aside, I'd go with the 4/600TC.
Thanks!
I have tried this lens. My main birding lens is now the 180-600. The 800 is great value. I was pleasantly surprised how easy it was to hand hold and the quality of the images was amazing considering that hand holding a long lens used to considered totally impractical.
Thanks for sharing
Thank you, Jan, for yet another detailed and balanced review. I do appreciate you and the few other wildlife and bird photographers who use and review gear from multiple brands. That's a great service.
Regarding the f/6.3 maximum f-stop of the 800mm PF, folks should keep in mind that, at 800mm, f/6.3 translates to a 127mm extrance pupil. The only lenses offering noticeably better light-gathering are the 600mm f/4 (150mm) and 400mm f/2.8 (143mm) primes.
So, when it comes to low light performance, this 800mm lens is among the best options for bird and wildlife enthusiasts.
Funny, Bill, I was going to comment on the same thing - no one makes an f/4 800 full frame (looks like Pentax actually offered one for 6x7!); the best are at f/5.6, and this isn't that far behind.
I agree, I wasn’t necessarily implying that it’s bad for low light. But when I used it in low light next to a F4 lens, its was quite a disadvantage, especially because in that case the 800mm wasn’t needed.
If you look at 800mm the fastest you can get is 5.6, so for 800mm it’s right in line with everything else
@@jan_wegener no worries. I didn't get that impression, at all. I was sharing more for the benefit of some of your viewers. Thank you, again, for such a thorough and balanced review.
A very accurate review Jan, I have used this lens almost daily now for over a year and have obtained some beautiful images with it. You will need to factor in the extra cost of a decent lens foot, lens cap and possibly a third party lens hood as the plastic contact point on the hood tends to stick over time. Filling the frame at really high iso settings is possible with this lens with a small amount of LR noise reduction. I would recommend this lens especially if you use a Z8 or Z9.
Have you found it useful for anything other than birds?
I found 600 more than adequate for birds nearby. Even 400 is good for safari wildlife.
Yes I use it for wildlife images( marsupials etc and some landscapes. I use the 100-400 with a 1.4 converter sometimes also.
我使用Z8+863拍攝台灣熊鷹一年了，超級無敵滿意，不論是拍照或錄影，對焦與追焦，目前正等待Z9H或Z9二代，NIKON持續加油囉!
Now that I think of it, the PF 800mm f6.3 Z is a superb lens as other prime 16 grand or above 800mm counterparts are just 1/3rd of a stop darker.
Another amazing unbiased review Jan. You have covered all the critical aspects of this lens. After lot of consideration I have gone with the Z 600 F4 TC lens for my bird photography
Here In Finland 600mm f4 cost about 15000€..nope
@ yes, it is expensive 😀
Hard to beat that lens
I love my Z8 and 800pf. Your videos and images are simply incredible! They’ve inspired me to bird Australia someday. I’d love to see your masterclass for Lightroom Cloud sometime. Cheers!
Agree that the value of these PF lenses is through the roof. For the price point they are unparalleled. The main reason why I dumped Canon was for the Nikon lens lineup
Some jaw dropping photos, Jan. Great review.
Thank you, I'm glad you enjoyed it!
Canonrumors posted patents on 400 through 800mm RF lenses. Here's hoping us Canon shooters get a few of those to come to market. Everyone I know with the Nikon 800 PF loves it and uses it as their main bird photography lens.
The patent for the RF 300-600mm F2.8-4.5 is more interesting to me though, as it would also offer RF 420-840mm F4.0-6.3 as well when using the 1.4x extender. It would offer way more flexibility than the Nikon 800mm F6.3 PF - albeight at a much higher price point and most likely weight as well. But it would be way more interesting to save up for a higher quality and larger aperture zoom lens at 12’000 to 15’000.- than a prime lens at 6’000.- that ist very limited to one long focal length.
That would be nice wouldn’t it hehe
I got this lens about a year or a year and a half ago and I've run into some of the issues that you mentioned but I've also really enjoyed having it and have gotten some incredible shots with it
Thanks for sharing
@@jan_wegener Thank YOU for the video! Was wonderful to see other wildlife I live in Seattle and we have cool stuff here but nothing like Australia
Thx Jan for video, I think if someone can’t get close enough to wildlife - crops hard or use teleconverters with 600 mm f4 , better to choose 800 mm pf. Because it’s very light and half of the price. I own one and love it to use for snow leopard photography.
Agreed!
