Previous news story    Next news story

Nikon 800mm F5.6 at the Olympics - Leon Neal's First Impressions

By dpreview staff on Aug 4, 2012 at 17:36 GMT

British press photographer and dpreview contibutor Leon Neal is at the London Olympics, and has published a short blog post about his experiences using the forthcoming AF-S Nikkor 800mm F5.6. No details of price or availability for the monstrous optic have yet been released, but Neal had the chance to use the as-yet-unavailable lens for two sessions at the Aquatics Center this week. 

Comments

Total comments: 140
Blaufeld
By Blaufeld (Aug 7, 2012)

Today the Olympics are a great ground for useless marketing stunts.
Yawn...

Comment edited 26 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Paul B Jones
By Paul B Jones (Aug 6, 2012)

I am fortunate indeed to own the Canon 800 and it is a great lens. To get that kind of power unmediated by a teleconverter is wonderful. I use it for nature photography, birds mostly, and have even taken to using it hand held for birds in flight.

Okay, point is - this is great news for Nikon shooters that you will now have the opportunity to buy, borrow or rent a really great piece of equipment.

0 upvotes
peevee1
By peevee1 (Aug 6, 2012)

What are these unnatural yellow colors?

3 upvotes
Mike Gerstner
By Mike Gerstner (Aug 7, 2012)

curious about that also.......Nikon color is "One" of the issues that is keeping me from buying the D800.

Comment edited 53 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
joejack951
By joejack951 (Aug 7, 2012)

Are you referring specifically to the crop which does have a bit too much yellow? Do you realize that's a 100% crop from an ISO6400 image taken in awful indoor lighting and not most post processing?

Unless you only want to shoot jpeg and are too lazy to optimize the camera default settings, Nikon vs. Canon color is a non-issue. Both cameras can give the same output with some tweaking.

0 upvotes
briarwoodsman
By briarwoodsman (Aug 7, 2012)

The light is unnatural above and the shadows are lit by unnatural light reflected by water, thus, blue. This situation is not a good test for natural rendering of color. It's all arbitrary and does not fit a standard color model.

0 upvotes
Johnc377
By Johnc377 (Aug 8, 2012)

Looks like someone peed in the pool.

0 upvotes
BJL
By BJL (Aug 6, 2012)

Where is this f/5.6 lens more useful than options like
- 500/4 or 600/4 with 1.4x TC, giving 700/5.6 and 840/5.6
- 400/2.8 with 2x TC, for 800/5.6
- those 500 or 600 f/4 lenses on a DX camera, at half the ISO speed due to being one stop faster than this f/5.6 lens
- 400/2.8 + 1.4x TC on DX format, for 560/4 and again needing only half the ISO speed of this f/5.6 lens.

All those alternatives probably save money, and are more flexible with their options of somewhat wider angle of coverage when 800mm is too extremely narrow.

The only answer I see is that Nikon no longer makes a high end, high frame rate, highly rugger pro style body in DX format.

2 upvotes
joejack951
By joejack951 (Aug 6, 2012)

Presumably the image quality and VR are improved on a made-for-purpose lens rather than an adapted lens (telephoto plus teleconverter combo). If that were not the case, why do Canon and Nikon offer both a 200 f/2 lens and a 300 f/2.8 lens when the 200 f/2 plus a 1.4x TC yields basically the same thing?

Regarding flexibility, it's easier to grab a second body with a shorter lens mounted than it is to remove a teleconverter.

As far as using DX cameras, FX cameras have always held greater than a one stop ISO advantage over DX cameras from the same generation. Coupled with the speed advantage of the FX cameras, it's an easy choice when cost and portability are not factors in the decision.

0 upvotes
Dave Peters
By Dave Peters (Aug 7, 2012)

I dont know a lot about the Nikon system but with the Canon, there is a focus speed penalty with the converters. The other thing is that once you get above 1.4x the image penalty is great (with 2x or stacked 1.4x). So with 800mm you can get excellent 1120mm with the 1.4x but with 600mm your maximum with great image quality is 840mm. The latest Canon bodies cant focus at f8 though so I would no longer consider their 800 over the 600 (if I didnt already have the 800). This new Nikon gives me a possible option to switch from Canon in the future if there is no suitable body when I want to upgrade.

