To address any questions over the sharpness in the sample photos in this review, here are some full-resolution raw files available for download, including one taken with the 1.4x TC and others at different apertures.
I think that these photos are plenty sharp once some default sharpening has been applied. I consider this a sharp lens even if not at the level of the 800mm f/5.6E FL, and I stand by our extensive testing for the review. But whether you think it’s sharp or blurry – or that the lens is excellent, but my technique needs improvement – you can be the judge without web-compressed JPEGs getting in the way: www.dropbox.com/sh/ru…YSuUa?dl=0
Spencer, you nailed it on this lens, I agreed with everything you said. Fortunately I own the 500mm f/4E VR FL, and I have the option of using the TC-14E III or 20E III. The first gives me an incredible 700mm f/5.6 and the latter, I only use for cases where it makes sense. Often it’s better for me to just switch from my D6 to my Z7 or D500 if I need more “reach!” Although usually 700mm is enough for me, it’s nice to have options. With the 800pf…you can’t ever go less than 800mm, severely limiting its potential for users and use-cases. However if you do often need 800mm or longer…it’s sort of a no-brainer!
The price and build quality plus performance for the money…all equals tremendous value for your money. Anyways, I’d love to have the 300pf and 800pf, however I’ll probably never own either. My 500FL is lightweight and well balanced, even with the TC-14E III attached. Now I’ve had the pleasure of trying both the new 800pf and the 800mm f/5.6E VR FL. At the time I was pondering buying the 500mm f/4E VR FL, a friend and colleague offered me his 800FL for $7,100 USD. For that low of a price at the time, I had to seriously consider it, even if I was forced to resell it, someday? Except the more and more I slept on it, the more and more I realized it was/would be a bad choice. I shoot at the 500mm so often, it’s actually surprising to me. The 500FL is my most used lens according to Lightroom, with my 70-200FL and 24-70mm being my second and third. Although I did recently sell my 24-70mm VR and D850, for an “open-box” USA model Z7 and new in box Z-mount 24-120mm f/4 S! Which is an awesome combo, btw!
Long story short (or long lens made short,lol) 800mm…is often too much focal length! Do I sometimes wish I had more reach, even when I have 700mm f/5.6? Very rarely, yes, but not often enough to justify the $7,000! So I’m happy Nikon has no current or even rumored 500mm f/4’s…because I’m in heaven/love with the 500FL! I have owned or used almost every modern Nikon and Canon super-tele prime and zoom. (As I’m a photojournalist and our newspapers have both Canon/Nikon)
I have been fortunate enough to have had the AF-S, AF-S II and both VR/VRII of both the 300mm f/2.8 and then starting with the Nikon AF-S II 400mm f/2.8 in 2005…I used every 300mm/400mm! I’ve had both 200-400mm’s and even both 200mm f/2G VR’s! In late 2019, I decided to sell my 400mm f/2.8E VR FL, in order to pay for my 500mm FL. I had the 400mm f/2.8G VR for quite a few years before getting the 400FL. Personally I liked the IQ slightly more/better from the 400G vs. 400FL. I actually think the 400mm f/2.8G VR has slightly better IQ compared to the newer supposedly better 400mm FL. Only reason I swapped to the 500FL was weight savings. I wish I could get away with the 500pf, but I use the TC-14E III so often, that extra stop of light is priceless!
800mm is awesome and Nikon hit it out of the park with this lens. No doubt about it, but it’s certainly not for everyone. Plus the original 800FL is now about the same price used vs. the new retail + taxes 800pf! If the extra size and weight don’t bother you…the 800mm f/5.6E VR FL is unreal. It’s a notch above even the best of the best, it outperforms everything! Lots of 800mm FL’s hit eBay for around $7,000-$8,000 USD in the past few months. At one point I think I saw like 7 different copies, lol. That’s a lot when maybe only 1300 or so exist on the planet? Make sure you get the matching 1.25x TC! That’s an important piece to have! It makes an unbelievable 1000mm lens that’s crazy sharp!