I've been shooting eagles, which have their nests in protected areas surrounded by fences. A 600mm is too short, but my Z800mm with a 1.4 TC works great for getting in close. At Lake Casitas, CA, only one other bird photographer has an 800mm, but it's a Canon EF f5.6 and it's big and heavy. She has a really hard time walking around with it, especially uphill. In San Simeon, CA, a family of eagles adopted a baby Red Tailed Hawk. The eagle tree was on a ranch with a perimeter fence and we had to shoot from the road. The longest lenses being used by the other photographers were 600s. My 800mm with the 1.4 TC worked great again at capturing the juvenile RTH hanging out with his juvenile eaglet brothers. I also used this lens to photograph a family of hummingbirds which had attached their nest to an electrical cord at a neighbor's front porch. She let me setup my Z9 with the 800 on a tripod, in her kitchen, aimed out the window at the nest. The momma bird would come by every 20 minutes to feed the two babies. I was able to fill the frame. Great lens.
Excellent video and analysis. I have been nusing the Z 800 PF for two years now and it has been my regular "go-to" lens for bird photography ever since i bought it. Howevder, you are perfectly correct in that there will often be situations when it is too powerful. I used to carry the Z 100-400 as my second lens but that left a big gap between the 400 top end and the 800 so I bought the 180 - 600 to cover the ranges the 800 couldn't cope with. Today I almost always go out with th e800 on my Z9 and the 180-600 on my Z8 using the Black Rapid double harness so i can carry both without any trouble. Nikon have some fantastic telephoto Z-mount glass - absolutely second to none and competitively priced. My only real issue with the 800 is that it tempts one (well, me, anyway) to tryt to take photos at extreme ranges and then they suffer from heat-haze, but, this is down to the user, not the lens!!!
Yes, I guess we all fall into that trap sometimes, especially with TCs as well. Just because we have crazy long focal lengths doesn’t mean it allows us to shoot at great distances with much success
Great review Jan, the Painted Finch photo is amazing! If I was shooting Nikon I would have to flip a coin to decide what lens to pick, you can't go wrong with any of the telephoto lenses. It would be such a hard decision between the 600pf and 800pf, or the 100-400 and 400 f4.5, the 400tc and 600tc, etc.
Gotta get them all 😂
Love the review! Waiting for the Flagship war: R1 vs A1 mark ii
Hard to compare cameras
Random question but what's the tripod and ball head combination you are using at 3:00
Promedia Gear TR344 L and flexshooter pro
Another excellent review, thanks! It is also worth noting that although f6.3 sounds a little slow, the fastest available at 800mm is f5.6. So only 1/3 stop faster, albeit an extra 40mm longer.
That’s correct. I guess I was comparing it to the ability to use an F4/600 at F4 if need be
I primarily use Canon gear, but purchase the Nikon 800 mm PF and one Nikon body just so I could have a lightweight 800 mm setup. The only other option for a 800 mm lens is the Canon RF 800 mm f5.6 which retails for $17,000 in the US.
What about the RF800mm F11 ? Ok its slow, but modern mirrorless canons are great with high iso.
Great video about a great lens! Had one for a couple of years, sold it, and went with the 600PF instead. The MFD + tighter field of view on the 800PF made it a challenge for me to use for small birds in closer situations.
Will have to disagree about the VR modes: Normal is too herky-jerky, how it re-centers itself after every shot is so jarring. Prefer Sport mode, which doesn't have this issue.
Same issue here. In Normal Mode, the focus point often jumps of the subject when the shutter button is pressed..
I find Normal to be more effective with stabilization and much prefer it in stills mode. If it's being jerky it's because you are actually moving around a lot, calming movements will reduce jerkiness. You can see how more effective normal is in video mode. I typically will watch the 'drift' in viewfinder which indicates how stable I'm being. I'll definitely switch to Sport in video mode if moving or panning though (wide of telephoto).
What would you personally use if it was between the Nikon Z8+Z 800mm Pf f 6.3 vs. Canon EOS R1+Rf 200-800?For wildlife.
£4000 in Uk, (New) best lens iv owned along side 180-600@aZ8👍🏼😊
I've always found 600mm w/TC's to be the sweet spot for wildlife if I'm only going to have one lens but there are certainly advantages to having an 800mm. Nice lens but if I were a Nikon shooter I think I'd go for the PF600.
No mention of the STM motors used for focusing? No real world issues pushing AF during fast action?
Seemed to be fine. I agree about 600 being my personal sweet spot too
And again - Nikon is cashing in on wildlife shooters, as Canon can only offer f11 at half the price or f5.6 at triple the price :( At those moments I am thinking again if I shall not switch to Nikon, while I can still sell the Canon gear without too much money (value) lost...
The 800mm F11 is sub $1000. Not even close to half the price of the Nikon 800 PF.
Could hardly compare the 1000 dollar RF800/11 with this lens! Maybe the Canon 200-800 6,3-f/9 is a better comparison, half the price of the Nikkor 800 PF
I ordered this lens 3 years ago but I had no Time to wait IT over half year and I passed IT. Now I have nikkor 180-600 which is very flexible. And now Im getting Z50 ll which gives Max. 900mm eqw. focal lenght with birds eye AF. The other drawback was last August when I ordered Z6lll and noticed that this body had no special birds eye AF and I draw my order back again. Its very odd for Nikon to do so -like givin up for Canon. Thanks for excellent review Cheers
So blinded by Canon hate that you couldn’t read numbers properly. $1,000 is NOT half that of $6,000
Canon does also have the 200-800 f9. Yes it's slower but it's also a zoom which is nice.