0 upvotes
///M
By ///M (Aug 6, 2012)

an 800 f/5.6 is new for Nikon? I used one 4 years ago from Canon, it's a great optic, was able to get sharp shots handheld at 1/125sec with the IS... and it's not as heavy as a 400 f/2.8, maybe like a 500 f/4 in weight and size.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Cy Cheze
By Cy Cheze (Aug 6, 2012)

How does one work with an 800mm lens? It would seem to be difficult to scout or frame an optimum shot, unless you knew exactly where something would happen. Or does one take burst shots as the athletes pass, then crop to pick whatever luck has rendered worthy? Perhaps, if allowed to stand near the end of a pool, one could pick a particular lane and frame multiple shots of a breastroker on the return lap. Birds or ballplayers may alight or dart less predicably.

However, the pro still enjoys an advantage of access to premium viewpoints.

0 upvotes
Cy Cheze
By Cy Cheze (Aug 6, 2012)

People scoff at the P&S mega zooms, but at least you can "close in" on something interesting, going from 28mm to perhaps 600mm or more equivalent, with a single lens. If the latest Panasonic can do this and retain f/2.8 all the way, it might be a practical and affordable substitute, as well as comply with the 35mm limit on entry to the London 2012 venues. Such a "toy" might also help prevent the appearance of a crime page headline, such as "Mum Bludgeons Spendthrift Duddy with $25k Extravagance."

0 upvotes
Thorbard
By Thorbard (Aug 6, 2012)

Tracking is a key part of working with long focal length lenses, just as with 200mm or 300mm lenses at an airshow. Additionally it may be possible to sight down the length of the lens and aim over the top. Pro quality autofocus helps a great deal and of course framerate allows the selection of the very best moment.

0 upvotes
kelpdiver
By kelpdiver (Aug 7, 2012)

Cy - the megazoom can do this, but with the horrible EVs most of them come with, you cease being able to tell what you're pointing at when the zoom gets past 400. Very frustrating in the sun.

0 upvotes
Hugowolf
By Hugowolf (Aug 7, 2012)

"as well as comply with the 35mm limit on entry to the London 2012".
That would be 30 cm. Even the Canon 40 mm f/2.8 pancake is 23 mm.

0 upvotes
Jon Rista
By Jon Rista (Aug 9, 2012)

@Cy: To frame, you keep both eyes open, one through the lens, one down the lens from the outside. It takes a little while to train yourself to see that way, but once you learn, its not difficult to shift focus from one eye to the other, or even see through both simultaneously (nothing is really in focus, but objects are visible and clear enough). I do this with bird in flight photography to track in on a bird that is already flying. Its certainly easier if you have a larger, more forgiving frame, but with skill and technique you could track in and maintain tracking on a moving subject by sighting with both eyes and a long lens like an 800mm.

Comment edited 52 seconds after posting
1 upvote
xmeda
By xmeda (Aug 6, 2012)

Comparison with 800mm sigma pls

0 upvotes
nawknai
By nawknai (Aug 6, 2012)

It costs nothing to be nice, or at the very least, respectful.

But hey, this is the internet. Everyone's a pro.

12 upvotes
kodachromeguy
By kodachromeguy (Aug 5, 2012)

A few of you old-timers may remember the Leitz R 800mm f6.3 Apo-Telyt-S lens. It was introduced for the 1972 Olympics. This thing really was monstrous because it was and was not a telephoto design but rather a long focus lens (it was 0.8 m long). It was available as a R mount lens and a V mount for the Visoflex. Can you imagine using it with a M camera? Possibly Leitz had already envisioned the M5, with its through-the-lens CDS cell. Also, as I recall, at one stage the 800 cost $30,000.

2 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (Aug 6, 2012)

I used one and it was excellent--a true apochromat. I had to turn the lens back in but I still have the aluminum case somewhere. Proabably worth something with Leitz on it.

0 upvotes
toomanycanons
By toomanycanons (Aug 5, 2012)

How dare this guy shoot with a D4 at the Olympics instead of an iPhone or a Panasonic G5.

7 upvotes
aris14
By aris14 (Aug 8, 2012)

Pana G5? What a waste of gear... Even FZ150/200 with or w/o an 1.7 tele adapter can produce better images than any cams 10 or 12 years ago using film which had to be scanned etc etc etc...
For what? To be printed in a newspaper's cover on newsprint yellowish-beige paper?

0 upvotes
mandm
By mandm (Aug 5, 2012)

Cheaper way to get a 1200mm with AF for the few times needed is put the 800mm on a D4 with a 1.4x and you have a 1200mm f8.0 and still have Auto Focus.

