Test Nikon 800 mm

[Zvonko]

Grevture wrote:

Zvonko wrote:

Grevture wrote:

Zvonko wrote:

In the same page on the OP hyperlink there's a comparison between the D4 & 1Dx which at the end says that there is NO COMPARISON. So the Canon 800 5.6 and the 1Dx will surely get great results and I get a free camera if I want to look at it that way.

Ehh ... What? There is indeed a comparison of the D4 and the 1DX on Fotosidan, but you seem either not to have read it, or in case you have, not understood it. And nowhere in it, it mentions 800 mm telephoto lenses.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every moment of it!
By the way, film is not dead.
It just smell funny

NO Gary, now get off my case!

In the comparison at the end in the final few words (down the bottom) the article reads clearly that they are very similar in terms of performance. I don't need it to say anything about any lens. The reviewer of both cameras obviously liked both cameras. That's it.

But what you wrote there was (and I quote) "NO COMPARISON", which usually means there is a clear or obvious difference. And as you now point out, the test concludes there are mostly small and not very significant differences between the cameras.

I am still a bit confused how this was relevant to the price of the AF-S 800 lens?

And who is Gary?

--
-----------------------------------------------------------
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every moment of it!
By the way, film is not dead.
It just smell funny

Gary (couple posts up)... my bad, sorry about that.

no comparison... I meant nothing there to compare, they might as well be the same because they almost are is the way I read it.

I had a look at the article again... I can still only see "a hundred and something thousand EURO" still can't see 18K. If I could see 18K I wouldn't have asked the question.

After that I was just pointing out other prices of comparable lenses. That's it.

 

[wasserball]

I like pies.

 

[Grevture]

Zvonko wrote:

Grevture wrote:

Zvonko wrote:

Grevture wrote:

Zvonko wrote:

In the same page on the OP hyperlink there's a comparison between the D4 & 1Dx which at the end says that there is NO COMPARISON. So the Canon 800 5.6 and the 1Dx will surely get great results and I get a free camera if I want to look at it that way.

Ehh ... What? There is indeed a comparison of the D4 and the 1DX on Fotosidan, but you seem either not to have read it, or in case you have, not understood it. And nowhere in it, it mentions 800 mm telephoto lenses.

 

[Zvonko]

Grevture wrote:

Zvonko wrote:

Grevture wrote:

Zvonko wrote:

Grevture wrote:

Zvonko wrote:

In the same page on the OP hyperlink there's a comparison between the D4 & 1Dx which at the end says that there is NO COMPARISON. So the Canon 800 5.6 and the 1Dx will surely get great results and I get a free camera if I want to look at it that way.

Ehh ... What? There is indeed a comparison of the D4 and the 1DX on Fotosidan, but you seem either not to have read it, or in case you have, not understood it. And nowhere in it, it mentions 800 mm telephoto lenses.

 

[JimPearce]

I have the 500 f4 for flexibility, adding an 800 f5.6 likely makes more sense than a 600 f4. But even though I can get one for $16,500 here in Canada I don't think this is a sustainable price. I don't mind the depreciation on an expensive supertelelphoto lens - my 500 f4 has depreciated at 3-4% per year. What I don't want to do is absorb an additional sucker premium of $1500 to $2500.

 

[Grevture]

JimPearce wrote:

I have the 500 f4 for flexibility, adding an 800 f5.6 likely makes more sense than a 600 f4. But even though I can get one for $16,500 here in Canada I don't think this is a sustainable price. I don't mind the depreciation on an expensive supertelelphoto lens - my 500 f4 has depreciated at 3-4% per year. What I don't want to do is absorb an additional sucker premium of $1500 to $2500.

I think your train of thought will in time become, if not common, but at least widespread among serious bird/animal shooters with a 500/4. A 600/4 is just not that much of a difference in reach, which makes the 800 (with its TC800) a more appealing option.

As a part of the test linked to by the OP, I spent a day with a very active bird photographer currently (and since a few years) shooting with 500/4. He was genuinely surprised how small the difference in terms of overall handling and subject tracking was compared with the 500/4. Mounted on a Wimberly, it basically just feels like a 500 with additional reach. For him it seem the 600 is now even less of a upgrade option then it used to be.

I believe the price of the 800 will start to drop somewhat once Nikon and stores are done selling to all those who either don't mind the sucker premium or just don't have a choice. Also keep in mind, there is always a certain (small but still noticeable) group of customers, where a very high price is in itself a reason to buy ... Nikon would be silly not to use that to their advantage.

Hopefully we will in a year or two see a price (in today's money) of something like $15000-16000.

For me who shoot mostly sports, a a 600/4 would actually be a higher priority then a 800/5,6, but that is largely because a maximum aperture of f4 is much more viable indoors then f5.6. And outdoors I could use a TC and still be fairly happy with the quality. But for many birders, animal photographers and sport shooters with a strong focus on large field sports ... The 800 sure is a sweet proposition.