Still hopefully canon brings those patents on some fast super telephotos soon.
Great review, as always. How do you rate the picture quality of the 800pf, when compared to the 600TC with the internal TC engaged.
Jan It's just a simple fact , that Nikon is coming up with great lenses and Canon has nothing but overpriced and way too big and way too heavy of lenses .
Did you try it with the TC14?
Yes there’s a photo in there
@ Thank you, what did you think about the IQ with the TC attached?
@ sorry, I guess I somehow missed that part of the video. I need to pay more attention!😄😄
Would be cool if you reviewed the old 500pf as another budget option (still can be had brand new).
I have used it a bunch of times, but I prefer the 600pf and it’s the same size.
500pf is a nice option on more of a budget
Great lens and great review. The 600mm f4 is better but the 800mm is much lighter to be able hand hold for long periods of time.
Switched to Nikon over a year and a half ago from Canon because they had nothing like it on the horizon and my older EF lenses were long in the tooth. Couldn’t be happier with this lens along with the 180-600 albeit the Z8 is heavier and the AF is not on par with Canon. Alternatively, the 100-400 and 600 PF are an excellent combination for those who don’t need the longer FL’s and want a compact, lightweight WL solution.
Great video! I like watching your great videos even when they are not for me (I don’t think I’ll ever buy Nikon).
Great to hear 😀
I have the 100-400 lens, which I can DX mode to become 600mm, so the 800pf is quite tempting because it would give me extra reach. That said, I find primes quite limiting compared to zooms because you miss a lot of shots when things move too close and you can't zoom out.
You are right, primes are less versatile than zooms.
I love my Nikon z9 with 800mm no regrets..
Same
So, the biggest con of the 800 PF is not a zoom lens? That should be obvious from the start, Jan, and also applies to every single other prime lenses you'll ever use including the 600/f4's and 400/f2.8's. As for wanting a faster aperture, the only faster aperture is f5.6 at this focal length. There is no 800mm f4 or f2.8 available, or any wider lenses in combination with TC's that is faster than f5.6 at this focal length. IMHO, it is at least as likely to happen that I wish I could get closer to the target as I wish I was able to be one stop faster, so the focal length vs aperture debate is along that same thread. As for distance, getting closer is much more often a problem vs stepping back. These things aside, I actually think you gave this lens a somewhat negative review on a relative basis. I have seen you give far inferior "wildlife" lenses that also were a far worse value gushing/raving reviews, while this review overall sounded lukewarm at best. It makes no sense. The only 800mm lens that better optically than the 800 PF is the totally not handholdable and extremely difficult to get around F 800 f5.6 FL ED VR, which right now is on fire sale is $11500. The 800 PF is better in every other way, however, including the AF, VR, weight, balance, size, etc. The only other lens/TC combo that is better optically is the Z 600 f4 TC with the internal TC engaged, but that lens is $14500 and is heavier and larger to the point where I consider beyond handholdable and does not fit in a carry on (the 800 PF does). No other lens or lens/TC combo from any manufacturer is better optically or as a whole lens than the 800 PF at 800mm+, and it can be gotten right now for $5600. All three of Canon's currently available 800's are easily worse than this PF, and two of them cost three times more. The RF 200-800 is a child's toy next to this. Sony doesn't even have an 800 prime. I'm sorry, but you really missed the boat on this one. The 800 PF is a phenomenal wildlife lens at a sensationally low price.
I think you misunderstood a bit what I said. I think it’s a fantastic lens and it seems like everyone understood the video that way.
I think it’s fair to say so that 800 can be a bit long sometimes, which is not anything negative about this lens but all 800mm focal lengths. And the aperture I didn’t compare it to other 800mm lenses and 6.3 isn’t bad at all like I said in the video. I said in certain situations a 2.8 or 4 lens had big advantages even when it’s shorter. So that was apples to oranges and maybe I didn’t say it clear enough, but I don’t think this review is negative or lukewarm.
In saying that tho I personally prefer 600 over 800mm
When we were photographing displaying birds of paradise we had an F4 600 and the 800. And with the 800 it was a big challenge to get enough shutter speed and even at F4 on the 600 it was hard.
I don’t think I implied anywhere that the 200-800 would be even somewhat close or similar to this lens
Given the choice I’d pick the 600pf over the 800 for how i shoot. But I think both are great and some of the best lenses ever made
@@jan_wegener I never said you mentioned the RF 200-800 in this video, but I do remember you just pouring out gushing over it when you reviewed it. It just makes no sense, Jan. The Z 800 PF as a whole product and price is one of those lenses you only see about released once every 10 years (of all lens releases from all manufacturers, only one total lens like this comes out every ten or so years). That is how insanely good and insanely cheap the Z 800 PF is. Nikon could have charged $10k for this lens and it would be worth every penny. The Z 600 PF is also on a deep sale, but there is a big difference between being 1/3 stop away from the magic focal length to aperture ratio and 1-1/3 stop.