0 upvotes
delastro
By delastro (Aug 6, 2012)

Nikon V1 with 70-300, 300 x 2,7 = 810

0 upvotes
Petka
By Petka (Aug 5, 2012)

So? F:5.6 800 is a reasonably fast long focal length lens. In a place like olympics those are often needed as the photographers are not allowed to run around freely. It works as it should. There is nothing else to it. No news worth reporting.

Monstrous optic? Same as 400mm F:2.8 with 2X extender, what is monstrous about that?

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
larrytusaz
By larrytusaz (Aug 5, 2012)

Well now THAT'S more like it. The images may not be as absolutely superb as is humanly possibly, but still, to get good photos, you need good gear. It's heavy, it's huge, it's expensive, & gear alone does not guarantee superb results--but hey, the better your gear, the better chance you have to get of getting them. Pros went crazy over the D3 and D3s's for a reason--a big one being the high ISO performance for such existing light conditions. You don't bring a knife to a gunfight at something like the Olympics.

That said, I am wondering if something like a Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR would be better. I have never photographed at something like the Olympics but it would seem 200mm would provide good reach from the sidelines, and certainly f/2.8 would help a lot vs f/5.6. Nevertheless, it sure beats using a smartphone at something as "high profile" and only every 4 years as this.

0 upvotes
thinkfat
By thinkfat (Aug 6, 2012)

Pretty sure nobody were burdening themselves with 800mm focal length and put up with the lack of flexibility and the weight if a position closer to the action was an option. It's a tool you choose when you exhausted other options to no avail.

0 upvotes
What do I know
By What do I know (Aug 5, 2012)

Pictures are good for the high ISO and F5.6 in my opinion not that I will ever need or want a lens like this or ever have the $$$ to buy one
The Sigma 800mm F5.6 is about $9000 I would think Nikon will add a few more $ to that price just because it's Nikon

Comment edited 49 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
brendon1000
By brendon1000 (Aug 6, 2012)

There are quite a few good Sigma lenses but the Sigma 800mm f5.6 is not one of them. The results from the Sigma 800mm are sub par compared to the Canon 800mm. So its expected Nikon will charge more than the Sigma.

1 upvote
Maji
By Maji (Aug 6, 2012)

Nikonrumors is reporting that the lens is priced around $10,200 at a Swiss online store.

0 upvotes
JohnyP
By JohnyP (Aug 5, 2012)

"Mindlessly troll"

I'm sorry, but it would have been a lot better if there was something actually newsworthy here considering what role DPreview is playing in camera gear reviews.

The article about the lens not that interesting and the photos are not that spectacular either. I'm sure there were better ones, so why present the not so good ones?

1 upvote
mpgxsvcd
By mpgxsvcd (Aug 5, 2012)

I use a telescope with similiar specs. You wouldn't want to hand hold that though.

4 upvotes
MediaDigitalVideo
By MediaDigitalVideo (Aug 5, 2012)

Bresser Messier R-152S

0 upvotes
ryansholl
By ryansholl (Aug 6, 2012)

Yeah but the AF is TERRIBLE

2 upvotes
Ashley Pomeroy
By Ashley Pomeroy (Aug 5, 2012)

I'm actually amazed he wasn't shot dead by the police the moment he walked out of the building - that thing looks like an anti-tank weapon.

3 upvotes
MediaDigitalVideo
By MediaDigitalVideo (Aug 5, 2012)

Like in the Jackhal (Bruce Willis toy)

0 upvotes
guyfawkes
By guyfawkes (Aug 6, 2012)

Ashley, here in the UK we have the only Police Force which is not routinely armed, that may explain it! :-)

More likely some local government official would have served a Prohibition notice on his employer on Health and Safety grounds - he's likely to do himself a permanent injury!

0 upvotes
Peter 13
By Peter 13 (Aug 5, 2012)

Agree. F 5/6 for shooting sports (indoors) is too slow. Since you are not going to get a faster 800mm lens, just use a shorter and a faster one.

0 upvotes
JordanAT
By JordanAT (Aug 6, 2012)

That, of course, depends on whether you have a useful ISO 25,600 setting on your camera.

1 upvote
Superka
By Superka (Aug 5, 2012)

this lens is for small birds, not for shooting sport. Just come closer!