Haitao
February 12, 2025 8:11 pm
I found that the MTF numbers for 800mm f/5.6 here was different from the lens review article of 800mm f/5.6 itself. In that article, although the exact numbers are not shown, I can judge the value would be 3400,3300,3100, which are much higher.
Can anyone help to explain why they are so different?
This is the best review I can find online by far. Very well written, and as a bonus it didn’t talk me out of my purchasing this lens. One thing they could have mentioned is that Nikon released the very similar 600mm f/6.3, and magically released the 800mm at the same aperture. Having lugged around an older 600MM F/4 I can tell you every pound matters, and this lens will see much more use than my old heavy friend.
Sergey Puponin
December 11, 2024 1:54 am
The sharpness of the Nikon Z 800mm f/6.3 PF is indeed higher than what the results suggest! It appears there might be an issue with the specific lens tested—either a manufacturing variance or even a faulty sample—because real-world performance consistently shows that the 800mm f/6.3 outperforms the 500mm f/5.6 PF in sharpness.
The Imatest center performance rating of 2664 MTF for the 800mm doesn’t align with what users and reviewers typically observe in practical scenarios. The 500mm PF’s rating of 3332 MTF at f/5.6 might seem better on paper, but the 800mm f/6.3’s real-world sharpness, reach, and performance clearly exceed expectations, particularly for distant subjects where it truly shines.
It’s worth reiterating that sharpness tests can vary significantly based on environmental factors, testing conditions, and even lens alignment. Based on the consistent feedback from professional photographers using the 800mm f/6.3 PF, I’d confidently say the lens is sharper and more capable than these numbers suggest. If the article’s result doesn’t reflect this, it’s likely a case of a suboptimal testing setup or a problematic lens sample.
When we go back and re-test a second copy of each lens in the lab, this one is at the top of my list given the controversy of my original test. However, I fully stand by our numbers and our testing method.
Some of what you’re seeing in terms of “real-world sharpness, reach, and performance… particularly for distant subjects” stems from the simple fact that an 800mm lens will always pull more detail from distant subjects than a 500mm lens. Put another way, if I could pick between cropping the 500mm PF versus not cropping the 800mm PF, the 800mm PF would be the winner by a huge margin, even given the exact LW/PH MTF50 numbers of our test.
I appreciate your willingness to revisit and potentially re-test the 800mm PF lens—it’s always a good practice to ensure fairness and accuracy. However, I must point out that the tone in your explanation feels dismissive toward readers. Assuming that others don’t understand the relationship between focal length and detail undermines the intelligence of your audience and risks alienating those who value your reviews.
The reality is that many of your readers are experienced photographers who are well aware of the advantages an 800mm lens offers over a 500mm, especially in terms of reach and cropping. The primary concern here isn’t about focal length; it’s about sharpness and optical performance. On that front, the Imatest numbers you provided seem inconsistent with real-world observations, which has sparked this discussion.
For a more balanced perspective, I recommend checking out the performance results from this test: www.ephotozine.com/artic…erformance. Their findings align more closely with the experiences of many users and might offer useful insights for your re-test. Open dialogue and mutual respect can only enhance your credibility and the value of your reviews.
Respectfully, that test shows almost exactly what ours does — that the lens peaks in sharpness at f/8, with f/6.3 being very similar to f/11 in sharpness (a little better). This is good, but hardly record-breaking performance for an f/5.6 or f/6.3 lens.
I agree that it’s possible that we tested a poor copy, but the other objective measurements across the internet seem to show similar results to what we tested. I don’t intend to be dismissive of reader experiences. But if the standardized tests are in pretty close agreement, while readers have a wider range of impressions, I think it’s fair to mention focal length as one of the *possible* explanations. Other possible explanations include sample variation, or lab environments across websites that undervalue such lenses.
John
August 17, 2024 5:33 am
A late comment to be added, but relevant. I am slowly moving on with my migration to MILC Equipment. I have the Z9 > Z100-400 as the initial entry, and then added both of the Z TC’s to try out other Focal Length configurations.
In comparison to the DSLR experience being detached from where using long lenses are the topic. I had the 400mm 2.8G and 500mm F4 , with a TC 1.4 and TC 1.7.
