So this lens would be perfect if only it wasn’t this lens. Got it. Useful.

My point was that an 800mm lens exists to serve that roll. We should judge this lens by what it is, not what it isn’t.

On a regular basis (but at different times) I shoot “500” and “800” FOV equivalent lenses on my Fuji body and up to 1000 equivalent FOV on my MFT kit. You’re absolutely correct that a 500 is generally more versatile — right up until the point when subject and situation demand more. Your lack of desire/need, and/or willingness/ability to acquire, this lens will not dictate its success. It serves a purpose not filled by the 500. And at a price heretofore unmatched. It’s a bargain for those who do need (or want) it. This isn’t Highlander. Both lenses can succeed.

As for Chris’s photos… A long lens takes time to master. It’s not easy to make great photos on demand using a “specialist” lens. I don’t expect high art in review photos which are made under great constraints of time, place, conditions and “muse”. From any camera or lens.

It's silly to judge this lens by Chris' photos, and that's no knock against Chris. As jaberg notes, Chris had constraints fo time and conditions, and this is a specialist lens and so let's look at the photos of someone like Steve Perry, whose video and photos are highlighted in a separate article on DPR.

BTW, as of now the 800 PF is listed at B&H as its number 1 seller in mirrorless lenses.

@SteppenW0lf: a 800mm lens is not meant to be "flexible". If it's too extreme for you, don't buy it. That doesn't mean "the offering is a failure".

Your remark about the commercial value of Chris' shots is odd, to say the least.

Wow, this conversation was a whole lot of nothing while dancing around that existing 500 PF. You tried, @TRU, kudos.

TLDR, buy the existing 500 PF. It's amazing.

Nikon has been improving their PF tech generation after generation.

The 300 was excellent but was showing some lower contrast in backlit situations. The 500mm addressed most of that but had a slightly nervous bokeh in some situations.

The 800mm seems to have a remarkably good bokeh while keeping the other qualities of the 500mm. It seems to be the best of both world and a lens that may be very difficult to better significantly.

So have you owned those lenses or is this just from reviews you have read?

Yes, I still own both the 300 and 500.

It seems that Nikon may be improving the technology. Give the design of a fresnel lens, the more segments in the lens, the closer it becomes to a regular simple lens.

I don’t need those, I can just get a Nikon Z9, an 800mm lens and a tripod and that’s me set, exercise with a hobby I enjoy.

But on a more serious note, I bet the reviewers did not walk to any location with that lens and camera, I bet they drove there, some of us don’t drive and need to walk.

A sad indictment of public education ...
Z800mm 2.3kg
Z9 1.3kg ..
= 3.6kg
People have been using 300mm 2.8, 200mm F2, 200-400 F4 for ages they are all much heavier than this and not was well balanced. With the Z9 it weighs less than a Z9, 58mm Noct and an SB5000.

You should use MFT or aps-c systems, which you seem to use via profile :) much lighter.

You mean a sad indictment of some people’s failure to understand some of us have disabilities, thus a tripod is needed, add it up, 5KG more or less,

I have nerve damage, I am sorry I am not as able bodied and strong as you are, I tell ya the Internet is a very hostile environment sometimes when people question your education just because you think something is too heavy to carry on it’s own.

Also the car question, it’s valid, imagine sumen heat, you really telling me those people are carrying this into the countryside And all over hand held without the use of a car ?

@Mal69
As the reviewer has shown, this combo is best used in the winter, or, as the same temperature range is known in Alberta, spring. Disclaimer: I grew up in Alberta.

Different people have different physical abilities. That’s sad but an obvious aspect of our human condition.

I used to trek 25km + 1,500m altitude difference in alpine terrain with 25kg pack including a d3x, 300mm f2.8, Gitzo 4 tripod,…

I couldn’t do it anymore but I can still do it with 13-14 kg.

Using my 600gr Z-Packs 60l pack I could easily trek with the Z9 and 800mm, a light tripod and all the required equipment needed for weather and safety. If trekking for several days I may decide on my heavier, but a lot more comfortable, brand new Osprey UNLTD 64.

So it really depends.

Its an a amazing achievement to get the weight down as far as they have. But I still wouldn't call the result 'light'.

@Mal69. Nikon 100-400 + 2.0 Z teleconverter.

" I am sorry I am not as able bodied and strong as you are, I tell ya the Internet is a very hostile environment sometimes when people question your education just because you think something is too heavy to carry on it’s own." ---Your words

Nice try on the guilt trip. The 800 PF and Z9 are still tremendous tools and a significant advance in in portability for the average user, regardless of whether you or I can use them due to our disability, age or size. You adopted a certain tone, and you got called out.

