Nikon announces development of 800mm F5.6 VR super-telephoto lens

kk123,

Don't know what "kind" of photographer you are but......"the converter ruins the quality and AF does not work nearly as well as it should with the converter" ??
Hmmm! I have been a wild life photographer for over 30 years and use my 400 2.8 AFS starting with my F5 "a hundred years ago" and switched to the D1 in 2000. I live in the NW and Eagles and Trumpeter Swans are a mainstay and AF works fantastically with both the 1.4 and the 2.0. Sharpness is key and they both work!! Proof is in the end photos! But, each to his own. As for the "follow-up" to the D300, it's the D800 and D800E. You should get one, preferably the 800E, it is pretty awesome with 36megs.

The light gathering capabilities of these latest generation of cameras allow using higher ISO's that negate camera shake to almost nothing and I very often handhold my 400. No other way to get the shots! Okay, it weighs 14 lbs without the camera but then I've built up my muscles over the 15 years I've owned it.

Finally Nikon replies Canon. Why is Nikon so slow? VR came too late, 800mm too late. I sell my 600 VR and by the 800 for sure. And I am still waiting for the D300 follow-up. The good thing with the 800 by the way, is the "light" weigth compared to the magnifying capacity. And a 400 with 2x converter is not an issue. The converter ruins the quality of the photo, and AF does not work nearly as well as it should with converter. Fast AF is a must for a bird photographer.

Many may feel this is too long a focal length and not needed in the Nikon lineup. But for bird photographers, an 800mm Nikkor is a very welcome focal length! Look through one of the most well known avian photographer's work, Arthur Morris (birdsasart.com), and you'll see a HUGE number of his images are shot with the Canon 800mm f5.6IS. The Sigma 800mm f5.6, as well as their 300-800 Zoom, are also popular among birders. Most of them shoot from blinds, their car, or a tripod. So weight is not a limiting factor. I think there's definitely a viable market for this lens. Different folks have different needs...to each their own! I say the more options Nikon gives us Nikon Shooters, the better. Personally, I have the 200-400 and am lusting after the 600 as my next big purchase!

Big Deal! Not really though. I have owned a 400 2.8 AFS for 13 years now. One of my main workhorses and use a 1.4 and 2.0 teleconverter. With the 2.0 converter I end up with an 800 5.6 on my D800E AND I have the flexibility of a 640 F4 and of course the 400 2.8. Why would anybody invest in another $8k lens with no flexibility since above 5.6 autofocus is marginal according to Nikon.

As for them adding VR........Come on folks....starting with the D300 on these cameras gather so much light that VR has become insignificant!! My other workhorse lens is my 1998 80-200 AFS 2.8. I would not trade it for a 70-200 VR I or II...ever!! Ever find an 80-200 AFS 2.8 for sale? Rarely and they go for as much as they did when new. Small wonder nobody wants to give them up.

So buy a 400 2.8 AFS with VR if you're going to spend eight or ten grand for a long lens and another thousand or so for the tele-converters.

Oh, and by the way, with my D800E my 17-35 2.8 AFS negates the need for a 14mm.

To everybody, here is something to read when thinking about a big telephoto-lens : http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/500vs600.shtml

Informative, meaningful yet quite funny as always with the proud Michael Reichmann's analysis.

Just in time for the Olympics.

how much the cost of mortgage..... eh..

So long as it takes 52mm filters.

I shoot DX format Nikon and have not experienced what it is to shoot lenses with this great focal length, however, would not these lenses be the one where you shoot with a remote instead of hitting the camera shutter button?

Even still, the VR is probably handy especially as we are looking at 800mm here. But shooting with pressing the camera trigger is bound to produce at least some sort of shake. Does the VR really sort it out at these extremes?

Imagine this on the V1 2160mm equiv!

Looks excellent and great for pros - probably be similar to pricing of Canon 600 F4 L IS Mk 2 - £11k+...

$10 to 12 Grand for this!

Year and half ago when I was shooting this young bear with a few other "bear photographers" who knew what they were doing at Grand Teton I heard talking about how they are getting the canon 800/5.6 since they find it lighter than the 600/4, etc. One of them said he switched from nikon to canon for the 800/5.6. So you can imagine the need why nikon created this lens. As one other person said, the weight is the key. Can they get it light enough to be comparable to canon and will the VR do enough to reduce blur from clicking the camera.

I shoot a bit with my 500 and 1.4x and even with that I look at live view and see how much the lens vibrates after a tiniest amount of touch or slightest breeze. I like shooing moonset or sunset behind bridges, etc. and for that I've been using heavy sandbag on the lens to reduce the vibration along with a golf umbrella to block any cross breeze that could effect the image.

Unless its weight is lesser than Canon counterpart, Nikon will have to lower the price very much to get market. Canon have been doing exceptionally well to lower the weights of their super teles.

wonder how big the lens hood is.. id imagine that its 1/3 the length of the lens.

For a brief moment two years ago, I really wanted Nikon to come out with this lens. Now I think its moment has passed, certainly for me. It's hard enough getting good images at base ISO with a 600/4, it'll be impossible at f/5.6 with even more magnification. I imagine this lens is purely aimed at the D3s/D4 sports crowd that habitually shoots above ISO 6400. As a low ISO shooter, I appreciate what high ISO has opened up for some folks in recent years, but I regret that specialized gear is increasingly pushing people up the ISO scale regardless of artistic need.

On a proper gimbal mount, the mass of the lens helps with vibration. Should be similar in weight to a 600 f/4. I rather have a 600 f/4 because the 800mm lens can be too long in some cases. f/4 is faster and can be matched up with a quality 1.4x TC for 840mm/5.6

Fine lens! Wish I could afford. The consoldation is that, even with the necessary "toy chest" of cash, I'd not know how to use the lens properly. How in blazes can one find or track a distant subject with an 800mm (1,200mm with cropped sensor) lens? By the time you found the bird, player, or whatzit, it would probably have moved. To "chase" anything with the lens would be a very jerky, hit and miss, affair, unless the trajectory were very predictable. Golf balls, even when hit in a predictable path, are hard to see anyway. The P&S mega zooms allow one to zoom from wide to long.

What great timing... for a lens that requires a corporate budget. So now the photogs can tell their boss that they didn't get that great shot because they didn't have this lens.

There goes my budget right out the window. And the weight budget, too.

Should be a piece of cake for Nikon. I get great shots from my 300mmf2.8VR coupled with the new 2xIII converter mounted on a D300s. Thats an equivalent of 900mm in FF language.

VR? Who would want to hand hold that thing? It belongs on a gimbal head.