I have been very impressed with the sharpness I have managed to capture using a Z Zoom Lens. The images captured have been compared to images taken using the DSLR owned equipment. I am yet to see anything that suggests I am way behind in the Sharpness discipline.
For me the modern Z Camera Body has so much more to offer, I will contentedly accept a trade of in dream Bokeh and Subject Isolation from using the Z Zoom Lens, and have all the new opportunities the Z Body function offers as the alternative.
After a period of Careful Thought, l now have purchased the Prime Lens Z 800mm F6.3. I liked pushing out the focal length on the Z 100-400mm, the idea of a Prime 600mm F6.3 did get my attention for a period, but the Z9 DX Crop or Z TC1.4, does put me close to this, with a minimum focal length similar to the no longer used DSLR F Mount Long Lenses.
The other considerations being thought through, has been using the recollections of the Minimum Focus Distance (MFD) typically used, and how this type of lens usage impacted on how I photograph. The 400mm F2.8G MFD @ 3mtrs, 500mm F4 MFD @ 4mtr and if chosen the Z600 PF MFD @ 4mtr. Creating Opportunities at these focal lengths are hardly recalled and were not seen as a needed to get the full benefit from either for the F Mount lens types. The MFD of the 800mm PF does not present an issue, as it will be used rarely at this focal length, even though not far from. It will be more the reality, as was practiced with all other long lenses, probably 8mtr – 12mtr is more realistic for the bulk of Captures.
The Z100 – 400mm can be used where reducing MFD is the requirement.
Chener
April 30, 2024 2:05 am
I owned the 800 FL and used the 800 PF from a friend. I don’t like the busy background and bokeh rendering of the 800 PF. it is very busy and unpleasing to my taste. in fact, that was the reason I do not like all the PF lens. it is the PF glass that has this busy giggling pattern in the background, especially if there are lots of highlight shining spot. I find that the 800 FL is significantly sharper and optically much superior. the bokeh from 800 FL is otherworldly and always pleasing. I think I will never sell my 800 FL and it has its reason why it cost almost 20K in Canada and this date, you can get a used copy the same price as the new 800 PF. in my opinion, the only thing that goes for the 800 PF is the half weight of the 800 FL which makes it much more mobile and may get you the shots where 800 FL could not.
John M Côté
March 29, 2024 2:01 pm
I’ve been using the Z800 (on a Z9) for about a month and I love it. I had been using the 500 f/5.6 PF (along with the FTZ II adapter) and was quite happy with that. That said, to me the Z800 is the ideal lens for what I do, which is photographing birds. I love the lens’ reach and sharpness. The Z9’s AF functionality make the combination a definite winner in my opinion.
Jon Middleton
February 17, 2024 10:55 am
I’m currently considering this lens, and already own the 500/4FL, the 500PF and Z9. I’m concerned about your Imatest numbers and am having a difficult time reconciling them with the MTF chart from Nikon. Consider the Nikon MTF chart and your Imatest scores for the 500PF. Nikon’s MTF chart for the 800PF nearly matches that of the 500PF, yet your Imatest scores are substantially lower. Why is that?
I’m using the 500PF more than my 500/4FL as I’m typically shooting while recumbent in my canoe or sled, where size and weight factors are very important. I’ve tried both of the 500s with and without the TC14E II and III, thinking that it would be a good way to get to 700mm at f/5.6, but haven’t seen an improvement over cropping the images from the bare lenses. Hence my interest in a longer lens. I’ve looked at the 600/4 TC, but the cost, size and weight, plus the fact that I already own the 500s make it less appealing. I’m hoping to see the same sharpness out of the 800PF as I’m getting from the 500PF, but your review doesn’t look promising.
I use the 500PF with and without the TC1.4. I use the 800PF and have the TC1.4 on it quite a lot. They are both really light and manageable lenses for birds in flight and I never use a tripod. I had the 500 F4 FLED – it was much less manageable for fast action and weighs considerably more than 800PF. The only caveat is weather where there is sun heating up the ground and causing atmopsheric distortion… but when this is not an issue, its gets shots that no other combo can get.