0 upvotes
AmateurSnaps
By AmateurSnaps (Aug 5, 2012)

I think its time dpreview removed the comments section as they no longer serve a purpose, other then to attract the resident trolls from the forums.

14 upvotes
LWW
By LWW (Aug 5, 2012)

Not to your liking?
Read and weep!

4 upvotes
mister_roboto
By mister_roboto (Aug 6, 2012)

I know right? Even when they post their reactions to comments- they can't help but be sarcastic to trolls. Throw in anything that has to do with a µ4/3 sensor and expect 1000 posts of back and forth bickering over nothing.

0 upvotes
photoguy622
By photoguy622 (Aug 6, 2012)

I actually enjoy the comments section. I've learned some new facts and gained perspectives I didn't have before.

As for the ignorant and the trolls, I just skip them.

2 upvotes
Dougbm_2
By Dougbm_2 (Aug 5, 2012)

More impressed with Dan Chungs iPhone images!!

2 upvotes
LWW
By LWW (Aug 5, 2012)

How funny, I thought for a moment I had stumble upon the comments from the Panasonic G5 at the Olympics news thread! attractors and detractors in abundance and sparring! Good stuff

1 upvote
Jimmy541
By Jimmy541 (Aug 5, 2012)

good quality of pic

0 upvotes
Ramjager
By Ramjager (Aug 5, 2012)

Well apart from being 4 years behind the competition it looks nice..

2 upvotes
rajivp
By rajivp (Aug 5, 2012)

We eagerly look forward to the lens that you have invented 4 years after...

1 upvote
Dave Peters
By Dave Peters (Aug 5, 2012)

Well its a bit later than the Canon but at least Nikon have current f8 focus bodies whilst Canon have abandoned them. If you can't AF at f8 then you may as well have a 600 f4 and 1.4x and gain flexibility. Also dont forget that Canon are behind Nikon with the 200-400 f4 so its swings and roundabouts really.

2 upvotes
Peter Mackey
By Peter Mackey (Aug 5, 2012)

A very nice post and thank you for showing images from a lens that most can only dream of owning.
I am becoming more and more disillusioned by subscribers who rush to rubbish almost anything that is new and which in all likelyhood they actually dont know a lot about.
Civilised behaviour costs nothing

16 upvotes
rajivp
By rajivp (Aug 5, 2012)

Very true, the type of senseless comments some subscribers post is to be seen as a momentary lapse of reason. Neither have they tried one or they can't afford one...

8 upvotes
unknown member
By (unknown member) (Aug 5, 2012)

A lot of bitter people with a computer and time on their hands, no where to go, nothing to do, life is passing by quickly, with no promise of getting better.

9 upvotes
chikstarws
By chikstarws (Aug 5, 2012)

hahaha!

0 upvotes
Camediadude
By Camediadude (Aug 5, 2012)

To fully see the picture of the lens on my 1200 x 800 screen I have to scroll scroll scroll, lol ... It would be fun just to try to wield that thing, to see what it is like for hand-held hehe. But I'd definitely be scared of dropping it yikes! (you break it, you buy it!)

4 upvotes
Nightwings
By Nightwings (Aug 5, 2012)

Excellent article - Thanks DPR.

The 100% crop of the lady in the stands looks amazing all things considered.

I wonder what a P510 shot at full FL (1000mm) would have looked like compared to that. :)

4 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Aug 5, 2012)

Hey, DPReview, was this shot raw? Because colour and noise aint good. (Yep, I've used a D4). Yes I saw the note about no noise reduction, but who cares? Looks like a jpeg.

0 upvotes
jorg14
By jorg14 (Aug 5, 2012)

Typical knee jerk amateur response.

21 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Aug 5, 2012)

jorg14:

Why? Sure looks like a high noise jpeg. You've made an unsupported assertion.

Support your claims or retract them, today.

0 upvotes
rajivp
By rajivp (Aug 5, 2012)

Oh My God is this you??? we will retract our comments...happy??

2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Aug 5, 2012)

rajivp:

No I just want to know exactly why my point about big noise problems and odd colour is some how "knee jerk amateur".

Such unsupported claims are the mark of amateur being used in the negative sense.

See I don't automatically see pictures shot with an incredible body and a very big telephoto lens as good photos.

0 upvotes
gsum
By gsum (Aug 6, 2012)

It probably looks like a jpeg because it *is* a jpeg.