Sadly enough I'm quite lot stronger than average weak men. I tried m43 setup + 100-400 and I have to use 5kg sandbag to keep it stable. Actually I don't mind carrying 5 kg sandbag but what annoys me I've got sands everywhere in my car at the end of the day.

I appreciate you think I was trying to use guilt, but should I even have to try, surely people should be nicer to each other, we all are here because we like photography, let’s be nicer to each other, forget brand loyalty too, these forums can be a bit harsh at times and I think it’s not necessary, just explain your reasons for thinking something is not too heavy and leave it at that.

Just my opinion but being nicer costs nothing.

The video has Chris saying 'this weighs nothing' and the like.

The truth is porbably somewhere in between, a few of you are a bit closer to the 'walking in the snow backwards with 100kg on my head' joke than you might realise.

Expanding a bit on what Mr. JasonTheBirder said, tradeoffs exist between a 500mm and an 800mm. Clearly the 500mm is lighter (3.2 lb vs. 5 lb) and easier to carry around, but doesn't have the "reach" of the 800mm. Not quite so obvious is the ease-of-tracking vs. "reach" tradeoff. Going "too far" in the focal length department makes tracking more difficult because of the narrower field of view of the longer lens (at infinity focus for a full-frame sensor, 2.6 degrees for 800mm vs. 4.1 degrees for 500mm), at least for me. When I put a teleconverter on the 500mm (so an effective 700mm), I find it harder to find and track the bird. This is almost certainly something that will vary from person to person (because hand-eye coordination ability does), and a narrower field of view is a more stringent test of that coordination. That is especially true for smaller, faster birds that dart this way and that without much warning.

The 500PF is a workhorse of a wildlife lens, either on F-mount or adapted to Z-mount.

500mm (+ teleconverter) is getting to the focal lengths where turbulent air spoils any of the extra fine detail you might capture with a longer lens.

I shot a Northern Harrier perched on a dead shrub in an Arizona grassland (500PF + 1.4x on D500), and captured a series that would have been brilliant -- if they were sharp.

They're not. They're not even close. One of them is sort-of-printable, and even it is more of a study in "what happens when light doesn't like to go in straight lines". And it is very very clearly refraction of the light going through shimmery air messing them up.

used the pf lenses and bokeh/background is a pretty much non argument unless you go out of your way to try and make it happen

I have used both the 500PF and the 300PF.

The bokeh on both is just fine. The 300 can sometimes get a _little_ bit busy on distant subjects compared to something like a 300/2.8, but then I can put a 300PF in a coat pocket.

I've shot strongly backlit subjects with them, too. No lens-specific issues.

Steve Perry tested the Z800mm f/6.3 and made many compliments to rendering, in the foreground as in the background. Perry is a weight name and his ratings are reliable.

Background looks great to me in almost all photos I see from the 800pf! ANY lens can look so so or busy given the “right” background.

It is funny how people would rather trust the „opinion“ of Steve Perry (who has been very active promoting both Sony and Nikon recently), or any other YouTuber who tells them what they want to hear. Instead of their own eyes.

The 800PF is a nice achievement. It does however have nervous bokeh at times. That’s the price you pay for the construction of the lens. Just because Steve Perry says different in his Nikon ad on YouTube does not make the photos go away in which you can clearly see the nervous bokeh, hollow bokeh balls etc.

Any lens can have poor bokeh in some situations. I have seen horrific bokeh from my Fuji GFX 45mm f2.8 although it's generally considered as an excellent performer. The bokeh balls of the Otus can be horrible in some situations,...

There is a very large quantity of samples demonstrating that overall the bokeh of the 800 is top notch.

„Any lens can have bad bokeh“, yeah sure. And any lens can be soft if you smear it with vaseline. From what I’ve seen there is definitely a difference between the bokeh of a 600/4.0GM or RF600/4.0 and what this Nikon PF lens gives you, in comparable situations. That’s not to say the Nikon is bad, it’s pretty good for the price. I just find it funny that people act like it’s the best lens ever made, without any flaws. Which clearly isn’t the case. Everyone can see those flaws in the pictures shown in a couple of different videos. And they have to be expected because of the construction of the lens.

boastar
Don’t speak for “everyone”. Perhaps you can see something you don’t like but don’t try to put words in other peoples mouths, or even worse, try to establish some sort of “truth”, in this case the usual suspects are posting ‘bad bokeh’ comments on here or on YouTube when rather the opposite is being stated by those who have used the lens.
Enjoy your Sony!