Daniel K
December 27, 2023 7:27 am
Hey, I was wondering if there’s any info available on how these sharpness tests are being done here, specifically the focus distance during the test shot. I don’t know if it even makes sense to compare findings of two different sources, but both you and ephotozine tested this lens using Imatest, yet on their test it scored roughly 3600, while in yours it’s only 2646.
Even though it’s cheaper than other 600mm+ primes, it’s still quite the investment, so I am a bit concerned. The vast majority of owners and reviewers seem to be happy with the sharpness, but there’s a couple of people and forum threads that are somewhat concerning. Then again, with such a long lens, you just don’t know if the person complaining about sharpness was actually trying to shoot a bird from 500 meters away. 🤷♂
You simply can’t compare number across websites, there’s hardly any chance that they’re saying the same thing. For all I know, a score of 2646 LW/PH MTF50 on our chart is *higher* than a score of 3600 on whatever chart and units Ephotozine is using.
We test all lenses over 200mm on the same chart, which, at 800mm, is approximately 30 feet away.
You really don’t need to worry about this lens’s sharpness. If your takeaway from this review is that the 800mm f/6.3 is unsharp, either I wrote the review poorly or you read it poorly :)
Yeah, I expected that you can’t compare the results, asked just to be sure, I’m not familiar with Imatest. I am aware, that 2646 (and the relatively close mid/corner performance) isn’t bad at all. I just expected an S-Line Prime lens to be sharper in the center than a zoom lens, like the 100-400, which scores higher at its maximum focal length, wide open, the non-S 180-600 also not being far off.
I already ordered it earlier today, guess it’s best to see for myself, don’t think I’ll be disappointed. The combination of reach, aperture, weight, and price is still unmatched, even if it’s not quite as sharp as other telephoto primes. Any sharper option getting me to 800mm f/6.3 (or better) would cost at least twice as much and weigh significantly more.
This is by far the best, and most in-depth review of this lens I could find, but it’s a lot of money for me, that’s why I was a bit concerned 😅
By the way, I’ve had it for almost a year now, and it’s by far the best lens I’ve ever used for wildlife. Focus is fast, and it’s very sharp right into the corners of the image, you really shouldn’t worry about sharpness, the old one may be better, but I never felt like images looked even remotely soft on this one.
Steve M
December 13, 2023 8:50 pm
I have enjoyed the Z 800 with my Z9 and it balances very well compared to smaller bodies that seem to be built for people with small hands.
Unless shooting the moon I have never used it on a tripod. I can easily carry it for hours. I have seen comparisons of the 800mm F mount but when it is that much larger and heavier I would not be carrying it around. It would never be an option unless I were taking a tripod. So I love having the Z 800mm prime in a size that even fits in a carry-on bag, and can easily be handheld. The pictures are stunning. It doesn’t matter if the F mount 800mm is a bit sharper if you never have it with you… and who would want to lug that around even at the same cost let alone more than twice the price. I’m glad I am not trying to sell the old F glass telephotos today.
If the Z 800mm is too long, I switch to the 180-600mm. I almost bought the Z 600mm prime, but when I saw the results from the Z 180-600, I bought that instead of the Z 600 prime, and I took the cost savings which paid for half of the Z 800mm.
Mark Bennett
October 5, 2023 1:26 pm
I’ve had the Z 800 for 6 months and use it with a Z9 and Z8. I’ve never used a tripod and use it extensively for birds in flight with very good results, particularly on larger birds which dont change direction as quickly – for those I use the 500 PF with or without a TC14iii.
Trying to shoot at 300 or 400 metres underlines the problem with super-teles with the issue of atmospheric blur. At up to 100 metres its very sharp – and gets you the pictures due to its lightweight. The lower weight of the Z8 body makes holding it waiting for action last a little longer than with the Z9.
For photographers who like to shoot birds in fight, its a fantastic lens and with more practice this becomes easier. The AF 800 5.6 would be a non starter for frequent BIF shooting given its nearly double the weight and a bigger size. Over head locker on flights is easy with Z800 in a backpack but having had the 500 F4 a few years back I am sure the 800 5.6 would be much more challenging.