2 upvotes
MediaDigitalVideo
By MediaDigitalVideo (Aug 5, 2012)

Sorry to say but I've seen better pictures than this. Any underwater pictures from the begining (fist seconds when swimmer gets into the waterpool after jumping from divingplatform). The only thing I see is that there is no progress in sportsphotography.

1 upvote
Manfred Bachmann
By Manfred Bachmann (Aug 5, 2012)

Make it better

12 upvotes
MediaDigitalVideo
By MediaDigitalVideo (Aug 12, 2012)

I did between 2003-2006. This is what I like : https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150962508667408&set=a.375949132407.158882.259479457407&type=1&theater

0 upvotes
BaconBit
By BaconBit (Aug 4, 2012)

Nice shots, really show off what this lens can do. Would love to have this kind of zoom available to me.

0 upvotes
dad_of_four
By dad_of_four (Aug 5, 2012)

Not to be pedantic, but technically this is a telephoto lens, vs. a zoom lens, since the focal length is fixed at 800mm

0 upvotes
Jogger
By Jogger (Aug 4, 2012)

How does this compare with the iPhone binocular photos????

6 upvotes
FTW
By FTW (Aug 4, 2012)

Well, it are good and clean pictures, but at 600$ for the place at the Olympics and an estimated ( I put the bar low) 12000$ for the lens, the pictures can be good. There is not much more stuff in an 800 mm lens than in a 300, so what makes the price of it then. You might say the low amount sold. But, if it is at reasonable price, they will sell more too. On the other end, just a few need that and many would like to have it, but can't afford it. If all on this planet was worth the price you pay for ....

0 upvotes
misolo
By misolo (Aug 5, 2012)

"There is not much more stuff in an 800 mm lens than in a 300, so what makes the price of it then." The answer is much tighter tolerances in the glass polishing, in the coating thickness, and in the alignment in assembly. With the tolerances needed for an 800mm to be pixel-level sharp on the D4's 16MP, a 300mm would be pixel-level sharp on a sensor with 114MP.

2 upvotes
shootitnow
By shootitnow (Aug 21, 2012)

As well in that these lenses are hand assembled and meet more tighter tolerances than a Nikkor DX lens, also the cost of Optical glass and coating procedures are not like just going down to your local glass supplier and buying a chunk of glass and grinding the correct contours, every lens has to meet specific quality control checks and inspections, the housing must be machined true and square to very tight specs, and this doesn't happen on a production line scale, I think Nikon, Canon have done very well in these monster telephoto lenses in quality and performance, and it takes years to develop the optics and to produce the outcome of the glass quality, if was that easy then why isn't everyone making them? and if anyone thinks it is easy then I welcome all the critiques to invest there Millions to invest in the property, building and machinery and employees to operate them and support them and lets not for get the side money you have to invest in having a business to make it.

0 upvotes
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (Aug 4, 2012)

To everyone who thinks its appropriate to mindlessly troll, have some respect. If you don't have anything constructive to say, don't say anything. It's appalling how rude some of the comments are on this page.

36 upvotes
BaconBit
By BaconBit (Aug 4, 2012)

It seems almost every article is met with the same brainless rants about how the watermarks are so horrible, followed by someone leading that into insults of the photographer and the image quality. I'm sick of it. For every positive comment it feels like there's three that are insulting and condescending.

6 upvotes
mandophoto
By mandophoto (Aug 5, 2012)

My hat's off to the folks at DPreview. They have the patience and equanimity of saints. Really.

12 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Aug 5, 2012)

BaconBit:

So there are big image quality problems, if that's an insult, that be problem.

0 upvotes
AlanJones
By AlanJones (Aug 5, 2012)

I just wonder why some people on this forum who know so much don't have their own photography review site.I guess it is so much easier to criticize someone else who informs and shares their knowledge.

Keep up the great work dpreview!

9 upvotes
manalyzo
By manalyzo (Aug 5, 2012)

Completely agree. Unfortunately it's often the most idiotic halfwits who really love to share their own stupidity with everyone.
"This lens and everything sucks, I'm gonna buy something else blah blah.."
Kudos to the dpreview staff for your hard work and patience.

8 upvotes
Takahashi
By Takahashi (Aug 5, 2012)

HowaboutRAW : "So there are big image quality problems"

What problems? Please, do elaborate, and tell us how you've come to this conclusion from that very limited test / review.