@@jan_wegener The same can be said about 400/f2.8's, and that was the point I was making. I think it's fair to say so that 400 can be a bit short sometimes, which is not anything negative about this lens but all 400mm focal lengths. You can also replace "400" with "600" and say "bit short sometimes and bit long sometimes." They are primes, Jan. They are primes. You spent quite a lot of time talking about something that is completely irrelevant, when, respectfully, you should have been comparing to other lenses capable of reaching 800mm such as other primes or lenses with TC's that get around 800mm and the typical aperture's you were working with there. The reality is that only two lenses exist that are better at or near 800mm than the Z 800PF, and they both cost far, far more, are much heavier, much larger, and are just a pill to shoot with. As mentioned in my original comment, they are the Z 600 f4 TC and the F 800 f5.6 FL ED VR. That's the company the Z 800 PF is in...the absolute best 800mm and 600mm lenses ever made. Respectfully, that's how far you missed the boat on this one, Jan.
@@KungPowEnterFist I'm not quite sure what you are so upset about. If you watch the video from start to finish you will hear me mention all the points you say I didn't make. For instance I say word for word: Overall I think this is on the of best and most attractive lenses for many wildlife shooters on the market".
How much more positive can one be?
Got a mint 800 PF with 3D printed spring loaded lens cap, custom lens foot with arca quick release built-in for $7000AU or basically $4000US. Bargain of the year and better yet I sold my old Canon 500 f/4L II for $6500 to pay for it. 800mm has been a game changer for me for waders, as they are often small and very skittish. 600mm was doable for things like red-capped plovers but required extensive cropping, as they are such small birds. 800mm allows me to start further away from them to then be able to slither over the sand and get nice semi-frame filling shots. Being able to get 1120 f/9 is also handy but not required often and only for decent light.
As for the 600 PF, I think it is way overpriced consider the 500 f/5.6 PF was $3499, Nikon has priced the 600 closer to what it should be if it were f/5.6 and I wish they had of done so. It would still be under 2kg and a better option than using a 300 f/2.8 + 2x or 400 f/4 + 1.4x IMO.
I often walk around with two bodies, Z9 and 800 PF and A1 + 100-400 GM or200-600G which will be on a black rapid RS strap. Also, a good combo for airshows not just birding.
I just wish Sony would also innovate like Nikon in the supertele range, but have zero expectation they'll ever offer similar lenses as 400 f/4.5, 600 f/6.3 or 800 f/6.3 even as normal lenses, let alone ever often PF/DO lenses.
Awesome video! I do miss the 800mm reach since most birds in NZ are small, but I opted for the 600pf because I wanted something lighter and easier to carry while traveling. If possible, I would really appreciate it if you could get your hands on the Z50II and share your thoughts on it! Would love to pair it 600pf. Thanks a lot.
Naja die Blende von 6.3 ist verglichen mit 5.6, was man sonst bekommen würde, kein großes handicap!
Das stimmt. Ich hab’s eher mit der Möglichkeit bei einem f4 600 auf f4 zu gehen verglichen
Hi Jan, another very informative video ! Thinking of buying this lens but have seen several reviews that mention that this lens is more sensitive to thermal distortion c.q. heat haze with this lens due to its 800mm. What or was your experience with this lens. Thanks for your comments. Tom
Heat haze can affect any lens. But the more focal length you have the more it can show up. But it’s not worse on this lens than any other 800mm lens imo
@@jan_wegener Thanks Jan
The line up of Nikon super tele lenses for wild life and sport photography is far ahead of Sony and Canon, there was in fact never in the past 30 years one brand taking such a huge lead in this segment... and that is prior to Nikon releasing their super tele pro zoom lenses which, I believe, will be game changers as well. I personally work with the 400mm f2.8 TC S and it's so good with Z tele converters, that it's basically 3 lenses in one, including a very good 800mm f5.6 (probably not as good optically as the 800mm PF, but still very good in absolute terms). Not the lens I would recommend for birders, but IMHO the most flexible super tele lens ever designed.
I am very happy with the AF performance of the Z6III, Z8 and Z9 but a Z9II can only be a few months away now and it's probably going to push the envelope further still.
this lens is one of the reason I switched from Canon to Nikon... more lens choices... I can say I miss the RF 100-500, but the 100-400 and 180-600 are good choses from Nikon too
Nikon rules the telephotos like they always have. I think the 400 2.8 TC is just insane. I think the Z6 III may have a tad better stabilization since it’s rated for 8.5 stops
Did you run into a lot of atmospheric haze issues? I would think that would a biggie in Oz.
not anymore than with other lenses. Key is in all situations to not try and photograph things that are too far away anyways
Hi Jan, even for a Canon shooter it was nice to watch this review with some more awesome birds !