To address any questions over the sharpness in the sample photos in this review, here are some full-resolution raw files available for download, including one taken with the 1.4x TC and others at different apertures.
I think that these photos are plenty sharp once some default sharpening has been applied. I consider this a sharp lens even if not at the level of the 800mm f/5.6E FL, and I stand by our extensive testing for the review. But whether you think it’s sharp or blurry – or that the lens is excellent, but my technique needs improvement – you can be the judge without web-compressed JPEGs getting in the way: www.dropbox.com/sh/ru…YSuUa?dl=0
Spencer, you nailed it on this lens, I agreed with everything you said. Fortunately I own the 500mm f/4E VR FL, and I have the option of using the TC-14E III or 20E III. The first gives me an incredible 700mm f/5.6 and the latter, I only use for cases where it makes sense. Often it’s better for me to just switch from my D6 to my Z7 or D500 if I need more “reach!” Although usually 700mm is enough for me, it’s nice to have options. With the 800pf…you can’t ever go less than 800mm, severely limiting its potential for users and use-cases. However if you do often need 800mm or longer…it’s sort of a no-brainer!
The price and build quality plus performance for the money…all equals tremendous value for your money. Anyways, I’d love to have the 300pf and 800pf, however I’ll probably never own either. My 500FL is lightweight and well balanced, even with the TC-14E III attached. Now I’ve had the pleasure of trying both the new 800pf and the 800mm f/5.6E VR FL. At the time I was pondering buying the 500mm f/4E VR FL, a friend and colleague offered me his 800FL for $7,100 USD. For that low of a price at the time, I had to seriously consider it, even if I was forced to resell it, someday? Except the more and more I slept on it, the more and more I realized it was/would be a bad choice. I shoot at the 500mm so often, it’s actually surprising to me. The 500FL is my most used lens according to Lightroom, with my 70-200FL and 24-70mm being my second and third. Although I did recently sell my 24-70mm VR and D850, for an “open-box” USA model Z7 and new in box Z-mount 24-120mm f/4 S! Which is an awesome combo, btw!
Long story short (or long lens made short,lol) 800mm…is often too much focal length! Do I sometimes wish I had more reach, even when I have 700mm f/5.6? Very rarely, yes, but not often enough to justify the $7,000! So I’m happy Nikon has no current or even rumored 500mm f/4’s…because I’m in heaven/love with the 500FL! I have owned or used almost every modern Nikon and Canon super-tele prime and zoom. (As I’m a photojournalist and our newspapers have both Canon/Nikon)
I have been fortunate enough to have had the AF-S, AF-S II and both VR/VRII of both the 300mm f/2.8 and then starting with the Nikon AF-S II 400mm f/2.8 in 2005…I used every 300mm/400mm! I’ve had both 200-400mm’s and even both 200mm f/2G VR’s! In late 2019, I decided to sell my 400mm f/2.8E VR FL, in order to pay for my 500mm FL. I had the 400mm f/2.8G VR for quite a few years before getting the 400FL. Personally I liked the IQ slightly more/better from the 400G vs. 400FL. I actually think the 400mm f/2.8G VR has slightly better IQ compared to the newer supposedly better 400mm FL. Only reason I swapped to the 500FL was weight savings. I wish I could get away with the 500pf, but I use the TC-14E III so often, that extra stop of light is priceless!
800mm is awesome and Nikon hit it out of the park with this lens. No doubt about it, but it’s certainly not for everyone. Plus the original 800FL is now about the same price used vs. the new retail + taxes 800pf! If the extra size and weight don’t bother you…the 800mm f/5.6E VR FL is unreal. It’s a notch above even the best of the best, it outperforms everything! Lots of 800mm FL’s hit eBay for around $7,000-$8,000 USD in the past few months. At one point I think I saw like 7 different copies, lol. That’s a lot when maybe only 1300 or so exist on the planet? Make sure you get the matching 1.25x TC! That’s an important piece to have! It makes an unbelievable 1000mm lens that’s crazy sharp!