Einride, if you’re trying to lecture someone you should be precise. Otherwise you’re just making a clown out of yourself. I said everyone „can“ see the flaws, not that everyone does see them. If you can’t see them through your 5cm thick Nikon glasses, hey, good for you! Enjoy your Nikon I guess.

"If you can’t see them through your 5cm thick Nikon glasses, hey, good for you! Enjoy your Nikon I guess."

Lol yeah we will. Was lovely meeting you, stop by again some time

No. It was an a posteriori statement, because I did watch a couple of videos about the 800PF, which at the point of my statement where the only good resources (and will remain so for a while, since the lens will only reach public at the end of the month). In those videos on YouTube there were numerous examples of the bad bokeh the lens can render. In situations where a 600GM would give you much better results.

In fact, your statement seems to be the a priori one. Because you had decided beforehand that the 800PF is a magic lens that defies the laws of physics, and are now ignoring the evidence that shows it clearly does have flaws. The grinding technique used by Nikon and Sony is much better than what the old geezers at Canon can muster up yes, that still doesn’t disable the laws of physics for the 800PF. It’s a nice lens, it’s not the second coming.

Never said it was the second coming.

Only that there is just no way you can state that what you perceive as poor bokeh in some samples would not also show with 600mm f4 lenses in the same situation, nor that it is related to the usage of PF element.

boastar
”Nikon glass” hahaha its not me jumping into comment threads attacking other brands. I’m usually make an effort to be positive towards whatever brand I engage with. Mostly Nikon, Canon, Leica and Olympus. But I was also impressed and positive towards the A7iv.
A quick look at your comments history shows quite a different pattern. Have a nice one mate, Sony makes excellent cameras.

I fully agree about Sony cameras.

Not that long ago I owned both the a7rIV and the a9II. The a9 was excellent.

But I don’t see the relationship with your assessment of the bokeh of the 800mm f6.3.

You are the one you brought other brands in this Nikon thread, not me. You could have made your point citing the Nikon 600mm f4 E Fl and i would have reacted the exact same way.

Your account is important Fred. I also bought the excellent Z6II camera. Here in Brazil we are also having difficulty getting some Z lenses and cameras.

I bet you will see a lot more Nikon 800 mm PF than the Canon 800mm RF, or 400 x 2 TC. 😏

Customers face delays in getting any new exciting product from any camera company. The R5 and A1 were sold out for several months at introduction. The Canon and Sony super tele's lenses also had a significant wait time and some still do.

All camera customers need to accept that if they want the latest and greatest there will probably be a wait time. That's the nature of the business now.

But it's not just cameras. I know people who wait for certain construction materials to finish home projects. There are several cars that you have to wait for. Ever ordered a Tesla or knew someone who did? That takes a bit of time.

But we are the fortunate ones if we have the problems like waiting for great camera gear.

This lens is scheduled to ship less than 3 weeks after announcement.

Compare that to the 3 months btwn the announcement of the Canon RF 800mm f5.6 and announcement shipment date.

If you are actually meaning to speak about the production capacity of Nikon this is a real issue, but they are victims of both the incredible success of their recent Z mount offering and the chip shortage together with remaining covid constraints.

They have also completely re-organized their production facilities which a very complex process. I believe that most of that is behind them.

A long gap before a lens' "appearance on the store's shelf" is not really a measure of anything relevant.

The real measure would be the time between when someone orders a lens from the fastest retailer and when they can receive it, since the lens is designed for use in the field and not on a store shelf. In other words, it doesn't matter if stock builds up on store shelves after 1 year if there is a perpetual lag of only 1-2 months between ordering and receiving.

@beatboxa: exactly.

Just like Canon with their R3?

Got you a lot of likes - you owe me.

I was out with my parents who both know something about photography. I had my D500+500PF (+1.4x) and my dad had his 7dmk2 with 100-400.

My mom was trying to get me to take a picture of her and my father. I said "alright, y'all stay there, I'll toodle over to that hill a half-mile away and text you when you should smile..."

that comparison is killing me...

Are you for real? Comparing a compact, pro grade lens to a toy lens with a single aperture option? You'd be better off comparing the RF 800mm f/11 to a mirror lens.

Seriously?

I shoot at f/8 on my D500 all the time, using 500PF + 1.4x teleconverter, often with shutter speeds of 1/2000 or faster.

A fullframe camera at f/11 will need twice the ISO to get the same shutter speed, but it ought to have comparable (if not better) ISO performance at twice the ISO.

So the 800 f/11 on FX ought to be fine. And I shoot eagles with a guy who has one, and -- surprise -- his images look great.