For this price point, I'd hope Canon makes the longest and fastest possible zoom without exceeding 2kg (like 300-600/2.8-4.5 or 300-700/2.8-5.6), rather than a prime.
And when comes the variable extender ?? .. it's been very silent about that lately ..
That is physically impossible, unfortunately. Disregarding the zoom, if it were primes: A 600mm f4.5 needs a 13,3cm front element, and a 700mm f5.6 a 12,5cm front element. That are really big glass elements. The Nikon 800mm PF also needs a 12,7cm front element and weighs 2.4kg. There is just no chance whatsoever for a zoom with these specs and under 2kg. Even for primes.
@@andreasbuder4417 Maybe I was dreaming a little too hard. But my beloved 200-800 is just a tad above 2kg, and when reducing the zoom from 4x to 2.3x or 2x you can make a faster lens for the same weight, certainly when that's an L at a higher price point. Perhaps 700/6.3 could be more realistic ?
Hallo Werner, ich wechsel mal zu deutsch, ist einfacher. Der ganze „Trick“ einschätzen zu können, wie groß und schwer ein Objektiv sein wird, ist tatsächlich die höchste Brennweite zu nehmen und durch die Blende zu teilen. Das ergibt den Mindest-Durchmesser des Frontglaselements in Millimeter. Dein 200-800 hat die Blende 9 und daher muss das Frontglaselement mind. 89mm haben. Alles was so um 90-95mm hat, kann als Festbrennweite deutlich unter 2kg wiegen, ein Zoom ist eher um die 2kg. Das ist so ungefähr die Faustregel. Z.B. wiegen fast alle 200-600 F6.3 Zooms ebenso um die 2kg, während Festbrennweiten wie 400mm f4.5, 500mm f5.6 oder 600mm f6.3 eher so um 1,3kg wiegen. Alle haben aber einen Filterdurchmesser von 95mm, weil das Frontglas um die 89mm bis 95mm misst.
Ein 700mm 6.3 hätte schon ein Frontglas von 111mm und wäre damit sehr viel größer und hätte wie das 800mm 6.3 kein Filtergewinde mehr, sondern am Bajonett einen Filtereinschub.
Bei langen Brennweiten hat auch die Sensorgröße keinen echten Einfluss mehr. Das war für mich sehr spannend herauszufinden, weil ich anders gedacht habe. Viele Grüße!
@@andreasbuder4417 Hallo Andreas, Danke fürs ausführliche Antwort. Kein Problem auf Deutsch, ich sollte aber besser nicht auf Flämisch antworten, oder ? Das Frontglaselement ist ja wichtig, aber trotzdem ist Canon da in der Lage beim Gewicht zu sparen .. Der 100-500 ist klar leichter als der EF100-400Lii, den 200-800/9 eben leichter als die meiste 150/180/200-600/6.3 und dir beide RF 70-200/2.8 sind fast 500g leichter als die EF Vorgänger.
When this lens first came out, I got really excited about it (and I'm currently a Canon guy) But jumping ship, and having to buy both a $6K lens + a new $4K body, was just about too much for me. And their was always two big problems..... 1) being a prime lens, no versatility, and 2) Nikon doesn't make a new Mirrorless APS-C.... So I'd be stuck at 800 mm, which is rarely long enough for me. Yes, I could "always use" a teleconverter, but Im of the belief that if you "always" have to use a TC, that combo just isn't long enough for you.
Ended up getting the RF 200-800, which for me, is the Holy Grail of small bird photography. I love / hate my R7's :) lol SO many weaknesses that have to be worked around, but if you need the extra reach of an APS-C, you just don't have any choice.
Inevitably, some folks will try to tell me that 800 mm is plenty, but when I see their work, it's either 1) more larger stuff than I usually shoot, or 2) their small birds are not as close as I prefer. 800 mm might be long enough for most, but it's definitely not long enough for me.
Excellent video as usual Jan :) Your photography is the best !
Well, a 800mm PF + 1.4 converter on a Z8 cropped to 32.5 MP gives a 800 x 1.4 x sqrt(45.7/32.5) = 1300 mm f/9 equivalent focal length
A little bit more than the R7 + a 200-800mm (ie 1200 mm f/9)
@@kovyfra5987 R7 is 1.6x crop factor : 1280mm. But doesn't matter you're right, Z8 DX mode19mpx would be around the same and enough anyway
@@Kliffotand I get that this would be that many mm's on a WAY better, full frame camera. But my biggest thing is not having the versatility, and the extra $10K... Also, this lens plus a Z8 is a good chunk heavier than my R7 + 200-800. I do believe the PF 800 + Z8 would have better image quality, but it would be mostly pixel peeping at 100%, because the image quality I'm getting now is surprisingly good 🙂👍
Oh ha! Als Canon Shooter wird man da ziemlich neidisch. Für einen Hobbyfotograf ist das klassische 600mm f4 halt leider ein bisschen absurd teuer, und so ein PF Objektiv würde mir völlig reichen. Mal schauen, ob Canon da langfristig nachzieht.