I found that the MTF numbers for 800mm f/5.6 here was different from the lens review article of 800mm f/5.6 itself. In that article, although the exact numbers are not shown, I can judge the value would be 3400,3300,3100, which are much higher.
Can anyone help to explain why they are so different?
Never mind. I saw someone asked the same question already. Sorry to bother here.
No bother at all, Haitao!
This is the best review I can find online by far. Very well written, and as a bonus it didn’t talk me out of my purchasing this lens. One thing they could have mentioned is that Nikon released the very similar 600mm f/6.3, and magically released the 800mm at the same aperture. Having lugged around an older 600MM F/4 I can tell you every pound matters, and this lens will see much more use than my old heavy friend.
The sharpness of the Nikon Z 800mm f/6.3 PF is indeed higher than what the results suggest! It appears there might be an issue with the specific lens tested—either a manufacturing variance or even a faulty sample—because real-world performance consistently shows that the 800mm f/6.3 outperforms the 500mm f/5.6 PF in sharpness.
The Imatest center performance rating of 2664 MTF for the 800mm doesn’t align with what users and reviewers typically observe in practical scenarios. The 500mm PF’s rating of 3332 MTF at f/5.6 might seem better on paper, but the 800mm f/6.3’s real-world sharpness, reach, and performance clearly exceed expectations, particularly for distant subjects where it truly shines.
It’s worth reiterating that sharpness tests can vary significantly based on environmental factors, testing conditions, and even lens alignment. Based on the consistent feedback from professional photographers using the 800mm f/6.3 PF, I’d confidently say the lens is sharper and more capable than these numbers suggest. If the article’s result doesn’t reflect this, it’s likely a case of a suboptimal testing setup or a problematic lens sample.
When we go back and re-test a second copy of each lens in the lab, this one is at the top of my list given the controversy of my original test. However, I fully stand by our numbers and our testing method.
Some of what you’re seeing in terms of “real-world sharpness, reach, and performance… particularly for distant subjects” stems from the simple fact that an 800mm lens will always pull more detail from distant subjects than a 500mm lens. Put another way, if I could pick between cropping the 500mm PF versus not cropping the 800mm PF, the 800mm PF would be the winner by a huge margin, even given the exact LW/PH MTF50 numbers of our test.
I appreciate your willingness to revisit and potentially re-test the 800mm PF lens—it’s always a good practice to ensure fairness and accuracy. However, I must point out that the tone in your explanation feels dismissive toward readers. Assuming that others don’t understand the relationship between focal length and detail undermines the intelligence of your audience and risks alienating those who value your reviews.
The reality is that many of your readers are experienced photographers who are well aware of the advantages an 800mm lens offers over a 500mm, especially in terms of reach and cropping. The primary concern here isn’t about focal length; it’s about sharpness and optical performance. On that front, the Imatest numbers you provided seem inconsistent with real-world observations, which has sparked this discussion.
For a more balanced perspective, I recommend checking out the performance results from this test: www.ephotozine.com/artic…erformance. Their findings align more closely with the experiences of many users and might offer useful insights for your re-test. Open dialogue and mutual respect can only enhance your credibility and the value of your reviews.
Respectfully, that test shows almost exactly what ours does — that the lens peaks in sharpness at f/8, with f/6.3 being very similar to f/11 in sharpness (a little better). This is good, but hardly record-breaking performance for an f/5.6 or f/6.3 lens.
I agree that it’s possible that we tested a poor copy, but the other objective measurements across the internet seem to show similar results to what we tested. I don’t intend to be dismissive of reader experiences. But if the standardized tests are in pretty close agreement, while readers have a wider range of impressions, I think it’s fair to mention focal length as one of the *possible* explanations. Other possible explanations include sample variation, or lab environments across websites that undervalue such lenses.
A late comment to be added, but relevant.
I am slowly moving on with my migration to MILC Equipment.
I have the Z9 > Z100-400 as the initial entry, and then added both of the Z TC’s to try out other Focal Length configurations.