 

[Mikael Risedal]

Zvonko wrote:

Mikael Risedal wrote:

Zvonko wrote:

second hand Canon 800 5.6 is about 10K

and??????????????????????

 

[Yxa]

Zvonko wrote:

Mikael Risedal wrote:

Zvonko wrote:

second hand Canon 800 5.6 is about 10K

and??????????????????????

 

[Yxa]

Yxa wrote:

Zvonko wrote:

Mikael Risedal wrote:

Zvonko wrote:

second hand Canon 800 5.6 is about 10K

and??????????????????????

 

[Grevture]

Yxa wrote:

Yxa wrote:

Zvonko wrote:

Mikael Risedal wrote:

Zvonko wrote:

second hand Canon 800 5.6 is about 10K

and??????????????????????

--
Member of Swedish Photographers Association since 1984
Canon, Hasselblad, Leica,Nikon, Linhoff, Sinar
Member of International anti-banding and read out noise Association

anyone stuck on brand should open their eyes a little. It's not at all competitively priced is it!. I can buy a new Canon lens for 14K. It's just as good. Using it on my 1D4 multiplies it 1.3 crop factor. Just an observation. ????????????????????????? to you too.

The article says 114,000 or 147,000 euro. Another poster pointed out that it should be 18K in reality. Now that's not so out of reach.

We said no to euros in a election (thankfully) and we have kronor, SEK in Sweden

1 USD= 6.5 SEK

1 GBP = 10 SEK

(We have a VAT of 25% in Sweden)

The price for an Nikkor 800/5.6 in Sweden is 22 615 USD including VAT (18 000 USD at B&H without tax)

=Fluoride glass must be expensive

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoride_glass

Well, the devil is in the details, its actually Fluorite glass, not Fluoride glass they use

The price of a lens is of course related to the cost of its components, but also, and probably most importantly, it is related to the size of expected audience/market.

The difference in cost of materials/components and manufacturing is small, probably negligible, between a 400/2.8 ($9000) a 600/4 ($10000) and a 800/5.6 ($18000). The size of the expensive parts (lens elements) are very similar. And yet the prices range several thousand dollars between them. This difference largely reflect the difference in expected sales - and then of course also act to make sure a 800/5.6 really is sold in smaller numbers

--
-----------------------------------------------------------
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every moment of it!
By the way, film is not dead.
It just smell funny

 

[RBFresno]

Grevture wrote:

Mikael Risedal wrote:

http://translate.google.se/translat...se/cldoc/test-nikon-afs-800-56-fl.htm&act=url

Martin Agfors have tried the 800mm , translated with google

--
Member of Swedish Photographers Association since 1984
Canon, Hasselblad, Leica,Nikon, Linhoff, Sinar
Member of International anti-banding and read out noise Association

The google translation sure makes for some entertaining interpretations at times

But the conclusion from my test stands:

This lens is crazy good and sure is crazy expensive. However, it is not so crazy heavy and unwieldy that it is easy to believe.

Regards
/Martin

Match Racing, Marstrand on the west coast of Sweden

Classic cars, Ring Knutstorp, southern Sweden

Puffin, Runde, west coast of Norway

Stockholm Tens, Rugby, at Årstafältet in Stockholm, Sweden

Stockholm Tens, Rugby, at Årstafältet in Stockholm, Sweden

Stockholm Tens, Rugy, at Årstafältet in Stockholm

--
-----------------------------------------------------------

These are terrible (at least, I'm trying to convince myself of it for the sake of my bank account!)



Seriously, they're wonderful shots!

As the owner of a 500VR, I'd love to have the 800 VR. But even if i was a billionaire, I'd have a hard time justifying it for my amateur, part time photography hobby.



Still, it gives me something to fantasize about!



RB

--

http://www.dpreview.com/members/2305099006/challenges

pbase Artist rbfresno

 

[Grevture]

RBFresno wrote:

These are terrible (at least, I'm trying to convince myself of it for the sake of my bank account!)

Seriously, they're wonderful shots!

Thanks!

As the owner of a 500VR, I'd love to have the 800 VR. But even if i was a billionaire, I'd have a hard time justifying it for my amateur, part time photography hobby.

The 500 is a perfectly wonderful tool as well. And a bit more universally useful.

For me, shooting a lot of sport, much of it indoors, a f4 lens (like 200-400, the 500 or the 600) will always be a better option then a f5.6 lens. The one part where the 800 did not work out very well for me was using it indoors. I for example was at a rollerderby event, a reasonably fast paced sport. It was in a well lit hall, but in light like that the hit rate for focus was just to low. While my 300/2.8 + TC-14 worked just fine. And honestly, 800 mm is a bit unwieldy indoors - that focal length need some space

Still, it gives me something to fantasize about!

Which probably sums up quite perfectly one major reason why Nikon want a lens like that in their lineup in the first place