Moved from Sony A1 with 200-600mm to Nikon Z9 with 800mm PF, best move ever
200-600 costs 6 times less than this lens, how can you compare those settings so totally different?
@@SuomiFinland78 perhaps because Sony has nothing else coming close to the 800mm f5.6 PF?
Great video, thanks. Would love for Canon to have a 600mm L version of this lens, preferably with built in 1.4 teleconverter, for times when IQ is paramount. I'd keep it in my bag along with the 200-800 lens.
That lens from Canon will cost $15K minimum. Different ballpark
@@christophercarlimages9003 The Nikon version is $4300 USD for the 600mm f6.3 PF lens. I figured adding an integrated 1.4x teleconverter to it would add about $1-2 thousand dollars more to the cost.
@@jefferyrobbins3468 I think you need to examine Canon's lens road map and prices. First, they don't currently make a lens of this type, so we can only speculate by what they currently offer. In the RF mount, they don't even offer a 300 or 500 prime anymore like they did in the EF mount. And the zooms they do offer or are rumored to be coming are super expensive. Their lightest telephoto prime was the EF 400 DO II and that is one of kind made over a decade ago and it was over 6K at its release. They haven't yet made a lightweight prime other than the plastic fixed aperture gimmicky f11s. Then you are hoping for a built in TC. Seriously doubt it will happen, and if it does, it will be super expensive. But it certainly would be innovative and revolutionary, something Canon is usually not.
I'd love to see that too!
Not sure l understand Jan you talk about the slow 6.3 aperture yet both Nikon & Canon 800mm lenses that cost more than my car are 5.6 aperture can we really tell the difference. You say it does not get shots like at f4 or 2.8 but no 800mm lens does we have to compare 800mm with 800mm not 400 or 600mm.
Correct. It’s right in line for 800mm, but when I shoot with it side by side with an f4 600mm lens, having the ability to shoot at f4 can be big sometimes. So I guess I compared apples to oranges 😆
I wish canon has such an offer especially at this very reasonable price point in comparison of an RF 800mm 🤔
Thank you Jan for your interesting and informative Video. The 800 PF is a great lens. I personal own the 600 mm PF as a hobby photographer. My decision in February this year for the shorter lens was the more flexiblity, it is shorter and lighter. The most advantage for the 800 mm PF is the f6.3 at 800mm compared to f9 at 840mm with the 1.4 Konverter. When you shot most times at 800 mm and more the 800PF is the better choice. Best wishes Roland
How 600 mm f6.3 handles the x2.0 is the question? I wouldn't care about f13 as much. But I would like to have really sharp image at 1200 mm.
Well said
It does quite well with the 2x. You can see images of that in my Z6 iii review
I don't think 800mm f6.3 is slow. It is only 1/3 slower than the fastest options available in that focal length. 840mm f5.6 is max what you can get with TC and 800mm f5.6 is the fastest option with bare lens. Actually I'd be happy to have 800mm f8 prime with say 4,5mm minimum focus distance for RF mount.
Some reviewers have stated that the 600PF with the 1.4 tele gives equivalent IQ to the 800PF. Whats your thoughts?
800 mm pf lens is even sharper than Nikon 600 mm tc with 1.4 tc. You can look Steve Perry test.
As a Sony shooter, I am very envious of Nikon's lens line up. I doubt Sony will ever make their own PF version lenses in the 400, 500, 600 or 800mm range. A third-party manufacturer can try, but Sony will just cripple the lenses by reducing the FPS and no TC use. The Sigma 500 f/5.6 is the best we have, but again, crippled.
It’s interesting that no one so far has copied Nikon
@@jan_wegener Do they have a patent on the PF tech? I know Sigma's 500mm f/5.6 lens is really similar to the PF 500mm.
@@roninrtist560they probably have a patent on their way of doing it, but canon has done similar DO lenses before
As a Sony R series user I'm not too concerned about FPS and would be willing to live with the lack of a TC at focal lengths of 700mm and above. In fact, Sigma registered patents not only for 500/5.6, but also for 700/8. But I'm not sure that this lens will ever see the light of day. It's probably just a concept that was rejected in favor of the 500mm. If nothing appears, then I'll think about switching to Nikon with the next upgrade.
DIdn't expect the MFD to be so close to the RF 800 F11.
Sony could do, the 800 mm f8.0. Which could be one of the best long range and not that dark lens while beeing lighter than 800 mm f6.3.
@@pentagramyt417 I am sure they could all do an 800mm F8. My point is the minimum focus distance is 16 feet on the NIkon and I believe 19 on the the Canon, so both are long.