In comparison to the DSLR experience being detached from where using long lenses are the topic. I had the 400mm 2.8G and 500mm F4 , with a TC 1.4 and TC 1.7.
I have been very impressed with the sharpness I have managed to capture using a Z Zoom Lens. The images captured have been compared to images taken using the DSLR owned equipment. I am yet to see anything that suggests I am way behind in the Sharpness discipline.
For me the modern Z Camera Body has so much more to offer, I will contentedly accept a trade of in dream Bokeh and Subject Isolation from using the Z Zoom Lens, and have all the new opportunities the Z Body function offers as the alternative.
After a period of Careful Thought, l now have purchased the Prime Lens Z 800mm F6.3.
I liked pushing out the focal length on the Z 100-400mm, the idea of a Prime 600mm F6.3 did get my attention for a period, but the Z9 DX Crop or Z TC1.4, does put me close to this, with a minimum focal length similar to the no longer used DSLR F Mount Long Lenses.
The other considerations being thought through, has been using the recollections of the Minimum Focus Distance (MFD) typically used, and how this type of lens usage impacted on how I photograph.
The 400mm F2.8G MFD @ 3mtrs, 500mm F4 MFD @ 4mtr and if chosen the Z600 PF MFD @ 4mtr.
Creating Opportunities at these focal lengths are hardly recalled and were not seen as a needed to get the full benefit from either for the F Mount lens types.
The MFD of the 800mm PF does not present an issue, as it will be used rarely at this focal length, even though not far from. It will be more the reality, as was practiced with all other long lenses, probably 8mtr – 12mtr is more realistic for the bulk of Captures.
The Z100 – 400mm can be used where reducing MFD is the requirement.
I owned the 800 FL and used the 800 PF from a friend. I don’t like the busy background and bokeh rendering of the 800 PF. it is very busy and unpleasing to my taste. in fact, that was the reason I do not like all the PF lens. it is the PF glass that has this busy giggling pattern in the background, especially if there are lots of highlight shining spot. I find that the 800 FL is significantly sharper and optically much superior. the bokeh from 800 FL is otherworldly and always pleasing. I think I will never sell my 800 FL and it has its reason why it cost almost 20K in Canada and this date, you can get a used copy the same price as the new 800 PF. in my opinion, the only thing that goes for the 800 PF is the half weight of the 800 FL which makes it much more mobile and may get you the shots where 800 FL could not.
I’ve been using the Z800 (on a Z9) for about a month and I love it. I had been using the 500 f/5.6 PF (along with the FTZ II adapter) and was quite happy with that. That said, to me the Z800 is the ideal lens for what I do, which is photographing birds. I love the lens’ reach and sharpness. The Z9’s AF functionality make the combination a definite winner in my opinion.
I’m currently considering this lens, and already own the 500/4FL, the 500PF and Z9. I’m concerned about your Imatest numbers and am having a difficult time reconciling them with the MTF chart from Nikon. Consider the Nikon MTF chart and your Imatest scores for the 500PF. Nikon’s MTF chart for the 800PF nearly matches that of the 500PF, yet your Imatest scores are substantially lower. Why is that?
I’m using the 500PF more than my 500/4FL as I’m typically shooting while recumbent in my canoe or sled, where size and weight factors are very important. I’ve tried both of the 500s with and without the TC14E II and III, thinking that it would be a good way to get to 700mm at f/5.6, but haven’t seen an improvement over cropping the images from the bare lenses. Hence my interest in a longer lens. I’ve looked at the 600/4 TC, but the cost, size and weight, plus the fact that I already own the 500s make it less appealing. I’m hoping to see the same sharpness out of the 800PF as I’m getting from the 500PF, but your review doesn’t look promising.
I use the 500PF with and without the TC1.4. I use the 800PF and have the TC1.4 on it quite a lot. They are both really light and manageable lenses for birds in flight and I never use a tripod. I had the 500 F4 FLED – it was much less manageable for fast action and weighs considerably more than 800PF. The only caveat is weather where there is sun heating up the ground and causing atmopsheric distortion… but when this is not an issue, its gets shots that no other combo can get.