3 upvotes
ashwins
By ashwins (Aug 5, 2012)

Thank you, Barney! I really would like to see these kind of inputs more often from the DPR because—as seen sooo many times—there's way too many immature morons on this forum whose mission is just to contaminate the discussion with their inner anger and negativity.

3 upvotes
Seagull TLR
By Seagull TLR (Aug 5, 2012)

<It's appalling how rude some of the comments are on this page.> The sad thing is it does not just happen on this page...

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Aug 5, 2012)

Takahashi:

You are absolutely correct, this is a limited set of examples and we really can't draw many conclusions about the lens from them.

However there are noise problems, and some odd compensation problems--but those don't tell me much about the lens. (There's also the possibility that the noise is caused by the photographer shooting above ISO20,000.)

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
glastoria
By glastoria (Aug 5, 2012)

Why don't you introduce a "Dislike" button? Not for the articles, which are most of the time interesting, but for the "rude comments"...

1 upvote
Scrozzy
By Scrozzy (Aug 5, 2012)

You do know how the internet works, right?

Unfortunately when you mix faceless-internet-anonymity and lackluster moderation, you end up with DPReview. Your own stance is what's allowed DPReview to spiral into a cesspit of animosity and anti-community.

PS
I agree with your comment! Morons!

0 upvotes
Michael Foran
By Michael Foran (Aug 6, 2012)

Hear, hear. And I hope people understand the "constructive" part of this comment. It's not inappropriate to crit the photo, but if you are going to tear it down, do it for solid reasons. Look at the photo. Look at the photo settings. Make a constructive critique. I don't like forums where every comment is "great shot!" but I also dislike the shallow insults that pass for criticism around here. And "hey, it's the internet" isn't an excuse.

0 upvotes
CameraLabTester
By CameraLabTester (Aug 4, 2012)

The Olympic actions are so predictable. Too easy.

The lens should have more challenge.

.

2 upvotes
BaconBit
By BaconBit (Aug 4, 2012)

If you think that these conditions are anything even close to ideal, then you have never shot anything under these types of conditions.

The shots are good shots, and the lens is a good lens. Quit being a jerk.

8 upvotes
CameraLabTester
By CameraLabTester (Aug 4, 2012)

Yes,the shots are good shots... to you.

Who said the lens isn't good? It's a fine lens that should have a more higher challenge than a swimming pool frolic...

Now take two aspirins and come back in the morning.

.

2 upvotes
BaconBit
By BaconBit (Aug 4, 2012)

I didn't say anyone said the lens isn't good. I said that you're a jerk, and that's still accurate. All you have done on this comment page is come in and insult the photographer and the images. "Too easy." "Mediocre images". "The shots are good shots... to you." Nothing you have said is positive or at least constructive. The best you've done is suggest that this lens needs "a more higher challenge".

7 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Aug 5, 2012)

CameraLabTester:

"frolic"? Get out of the lab.

3 upvotes
JohnyP
By JohnyP (Aug 4, 2012)

Really.... a watermark in the center of all images?

Anyone wants to steal and sell the image above to an art gallery? I bet it will fetch big money....

5 upvotes
CameraLabTester
By CameraLabTester (Aug 4, 2012)

There are photographers who love their names so much they have to remind you in every picture.

It somewhat distracts you from the mediocre images.

.

5 upvotes
BaconBit
By BaconBit (Aug 4, 2012)

Are your eyes so precious that they can't deal with a watermark? Give me a break.

9 upvotes
Mescalamba
By Mescalamba (Aug 4, 2012)

I dont think so, but seriously, who would steal that.. :/ Some ppl should take a step back from that incredible amount of selfadoration..

2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Aug 5, 2012)

CameraLabTester:

There are photographers who don't want the images republished without compensation and/or credit.

(Say like the second biggest deal US newspaper.)

3 upvotes
John P.
By John P. (Aug 4, 2012)

This lens is for the nature photographer...plain and simple!!

1 upvote
jon404
By jon404 (Aug 4, 2012)

Could've just jumped in the pool with a little Olympus TG-1. For that matter, why not just put small cameras in the swimmers' caps?

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Aug 5, 2012)

Drag.

0 upvotes
misolo
By misolo (Aug 5, 2012)

The swim goggles would be a better place for that.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Aug 5, 2012)

misolo:

Interesting idea, but it's going to be ten or twenty years before the camera can be that small and light and still record (or transmit) really high quality images while not interfering with the actual swimming of the athlete.

