Nikon Releases Z 800mm at 1/3 Cost of Canon’s

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
12,348
22,524
Haven't looked at Nikon, or any other brand for that matter for the past 30+ years. When I was starting out I was weighing either a used Nikon F3, or Canon T90. Got the Canon.
Prices are ridiculous, so are some lens choices. This Nikon lens grabbing my attention and making wonder things. May not switch as I am so heavily invested.... but who knows.
I have a Canon RF 800 f/11 - 15 % of the price of the Nikon and just over half its weight, and works fine. The RF 100-400mm is even more ridiculously cheap and very sharp. Canon has captured the mass market and has top notch pricey lenses for those who want them. I am not running down Nikon, they produce great gear, maybe better than Canon's. But does Canon really have a problem? I don't really think so. They also have new designs that are even cheaper.
Nikon has a newer design that's cheaper. Kudos to Nikon. If Nikon can repeat that with their other telephoto lenses then Canon's got a real problem to address and it won't be a quick about-ship either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,093
12,856
If Nikon can repeat that with their other telephoto lenses then Canon's got a real problem to address and it won't be a quick about-ship either.
That's like saying Toyota has a real problem with their Mirai. Their what? Yeah.

But does Canon really have a problem? I don't really think so. They also have new designs that are even cheaper.
A few years ago, Sony was full of innovation and people here were convinced that Canon had a problem. Convinced to the point that the mods added "d00med" to the four-letter-word list. What actually happened was that Sony gained some market share, Canon gained some market share (more than Sony, recently), and Nikon suffered big losses. In spite of the CR predictions of problems for Canon, it turned out they knew exactly what they were doing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Just an observation about likely future developments...

When EF lenses were produced by 3rd parties, it reduced a lot of angst among Canon fans because they weren't reliant solely on Canon's lens lineup. What 2-foot-long, waterproof underwater macro probe lens 24mm? Laowa had you covered. A $600 35mm f/1.8 95 percent as good as the Canon and Sigma f/1.4s? Tamron had you covered.

But now with the RF mount being ignored by most 3rd party lens makers - especially those making AF lenses - the Canon fans are more depending on Canon's lens selection and their pricing, and I think that will continue to elevate the concern about relative comparisons.


As an aside:
The old EF mount was many orders of magnitude easier to reverse engineer. The RF mount protocols are believed to be carried via a communications protocol that can implement encryption (patents show this, but it is unknown if it's actually been employed). This means that 3rd parties will likely continue to make EF mount lenses with RF physical mounts, which will limit compatibility to those features found with adapted EF glass. Meaning no extra IBIS stops, control ring control, additional data reporting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
I’m surprised that this many users here are interested in PF lenses. I’ll give them their due, they’re light but they have weird bokeh against foilage, really weird and so far they have been optically inferior.

I think Canon has taken the right route, those cheap f11 lenses will grab a better audience and the 800 f5.6 is aimed squarely at a different crowd altogether.

Btw, I’m not a Canon user and have no interest in becoming one, but admire them from afar.
 
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
12,348
22,524
I’m surprised that this many users here are interested in PF lenses. I’ll give them their due, they’re light but they have weird bokeh against foilage, really weird and so far they have been optically inferior.

I think Canon has taken the right route, those cheap f11 lenses will grab a better audience and the 800 f5.6 is aimed squarely at a different crowd altogether.

Btw, I’m not a Canon user and have no interest in becoming one, but admire them from afar.
The Canon cheap f11 lenses use the same PF/DO technology as Nikon (as do the expensive Canon 400mm DOs). So, why is it right for Canon and optically inferior for Nikon? I’ve used both Canon’s and Nikon’s DO/PF, and if Canon bring’s out a high spec DO RF telephoto I’ll probably be on the pre-order list
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
CR Pro
Aug 9, 2018
3,297
4,184
The Canon cheap f11 lenses use the same PF/DO technology as Nikon (as do the expensive Canon 400mm DOs). So, why is it right for Canon and optically inferior for Nikon? I’ve used both Canon’s and Nikon’s DO/PF, and if Canon bring’s out a high spec DO RF telephoto I’ll probably be on the pre-order list
Fanboyism...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
The Canon cheap f11 lenses use the same PF/DO technology as Nikon (as do the expensive Canon 400mm DOs). So, why is it right for Canon and optically inferior for Nikon? I’ve used both Canon’s and Nikon’s DO/PF, and if Canon bring’s out a high spec DO RF telephoto I’ll probably be on the pre-order list
I didn’t know the f11 lenses we DO/PF lenses but the 400 f4 DO was one of the reasons I briefly considered moving to Canon, but it’s bokeh put me off.
 
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
12,348
22,524
I didn’t know the f11 lenses we DO/PF lenses but the 400 f4 DO was one of the reasons I briefly considered moving to Canon, but it’s bokeh put me off.
Several of us CRs bought in to Nikon because the 500 PF is such a cracking good lens. Maybe our use isn’t bothered much by weird bokeh, if there is any.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Fanboyism...
My post was reasonable without attacking anyone. Your response makes no sense and is rude.
Just an fyi those were my lenses. Nikkor 500 f4 and Sigma 150-600, which I used for years.