@@b.g.4277 Ah, if we go this way, yes, the MFD is the biggest opponent there. 5 meters is just ridiculous if you can measure it, even walking trough your home. And then predict your placement out of the trees, to be sure you are this distance in nature. You could lose a lot of phootage with this MFD.
@@pentagramyt417 Nobody is using an 800mm prime to do macro work, and attempting to track a subject with this much magnification at 15 feet is basically impossible. Even an MFD of 20ft+ would be acceptable on this lens.
@@pentagramyt417 "Sony could do, the 800 mm f8.0. " f8 mind as well be f11, and this is before we talk about the quality of the lens elements inside and how well it would deal with less then good light because that is the real trick. The Z 600/800 PF are both excellent in less than good light...better than the f6.3 maximum aperture would imply. The Z 180-600 is poor in less than good light despite also being f6.3 maximum aperture, and images very quickly turn to mush as the light falls away and I find it to be almost unusable near sunrise or sunset. What I am saying here is you can't have your cake and eat it too. It is impossible to make an f8 that is "not that dark," "best long range," and lightweight, and small, and have the good lens elements, and cheap, etc. All the Nikon PF's, 300/500/600/800, are a tough act to follow. It's not that Sony/Canon doesn't want to make them. It's that they are quite difficult to make with high enough optical quality, wicked fast AF, excellent VR, super sharp, doesn't turn to much in less than good light, light, small, cheap, and so forth.
Put this lens on a Z9 and you’ll never look back!!
Yea i wish other brand has these option. Not everyone can afford or even if can afford not everyone want to bring around the 3KG and very big/heavy 400 2.8 or 600 f4… its really quite a hassel to bring that oversea and on the plane..
Definitely is!
Canon needs to make some of the patents they have to compete with nikons "mid tier" range
RF 400mm f/4.0
RF 500mm f/5.6
RF 600mm f/5.6
RF 600mm f/6.3
RF 800mm f/6.3
Rf 400 do with a built in 1.4tc would be fantastic too
Canon misfired on their long RF reach glass in a lot of ways. Many of them feature recycled optical formulas, and the only real improvements were minor improvements to AF, VR, shave a little weight, etc. Nothing innovative about f11 primes and f9 zooms.
Please review Nikon 600mm 6.3 PF Lens...
The review has been done months ago.
I have
@@jan_wegener i will check...
1:35 Fresnel is actually pronounced like "fruh-nel"
If the PF is the same tech as Canon’s DO, then it certainly does effect Bokeh quality. I just sold my 400 DO ii for that reason, as I was sick and tired of my bokeh looking messy. Shooting Nightjar on the ground with lots of distracting twigs in the background, I found myself really disliking the images. Yet same scenario with the 300 2.8 and those images were worlds apart in bokeh quality. Anything backlit and you notice it even more
Yes, it’s busy BGs is not the main strength.
@@jan_wegeneragreed. That said, some of my favourite bird photographs were also taken with the 400 DO ii with a 2x, even though they aren’t the sharpest they were sharp enough stopped down to f/10 and still gave me 800mm, which is where it’s at for bird photography if you ask me. Especially on a full frame camera, 800+ is invaluable. If Canon made an 800 DO I think it would be a big hit but can’t see them doing that now they’ve made that 200-800. It doesn’t seem Canon are in the affordable prime market anymore.
I am living in the Netherlands , and I have also the Nikon Z 800 mm F6.3 using for bird and wildlife photography All I can say this lens is very sharp , and hand holdable. The difference in price between the Nikon Z 600 mm F4 and the Nikon Z 800 mm F 6.3 was for me way too much , more than 10.000 Euro and this was also the main reason to buy this lens For shorter ranges I use the Nikon Z 400 mm F4.5 also freaking sharp and not too expensive.
Yes, the price makes it definitely very attractive
I am too old now for Lenses that big and heavy, if I was young and strong, I could see myself with a 800mm 6.3 on one camera and a 400mm 4.5 on an other camera, a perfect combo. I do not like the "Arca Swiss style" tripod mount. My thought on Nikon´s 600mm and 800mm Lenses are that Nikon have been too "lazy" making the Lens design with PF element, take a look at Sigma 500mm DG DN OS Sports Lens which are compact and light weight without a "PF" element in the Lens design ! Canon and Sony are missing Lenses in their line-up, like 400mm 4.5, 500mm 5.6, 600 and 800mm 6.3 !
How amazing is Tibooburra? :-)
Yes, pretty awesome landscapes
Iàm sure it is a good lens but I prefer my 400 2,8 VR and 2.0 TC, that gives me 800/5,6 but also the flexibility of 400/2,8 and 560/4 with the 1,4 TC. Hard to beat but I would like the weight of the 800/6,3!