Hey, I was wondering if there’s any info available on how these sharpness tests are being done here, specifically the focus distance during the test shot.
I don’t know if it even makes sense to compare findings of two different sources, but both you and ephotozine tested this lens using Imatest, yet on their test it scored roughly 3600, while in yours it’s only 2646.
Even though it’s cheaper than other 600mm+ primes, it’s still quite the investment, so I am a bit concerned.
The vast majority of owners and reviewers seem to be happy with the sharpness, but there’s a couple of people and forum threads that are somewhat concerning. Then again, with such a long lens, you just don’t know if the person complaining about sharpness was actually trying to shoot a bird from 500 meters away. 🤷♂
You simply can’t compare number across websites, there’s hardly any chance that they’re saying the same thing. For all I know, a score of 2646 LW/PH MTF50 on our chart is *higher* than a score of 3600 on whatever chart and units Ephotozine is using.
We test all lenses over 200mm on the same chart, which, at 800mm, is approximately 30 feet away.
You really don’t need to worry about this lens’s sharpness. If your takeaway from this review is that the 800mm f/6.3 is unsharp, either I wrote the review poorly or you read it poorly :)
Thank you very much for your reply.
Yeah, I expected that you can’t compare the results, asked just to be sure, I’m not familiar with Imatest.
I am aware, that 2646 (and the relatively close mid/corner performance) isn’t bad at all.
I just expected an S-Line Prime lens to be sharper in the center than a zoom lens, like the 100-400, which scores higher at its maximum focal length, wide open, the non-S 180-600 also not being far off.
I already ordered it earlier today, guess it’s best to see for myself, don’t think I’ll be disappointed. The combination of reach, aperture, weight, and price is still unmatched, even if it’s not quite as sharp as other telephoto primes.
Any sharper option getting me to 800mm f/6.3 (or better) would cost at least twice as much and weigh significantly more.
This is by far the best, and most in-depth review of this lens I could find, but it’s a lot of money for me, that’s why I was a bit concerned 😅
By the way, I’ve had it for almost a year now, and it’s by far the best lens I’ve ever used for wildlife.
Focus is fast, and it’s very sharp right into the corners of the image, you really shouldn’t worry about sharpness, the old one may be better, but I never felt like images looked even remotely soft on this one.
I have enjoyed the Z 800 with my Z9 and it balances very well compared to smaller bodies that seem to be built for people with small hands.
Unless shooting the moon I have never used it on a tripod. I can easily carry it for hours. I have seen comparisons of the 800mm F mount but when it is that much larger and heavier I would not be carrying it around. It would never be an option unless I were taking a tripod. So I love having the Z 800mm prime in a size that even fits in a carry-on bag, and can easily be handheld. The pictures are stunning. It doesn’t matter if the F mount 800mm is a bit sharper if you never have it with you… and who would want to lug that around even at the same cost let alone more than twice the price. I’m glad I am not trying to sell the old F glass telephotos today.
If the Z 800mm is too long, I switch to the 180-600mm. I almost bought the Z 600mm prime, but when I saw the results from the Z 180-600, I bought that instead of the Z 600 prime, and I took the cost savings which paid for half of the Z 800mm.
I’ve had the Z 800 for 6 months and use it with a Z9 and Z8. I’ve never used a tripod and use it extensively for birds in flight with very good results, particularly on larger birds which dont change direction as quickly – for those I use the 500 PF with or without a TC14iii.
Trying to shoot at 300 or 400 metres underlines the problem with super-teles with the issue of atmospheric blur. At up to 100 metres its very sharp – and gets you the pictures due to its lightweight. The lower weight of the Z8 body makes holding it waiting for action last a little longer than with the Z9.
For photographers who like to shoot birds in fight, its a fantastic lens and with more practice
this becomes easier. The AF 800 5.6 would be a non starter for frequent BIF shooting given its nearly double the weight and a bigger size. Over head locker on flights is easy with Z800 in a backpack but having had the 500 F4 a few years back I am sure the 800 5.6 would be much more challenging.