0 upvotes
aaaja
By aaaja (Aug 4, 2012)

looks uuugly... i mean the lens... but it is a tool and some have to work with ugly tools, some wth pretty ones ... ;-) In tis days i would assume things could be designed differently? i do agree - i have no clue of what it takes to 'inner' design a lense...

the pictures are just the way they are... not much magic in them. maybe because of high iso? maybe because it was just some test shots.

maybe the fun and the elegance in 'olympic' sport is gone... only pain, and suffering?

Comment edited 27 seconds after posting
1 upvote
shaocaholica
By shaocaholica (Aug 4, 2012)

Super telephoto lenses are mostly used to document things. Not much 'magic' needed.

0 upvotes
Mescalamba
By Mescalamba (Aug 4, 2012)

Well its not Leica. :D I agree it might looked bit better.. (sorta like old AIS telephotos).

Olympic sport is part politics, part money.. no fun or elegance needed or used. As pretty much most top sport today, just money.

I guess that ISO was simply must, cause its f5.6 lens. Maybe using D800 and some noise polishing would be actually better idea. D4 is great camera, but suprisingly those 36 mpix with some treatment and resize can do a lot too. Plus its better for testing such lens. :)

But I guess pro like this one cant be convinced to use it..

0 upvotes
Apewithacamera
By Apewithacamera (Aug 4, 2012)

The D800 is waytoo slow in the FPS/buffer department for such fast action photos.

1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (Aug 4, 2012)

Swimming is fast action sports? lol. A D800 would be fine for this event, a D4 better.

As far as the images, I don't know what people expect to see in 9 web-sized images. They don't look noisy at all and the lens looks like another winner from Nikon. A gorgeous lens, but likely out of reach to buy and not likely to be seen at rental houses, but I could be wrong.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Mescalamba
By Mescalamba (Aug 4, 2012)

Im pretty sure certain LensRental will have them ASAP. :) But yes, it will be like Ferrari. Most can just dream..

0 upvotes
Tim Ashton
By Tim Ashton (Aug 5, 2012)

Sure a D4/D1x has to improve ones chance of nailing the money shot but I and many other remember when we relied on watching predicting and timing to get what we sought
Andy rouse makes a similar comment on his blog site

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Aug 5, 2012)

Tim Ashton:

Get back to me when those "watching and predicting" shots could readily be printed at say 12" by 18".

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Aug 5, 2012)

Mescalamba:

Too bad the D800 is not useable over ISO 3200. Giant bands in shadows. Those monsters make noise easy.

0 upvotes
Robert Soderlund
By Robert Soderlund (Aug 4, 2012)

The shot presented here has no sports value in my book whatsoever, it simply shows the extreme performance of the lens, which is probably suited more to nature photography.

The expression on the face of this swimmer in that specific time tells us nothing of how he feels, yet there are some that insist on "faking" sportsmens expressions way too often, slow motion for example since the 80's showing how runners pant and how loose their facial skin is. Its all fine for fooling around, but in the end, dont we want to see the sportsman doing what he does, and not how many centimeters of water comes into his mouth at a given occasion?

Do we photographers try to make ourselves differ from others by this? Is it not the idea of photography to capture what actually happens?

1 upvote
RickWheelock
By RickWheelock (Aug 4, 2012)

You didn't read the article did you? It's a 100% crop that is here only to show how the lens performed.

Try reading before going on a silly rant.

16 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Aug 5, 2012)

Robert Soderlund:

Yep: A photo of "'faking'".

0 upvotes
Robert Soderlund
By Robert Soderlund (Aug 5, 2012)

HowaboutRAW:

No you have misunderstood, its not a photo of faking, please read my comment fully before stating "faking" out of context.

0 upvotes
Tape5
By Tape5 (Aug 4, 2012)

The problem with an 800mm lens is that whatever pretty subject or scene you point it at, it only shows ugliness or irrelevance. It is too unpoetically close, contrived and a bit too optical. It shows a field of view so narrow and sharp where we lack emotional tools to decipher the composition. There is a shift from creating a frame to documenting an incidental frame. For me, ideally, one should lift a camera to document what the mind has seen already and the mind never sees anything at this focal length.

A lot of pro photographers will love it though.

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Aug 5, 2012)

Try using the lens before making such claims.

1 upvote
RPJG
By RPJG (Aug 5, 2012)

That's a very narrow point of view, Tape5.

