the latest Nikon 800 mm f5.6 lens

Most of us have seen the stellar quality that the Canon 800 f5.6 puts out. 

Have I missed something?  I have not seen a comprehensive review of the latest Nikon 800 5.6 (the $17K one).

Also, I've not "read" anybody who actually owns it and shoots it at wildlife.  I would love to hear from someone here who owns this lens and also see some wildlife images done with this new Nikon 800. 

1.  Does its "field" resolution measure up to the fantastic results that some Canon shooters are able to attain with their 800 5.6's?  I mean, I love the "compressed" DOF, the subject isolation, the bokeh of the 800 f5.6.......and the sharpness of Canon's version is impressive..  Is the new Nikon as sharp?  And how about the sharpness when used with its very short teleconverter that Nikon provides with it.? 

2.  Who on this forum  owns/shoots this Nikon 800 5.6.

3.  I am not planning on picking one up soon.    And at $17,000 it would have be significantly more useful to me than the upcoming 600 or 500 upgrades I anticipate from Nikon.  But it would still be very interesting to know how it stacks up to the competition. 

Robert
www.itsaboutnature.net

Are they actually for sale or is it a halo product priced to not sell?

I've used both and run resolution tests on both. The Nikon is leaps and bounds better than the Canon, even with the dedicated 1.2x converter, it's better than the Canon without it. I would call the Canon excellent, but not stellar on a comparative basis. This is the only super tele where the Nikon is clearly superior to the Canon offering. It is to be noted though that this is the only Canon super-tele that has not been updated to a Mk II version.

Mike in O wrote:Are they actually for sale or is it a halo product priced to not sell?

Hi Mike

As aside:  If you would, please go to Conservation/Ethics forum  for a comment I would be directing primarily to you.  It will be several minutes; i.e. I will respond to E.J. first.  thanks.

E.J. Peiker wrote:I've used both and run resolution tests on both.  The Nikon is leaps and bounds better than the Canon, even with the dedicated 1.2x converter, it's better than the Canon without it.  I would call the Canon excellent, but not stellar on a comparative basis.  This is the only super tele where the Nikon is clearly superior to the Canon offering.  It is to be noted though that this is the only Canon super-tele that has not been updated to a Mk II version.

E.J......sounds very exciting!  

I will anticipate seeing some top wildlife images from this lens.

BTW, then how does Nikon's second generation 400 2.8 stack up to Canon's second generation 400 2.8.? 

Thank you.

Mike in O wrote:Are they actually for sale or is it a halo product priced to not sell?

Available (in stock) at B&H today, gogetone Mike!

Blck-shouldered Kite wrote:BTW, then how does Nikon's second generation 400 2.8 stack up to Canon's second generation 400 2.8.? 

I'll let you know when somebody sends me one to calibrate and test

Mike in O wrote:Are they actually for sale or is it a halo product priced to not sell?

I know somebody who owns one.

DChan wrote:

Mike in O wrote:Are they actually for sale or is it a halo product priced to not sell?

I know somebody who owns one.

I know several that own them  $18K, wow!  By the way that dedicated 1.2x taht comes with it making it a 1000mm f/6.5 is really really good!

E.J. Peiker wrote:

DChan wrote:

Mike in O wrote:Are they actually for sale or is it a halo product priced to not sell?

I know somebody who owns one.

I know several that own them  $18K, wow!

Apparently, you know more wealthy people than I do

DChan wrote:

E.J. Peiker wrote:

DChan wrote:

Mike in O wrote:Are they actually for sale or is it a halo product priced to not sell?

I know somebody who owns one.

I know several that own them  $18K, wow!

Apparently, you know more wealthy people than I do

You don't have to be terribly wealthy, just crazy passionate about your photography 

Just like many people who own an MF system that costs almost three times what this lens does.

Pradeep

I have the new Nikon 800mm 5.6 and use it almost every day most of the time with either the D800E or D810 on it with or without the 1.25.   Most of the time I'm using it to photograph various raptors an smaller birds.  The sharpness with either the D800E or D810 is better than the 200 VRII I owned.  I use it mainly on a RRS Tripod and Gimbal and try to keep the shutter speed at 1/1000 or higher for the best results mainly always shooting wide open.  AF Fine tuning with the D4S and D810 range between -1 and +1 and -3 with the D800E.  Sometimes I use a D7100 on the 800mm and need a -9 to get the best results.   I'm 64 and can hand hold the lens/camera for 20 to 30 seconds as it balances better than the 600VR I previously owned.  If you can hand hold a 500VR then you can a 800mm.  Recently I bought 2 of the new 1.4III and they work great with the 800mm but as the more mm's you get the more sensitive to movement it gets.  Last Friday I was using it at 8:00 AM to take beautiful photos of a Belted Kingfisher but at 10:00 cold not get the same sharpness due to heat aberrations I could see through the lens. 

I just got mine Friday and was out yesterday for a couple hours playing with familiarizing myself with it. Nothing spectacular, shooting pine cones at 100 yards, the neighbor's electric meter across the street, stuff like that and it is the sharpest piece of Nikon glass I've ever shot with! I have no experience with the Canon superteles so can't comment but I will say at first blush it seems sharper than my 400/2.8 VR and my friend says it's probably sharper than his 300/2.8 VR.

I didn't see any loss of IQ with the 1.25TC. But I haven't really done any real side-by-side testing with it and the TC or any of the othersuperteles. I know it's sharper than my 600, though.

I'm leaving for Yellowstone next Saturday and it's coming along, I'll let you know more after I've had a chance to shoot with it for a while.

BTW, it'$18K.

Best,
Bill

1.  Can't wait to see the top shelf wildlife images coming from this lens….the bokeh, the sharpness, the compression.

2.  Hard to believe it is as sharp as you guys say it is……sharper than the 200 VRII?  Than the 300 2.8 VR?  

3.  Yes I agree, you do not have to be particularly wealthy to own one of these.  It comes down to priorities.  To pull the trigger on something like this, one has to be crazy for wildlife photography.

4.  Yes, I'll bet you can shoot this offhand…if you can handhold a 500.

Even if you are crazy about photography, you still have to come up with the money to buy it or rent it, be it cash, check, or credit.  Based on some of the comments here, certainly that's not an issue to some of you.

Moose Peterson with the new 800 5.6:

He says it is "bloody, spooky" sharp……with the teleconverter attached".  Just as sharp as EJ said.

He also says it is noiseless.  Hard to believe.  It has an electronically controlled aperture.

I think I want one for my long tele.  We will see; we suspect Nikon will also be upgrading the 600 and 500.  Whoa!!  :)


http://nikonrumors.com/2013/08/19/nikko ... rson.aspx/

Just wondering if anyone has used the new 800mm lens with the D7100?  I was thinking of renting one for a trip to Yellowstone next winter to photograph the wolves which I understand can be quite a ways away.  Even with the 1.2 teleconverter it seems like I might be better off with a DX camera due to the distance I will be from the wolves.

$18,000!!  Wow, all I can say is that I'm REAL glad I only shoot landscapes and not birds or wildlife!!!

Kudos to Nikon for coming up with what sounds like a magnificent lens. I can only imagine what a file coming from that lens and a D810 must look like. Canon has kept me in their camp with a selection of lenses that suits me well but Nikon is just an upgrade or two away from gaining another convert.

I'm surprised we are generating this much discussion on this lens now, more than a year after it first became available. I had my first sample in for calibration in September 2013.