"relatively slow aperture" it is like half stop bellow a generally 4 kg 12keuro prioced 800 5.6... So if it is problem, it is problem with everything
When compared to the F4 and 2.8 lenses
@jan_wegener respectively with 1.4, 2* tcs. Like i said, half stop.
Of course if getting close is not problem, when you can fill up the frame it is correct, but lets be honest that is pretty rare, or well made hide is needed.
Such an odd review and a totally inappropriate title! Your main criticism seems to be the focal length itself, bizarre. All the way through you seem to resent listing all the great features! It’s like you were irritated not to find any decent faults with it...
At a reasonable price point of €6,499, that's relative, as this lens would be a much more accessible proposition with an f/8.
An amazing lens for sure...until you get the 600TC. ;-)
Different beasts, but yes that quite the lens
I have always said from the moment this lens was announced, if I could only have just one lens, this would be the one. But, as you know I am a Canon shooter, my concern has always been the AF of the Z9. I was shocked when you said the Z6 III could not track/focus during BIF when pointing the lens right at the sky be it an overcast day?? Are you kidding me? To me, f/6.3 is more than generous especially for BIF because most people start off with shooting f/6.3 on the Sigma or Tamron 150-600mm f/6.3. I have never had a single problem shooting BIF with f/6.3 on my R5. Seeing the footage of the Z6 III, that tells me its AF especially the tracking is pretty bad. I am sorry, there is just no other way to say it. I hope that doesn't happen on the Z9? I remember when the Z9 was first launched, you have always flagged its AF and tracking as being problematic. That was a few years back, if you tell me now the Z9's AF and tracking are much improved or even fantastic, I would be more than happy to jump ship from Canon to Nikon. I am done waiting for crappy lenses that I don't want from Canon. My last point is on your comment about the 800mm PF being too long saying the 600mm PF is just as good. I disagree because the 600mm PF is only at f/6.3 which is the standard for all 600mm lenses in the market for both zooms and PF primes apart from the true big primes. Meaning the 800mm PF is actually amazing because you have gained 200mm and still be on f/6.3. Comparing to a true big prime 800mm f/5.6 you are only losing 1/3 of a stop, that is unbelievable! This is why I still haven't bought the RF 200-800mm f/6.3-9, 1) as you know I have always hated external zooms and 2) f/9! Is Canon taking the mickey? That is why I love the Nikon 800mm PF so much, super long, sharper than zooms and f/6.3.
I left Canon for Nikon and have no regrets. The Canon claims of unmatched autofocus seem like a huge stretch. In fact I think the af of both the Z8/Z9 are way better than the R5 and on par with the R5 MK2. But Nikon lenses are way better options for wildlife and superior value. No regrets leaving Canon whatsoever!
Wait..wait...
How tall are you? You hold the camera like a toy, jelly 😅
hehe, about 6ft
@@jan_wegener more than 180cm!? Oh my, I will sticking with smaller body then. Although my favourite lens is oldie sigma 150-600mm, it's too cumbersome for longer day shooting.
Anyway, thanks for your answer!
This seems to compete directly with the Canon RF800...
There are 2 RF800mm lens, either end of the price range. This Nikon lens is priced completely different to both canon lenses so it doesn't directly compete with either, the nikon lens has no competition, but I understand what you mean, it's competing against canons 800mm F5.6 which is much more heavy and expensive and only 1/3stop brighter.
@@KurtisPape Exactly; the 800pf has no competition.
The OM System 150-400mm f/4.5 with built in TC is a much better lens, and no plastic elements like this Nikon.
I totally agree.. even the OM-1 mark ii paired with the 300mm f4 + 1,4x tc brings you at 840mm at f5,6 with minimum focus distance of 1,4m. Not to mention the much smaller form and weight factor 👍😊
+ RAW pre-capture at 50 fps. ;) Nikon doesn't have RAW, and even newest Sony A1 is stuck at 30 fps - in this case only A9III can be the leader of C-AF 120 fps but that's still only 24 mpx, and you have limit of 200-600 lens at 840 mm f9.0 light gathering vs 1000 mm f5.6 from Olympus..
But then you have to deal with a small noisy sensor in the Olympus.
@@christophercarlimages9003 Every sensor is noisy.
Untill ISO 3200 every camera can handle it in good lightning.
Most of cameras have visible ISO noise since 4000, and over 6400 is mostly served for Fullframe, BUT there is a key, that you have 1 stop of difference in light gathering in the lens for example 150-400 is 4.5, and 200-600 is f6.3 which makes the same situation in both cameras while it comes to noise, only basing on the aperture. OM-1 would hit ISO 6400, while Sony would hit 12.800 in that scenario. And this ISO is usually not acceptable (to professional usage, other than sport photography) even on full-frame - in dark conditions. Not going deep in technical aspects, physics, SNR and etc.
@@christophercarlimages9003 totally agree with you! Many people only multiply 2 times focal range on Olympus lens and forget that bokeh and iso capability will be 2 stops worse than in FF.