There's probably noise at the pixel level. Yeah, there's noise at the pixel level in my D500 images too. Doesn't stop them from looking great in print.

The comparison video I'd like to see between the 800 PF and the Canon 800mm f/11 is one with a running clock showing how long the Nikon shooter is out making keepers during a dawn wildlife photo outing versus the 800mm f/11 shooter sleeping in 'cause, you know, why head out before the light is decent?

Now you know.

And knowing is half the battle.

LOL, “too big and too slow”. More like “incredibly light and bright for its FL, as well as very cheap”.

FF is the best thing for Telephoto as there are loads of high-MP bodies and most of the good telephoto lenses are FF anyway... and try finding stuff with an added crop factor.
(In the last week used m43 and high-MP FF to photograph birds, the much wider FoV of FF is wonderful for finding stuff and the detail is similar...)

Jon555 not sure 800mm will give you a wide field of view in any format ,olympus have it covered with the 150-400/500mm ,for birding this lens will be a good choice but still a one trick pony where as a 400mm 500 and even 600 mm prime will give you more options as one trick ponies go ,still if i shot nikon i would grab this lens ,glad it is not in e mount although i suspect sony will make a lightweight 500mm f4 with the similar handling to this lens and will lust for that but i doubt it will be priced 6.5k more like 8.5k .

canon users are burning from inside...

There is no "price cut", they have just announced the price.

For the last few weeks speculation has ranged from $6000 to $15000 with the average guess being around $10000.

Today we have videos of the lens in use, got an idea of the image quality, the VR abilities and its AF.

People like Steve Perry, who is respected by most in the business, have pronounced it to be a sensational lens in every respect.

My mother always said to me, "if you can't think of anything nice to say, it's best to say nothing"

@paul cool remember with a good lens and a high-MP FF sensor you get the same detail as 20MP m43 with a lens that isn't much longer (in actual focal length), so you get a wider FoV thrown in for free. (Also as I have Panasonic the FF gets better AF, alas. Although I did okay with MF the other day.)

For example 560mm on my FF gets over 2x the linear detail of 200mm on m43 due to having lots of pixels and a sharp lens.

Example - Pixels on a 30cm subject at 20m:
E-M1 III @ 400mm + 1.25x = 2439
A7rIV @ 600mm = 2400
R5 + 100-500@500mm+1.4x = 2389
E-M1 III @ 400mm = 1728
R5 @ 500mm = 1706
E-M1 III or OM1 @ 300mm = 1296

Why are dump trucks so big. I wish someone would compare them to a compact car.

@Jon555 you'd need an 80MP full-frame sensor to put 20MP on the subject when cropped to micro four-thirds scale. You need a 45MP sensor just to put 20MP on the subject if cropped to APS-C size.

It's why a lot of dedicated wildlife enthusiasts shoot with crop bodies. The subjects are often fairly distant, which means a photographer shooting full-frame can be focal length limited at 500mm or even 600mm.

I think the days of crop bodies for a lot of wildlife shooting are ending, as you can get similar reach (see below) with high-MP FF bodies and not that much longer lenses, you generally get better AF and a much wider FoV to find things. Plus there are very few long crop lenses except a handful from crop-only systems (m43, Fuji). Also the manufacturers want to sell you more expensive cameras now volumes are lower.

The last week I've been shooting Kestrels with m43 and FF and the AF advantages of FF are handy (okay, I have a GH5) and the detail is good as you still have larger pixels, plus finding stuff is much easier.

Pixels on a 30cm subject at 20m plus image width at subject:

R5 @ 800mm = 2730 pix / 90 cm
E-M1 III @ 400mm + 1.25x = 2439 pix / 69 cm
A7rIV @ 600mm = 2400 pix / 120 cm
R5 + 100-500@500mm+1.4x = 2389 pix / 103 cm
E-M1 III @ 400mm = 1728 pix / 86 cm
R5 @ 500mm = 1706 pix / 144 cm
E-M1 III or OM1 @ 300mm = 1296 pix / 115 cm

(Note 36mm / 17.3mm = 2.08 horizontal crop)

@Jon555 filling the frame with the composition is important in all genres of photograhy. The more you crop, the more image quality is degraded.

It makes no sense to spend thousands more on a full-frame body only to crop most of your photos to a size you'd have gotten by filling the frame of a smaller sensor camera...one costing significantly less.