2 upvotes
Oery
By Oery (Aug 4, 2012)

does it come in white ?
;)

2 upvotes
JadedGamer
By JadedGamer (Aug 4, 2012)

Its only match, the "Sigzilla", is green... :)

0 upvotes
whoodle
By whoodle (Aug 4, 2012)

"Only match"?

You mean BESIDES the Canon 800 5.6 that's been on the market for...god knows how long? You know...the one where there are undoubtedly 6-20, or more, examples floating around the olympics, not just one?

5 upvotes
JadedGamer
By JadedGamer (Aug 5, 2012)

And how many Nikon shooters want to use Canon glass? Is there even a proper Canon-to-Nikon adapter out there?

0 upvotes
Peiasdf
By Peiasdf (Aug 4, 2012)

So.... how much?

0 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Aug 5, 2012)

Well the 1200mm Canon is what 12,000usd.

1 upvote
Zerg2905
By Zerg2905 (Aug 5, 2012)

The 1200 mm Canon is 100k+ USD, mate. Cheers! :)

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Aug 5, 2012)

Zerg2905:

Okay, but I don't think they're really for sale.

0 upvotes
Apewithacamera
By Apewithacamera (Aug 4, 2012)

Just imagine how hot that lens will get outdoors under the sun. Yeeeouch!

3 upvotes
MarkByland
By MarkByland (Aug 4, 2012)

... and what that does to optical stability.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Aug 4, 2012)

Is that when you get your best images, in the blazing hot sun?

And do you think painting metal white really makes a significant difference? My 400 5.6 L used to get as hot as any other lens I've had.

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Aug 5, 2012)

marike6:

Thinking the point was about bending tubes not touch.

0 upvotes
Takahashi
By Takahashi (Aug 5, 2012)

marike6 : "And do you think painting metal white really makes a significant difference?"

Seriously? Are you really asking this question? It's basic physics. Want to know how the heat turbulence varies between the two without placing sensors inside a lens? Sit inside a black car with the windows up and no aircon for "X" amount of time in direct sunlight, then do the same in a white car. There's your answer.

5 upvotes
shootitnow
By shootitnow (Aug 21, 2012)

Actually both Canon and Nikon have done studies on molecular shifting of the materials used under extreme temp change and that's one reason they are made out of a high tech alloy where steel would change shape to much just in 30 degree F differences but the change in these alloys are so subtle in 100 degree changes that image quality is not a concern and you should acclimate any lens to the temp changes gradually before using it for long periods of time and if your out doors shooting it will adapt with changing temps.

0 upvotes
ThePhilips
By ThePhilips (Aug 4, 2012)

Quote:
> The light in the pool area isn't great and as the lens is f5.6, I'm shooting at between 4000 and 6400ISO to get these shots at around 1250th/sec and 1600th/sec.

Oh my.

The lens is [beep] enormous. Smaller sensor could have helped with the lens size, yet sadly usable ISO 6400 is still out of the reach. I gather that only recently announced Nikons (D4, D800) actually capable of making a use of such lens.

1 upvote
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Aug 5, 2012)

Full frame is new to you? Canon 5D? Nikon D3?

Anything stopping you from putting this now 1200mm lens on a D7000 or D300s?

Full frame and fewer pixels sure help with higher ISOs like 12000ASA. And that high ISO number allows for faster shutter speeds with an "only" 5.6 lens--kinda important for indoor sports shooting with this lens.

0 upvotes
qwertyasdf
By qwertyasdf (Aug 4, 2012)

Disturbing picture =\

1 upvote
qwertyasdf
By qwertyasdf (Aug 4, 2012)

Mount it on a V1, I want to count the number of hairs inside his nostril

2 upvotes
zorgon
By zorgon (Aug 4, 2012)

Looks like me attempting to do plumbing.

2 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Aug 5, 2012)

zorgon:

Handling hot lead? Or projection?

0 upvotes
tongki
By tongki (Aug 4, 2012)

Now that's a TELE !

am I right or am I right ? :D

Comment edited 10 seconds after posting
4 upvotes
farrukh
By farrukh (Aug 4, 2012)

Now that's a zoom!

0 upvotes
pixelless
By pixelless (Aug 4, 2012)

There is no zoom. It´s a prime lens!

5 upvotes
farrukh
By farrukh (Aug 4, 2012)

Whoops, I meant to say that's rather close!

3 upvotes
Total comments: 140