So what exactly am I fanboy of?
 

Attachments

  • 239B7257-047C-4DDC-92F3-E04B7CC8AE7C.jpeg
    239B7257-047C-4DDC-92F3-E04B7CC8AE7C.jpeg
    2.6 MB · Views: 10
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Several of us CRs bought in to Nikon because the 500 PF is such a cracking good lens. Maybe our use isn’t bothered much by weird bokeh, if there is any.
That’s reasonable, I don’t get some of the over the top posts attacking Canon and calling them embarrassing. But I guess, that is the internet.

I like the idea of DO/PF lenses but so far have always been turned off by their rendering. They do hit a sweet spot of price, weight and size.
 
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
12,348
22,524
My post was reasonable without attacking anyone. Your response makes no sense and is rude.
Just an fyi those were my lenses. Nikkor 500 f4 and Sigma 150-600, which I used for years.

So what exactly am I fanboy of?
In defence of @Del Paso he, like me, would have assumed that you knew that the RF 600 f11 and RF 800 f/11 are DO lenses and would have been equally surprised by your post.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
CR Pro
Aug 9, 2018
3,297
4,184
My post was reasonable without attacking anyone. Your response makes no sense and is rude.
Just an fyi those were my lenses. Nikkor 500 f4 and Sigma 150-600, which I used for years.

So what exactly am I fanboy of?
Sorry if I sounded or was rude, but I really didn't understand your criticism of Nikon, and your praise of technically similar Canons.
No offense meant!
 
Upvote 0

dtaylor

Canon 5Ds
Jul 26, 2011
1,805
1,433
The old EF mount was many orders of magnitude easier to reverse engineer. The RF mount protocols are believed to be carried via a communications protocol that can implement encryption (patents show this, but it is unknown if it's actually been employed).
The RF mount uses the same pins for the same purposes as EF. It has additional pins for a high speed serial data channel which can be used for additional communications. A good example would be lens stored corrections downloaded to the body for in camera JPEG processing. In theory the EF data pins could be ignored and all communications pushed through the new serial channel. But I doubt any RF lenses are doing this, or that Canon has even provisioned for this in camera body firmware.

This means that 3rd parties will likely continue to make EF mount lenses with RF physical mounts, which will limit compatibility to those features found with adapted EF glass. Meaning no extra IBIS stops, control ring control, additional data reporting.
There are already 3rd party EF-to-RF lens adapters with the control ring. The control ring is almost certainly going through the high speed serial pins. This either means there is no encryption, or the encryption is weak and already cracked. I'm not sure why Sigma/Tamron/Tokina are dragging their feet on RF lenses. But I'm reasonably sure it has nothing to do with reverse engineering the mount.

It's entirely possible that Sigma/Tamron/Tokina feel like they have time because generally speaking EF lenses mount and function perfectly on RF via adapters. You can't say the same for A-mount or F-mount. Does it really make sense to take something like an ART 50mm f/1.4 and re-tool manufacturing to make an RF only version with a control ring? Or does it make more business sense to wait until the RF market grows and you can do something unique, i.e. a new lens design with improved performance, or size/weight, or maybe f/1.2? If you just repackage an existing design you could go through the expense and not sell one lens more than you would have anyway. Because right now nobody with an RF body is hesitating to adapt an ART 50mm if they really want one.

We are starting to see unique lens designs from 3rd party companies for E-mount. Hopefully we will soon start to see the same for RF.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
D

Deleted member 381342

Guest
Anybody know if there is an adapter for this? Shame on you, greedy Canon!
You can adapt EF lenses to Z and it would be possible to adapt RF lenses to Z. It is not possible to adapt Z lenses to RF due to the mount being larger and closer to the sensor. If you want/need a 800mm lens and this one appeals to you then you might as well get a camera to go with it... with a camera to go with it, it's still cheaper than the RF 800mm f/5.6.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Jul 16, 2012
486
298
You can adapt EF lenses to Z and it would be possible to adapt RF lenses to Z. It is not possible to adapt Z lenses to RF due to the mount being larger and closer to the sensor. If you want/need a 800mm lens and this one appeals to you then you might as well get a camera to go with it... with a camera to go with it, it's still cheaper than the RF 800mm f/5.6.

Id do without or switch entirely rather than do 2 systems, even for one special lens. Cost isnt the main issue in my view, at these price levels.
 
Upvote 0
D

Deleted member 381342

Guest
Id do without or switch entirely rather than do 2 systems, even for one special lens. Cost isnt the main issue in my view, at these price levels.
I would rather have two systems than switch. There will always be lenses on both sides that I want or that are so specialised that the other wont make. Canon is all but required for photographing jumping spiders for instance. And Nikon have the best wildlife lenses with the 400 f/2.8 TC, 500 PF, and 800 PF. I will be using my 100-400 S with my 800 PF, though that 100-400 S could just as easily be a RF 100-500 on a R5. At the end of the day it is CF Express cards full of images getting dumped into Capture One, edited, then printed. And no one is going to tell between two pictures I am selling if one was from Canon or the other was from Nikon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0