@Jon555 "Firstly all the high-MP FF sensors have bigger pixels than m43, so the pixels will be better quality and capture more light at the same f/stop and pixel count,... "

Regardless of pixel size, it's sensor surface area combined with exposure that determines the total light captured during a shutter actuation. At the same exposure settings (f-stop and shutter speed) a full-frame camera will capture a stop more light than an APS-C camera and 2-stops more light than a micro four-thirds system.

If the image made with the full-frame camera is cropped to APS-C size, that image will have been made with the same total light and, therefore, will have zero advantage in shot noise; the predominant type of noise. Pixel size doesn't change that.

@Jon555 "[W]hen Nikon/Canon/Sony want you to buy FF it is hard for them to justify a APS camera that's 2x the price of their cheapest FF camera. Plus they want to develop ever more FF lenses and so won't want to do many APS lenses."

The only justification Canon, Nikon or Sony need when making the decision to manufacture an APS-C body is, will it sell and will it be profitable. A $2,000 to $2,499 APS-C body that comes with the performance characteristics of the R3, Z9 or A1 would sell. And not just ro enthusiasts. Pros would add them to their flagship kits as backups and for situations when the subject just doesn't fill the frame of their primary bodies.

The photographers who would buy these cameras would use them with full-frame glass.

@Jon555 you keep bringing up pixel size. It's not a factor we need to consider when discussing light-gathering or noise in a photo.

Also, when comparing different format cameras, a photo made with a larger format camera that also has a larger pixel pitch and is cropped to the same angle of view as captured by the smaller format body will put fewer megapixels on the subject.

Wildlife and bird photography are genres where being focal length limited is a real issue...and where shooting full-frame often is not an advantage.

@photography-lover as a Canon shooter, I have to agree with you.

In terms of Imaging Division Operating Profit, Canon still leads by a huge margin. :-)

And their current success with the Z-mount is in the context of them making really good DSLR's, too.

It is probably a lot harder for them to sell Z7's and Z9's given how good the D500, D750, and D850 are. If their DSLR's were awful, people would have more of a reason to switch, but their DSLR's were and are superb.

Canon doesn’t just make stills cameras, they also have a video/cinema line where it runs rings around Nikon and leaves it far behind because Nikon doesn’t have one.

Tamron and Sigma also provide ARCA Swiss compatible foots & collars pretty consistently (well, the one for the Sigma 100-400 DN is sold separately, but it is an ARCA foot), but yeah Oly might be the only 1st party that also does so (does Pentax?)...

I think the rest are just trying to CYA, avoiding the inevitable complaints from the couple people that will have a RRS lever clamp or whatever that won't work with the particular dovetail specs they choose, there's bound to be some support calls and even returns over silly stuff like that.

That's the only reason I can imagine that none of the other big players would support it, and even in those instances affected users can of course just attach a compatible plate as they would've anyway, but I can see how it'd be an extra headache for the manufacturer.

Haters? Chris and Jordan are the highlight of DPReview

@Mike Sandman, PF is not mirror/catadioptric. That design uses mirrors to fold the image path. Fresnel lenses don’t do that.

I would guess, using the 300 pf and 500 pf as the metric, that it won't be quite as sharp as the 800mm 5.6, but would be equal to the 600 + 1.4tc. Does that mean it'll only be as sharp as a 70-300 budget zoom? no. Like those other PF lenses, it'll probably be 95% or more as close to it's non PF version in sharpness. Close enough to not matter to most people, maybe not even pixel peepers. I think most would be willing to give up a tiny bit of sharpness, though, for substantial weight, size, and price savings.

The 500mm f5.6 PF, or which I own a copy, is remarkably sharp. No difference compared to my former 400mm f2.8 E FL.

One area where it falls behind a bit is bokeh, but bokeh seems to be totally outstanding with the new 800mm f6.3 as testified by Steve Perry, Ricci... and as shown very clearly by their samples. The bokeh isn't just good, it's outstandingly beautiful.

Or for a newly starting wildlife oriented shooter:

Nikon Z9: 5496
800mm f6.3: 6499
100-400mm f4.5-5.6: 2696
Gitzo Gimbal: 557
Berlebach or Gitzo tripod: 439
Arca Swiss accessory: 39
EN-EL18d: 220
2x Delkin Black 256GB CFe: 2x 379

and use the remainder of 295 USD for a nice camera bag to fit the full equipment.

looks about normal for shooting where there is a lot of background twigs and branches, the key is with any lens and not just a pf lens is trying to get as clutter free background as possible
examples of cluttered background
Sony lens https://www.dpreview.com/challenges/Entry.aspx?ID=1213178&View=Results&Rows=25
Canon lens https://www.dpreview.com/challenges/Entry.aspx?ID=1212955&View=Results&Rows=25