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

[AlanF]

What strain of Covid do you mean? We were able to produce vaccines in "emergency" mode in really short time for the first Covid strains. It decreased the ## of deaths even for strains that were out of the spectrum... I mean it still works somehow even for new strains (yes - with low efficiency!).
Now we know that we have to live with the Covid as we are with the flu... Not the perspective that we would like but it's what viruses do!
For the GAS? Well I'm not resistant, are you?! And it could be because nobody ever made a vaccine against GAS ! Oops - no way to make such a vaccine - it's programed in the human brain - we want always the best (and sometimes we don't actually know what exactly is the best?)

Another similarity between COVID and GAS is that when a new strain/gear comes along you catch them both again.

 

[AlanF]

What strain of Covid do you mean? We were able to produce vaccines in "emergency" mode in really short time for the first Covid strains. It decreased the ## of deaths even for strains that were out of the spectrum... I mean it still works somehow even for new strains (yes - with low efficiency!).
Now we know that we have to live with the Covid as we are with the flu... Not the perspective that we would like but it's what viruses do!
For the GAS? Well I'm not resistant, are you?! And it could be because nobody ever made a vaccine against GAS ! Oops - no way to make such a vaccine - it's programed in the human brain - we want always the best (and sometimes we don't actually know what exactly is the best?)

There have been attempts to vaccinate against GAS, here's one from about 3000 years ago, the Tenth Commandment. The uptake is low and so there isn't herd immunity.
"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's."

 

[Del Paso]

There is a cure for Leica GAS: a look at the price list.
Alas, it doesn't cure all variants.
Edit: I was wrong, the cure is inefficient (new baby in bag).

 

[Del Paso]

"Doest thou have any affection?
Yes, gracious Madam.
Indeed?
No, not in deed, cause I can buy nothing"

 

[juststeve]

I cannot help but think how well that 800PF and a Z9 or Z7ii would pair with my 100-500 and R5. The R3 pretty much becomes superfluous. And I doubt Canon will make anything like it in the near future, a consideration as I am getting a bit long in the tooth.

And it is not Canon's way to make something directly competitive when more niche lenses are involved.

So, what could Canon. do? How about making at 600/4.5 or 600/4.8 DO lens? A 4.5 lens would be 133mm plus and a 4.8 lens 125mm plus, the same as the 500/4. Add a 1.4x and there you are at 840/6.3 or 6.8 and have more flexible option and one most likely even a bit lighter and stubbier. Please hurry with this one Canon, like hint it is already well along in development. I am impatient and it seems some other people are too.

 

[Deleted member 381342]

I cannot help but think how well that 800PF and a Z9 or Z7ii would pair with my 100-500 and R5.

You are going to want a shorter lens to go with a 800 PF anyway. For me it is going to be my 100-400 S on a Z7ii or spare Z9. There are times at 800mm where I know for sure that something interesting will get too close on occasion.

 

[ISv]

You are going to want a shorter lens to go with a 800 PF anyway. For me it is going to be my 100-400 S on a Z7ii or spare Z9. There are times at 800mm where I know for sure that something interesting will get too close on occasion.

Or in to many occasions... Especially if you are an opportunistic shooter like me!

 

[dolina]

Another way of looking at the Z 800mm 6.3 vs RF 800mm 5.6 is that the market positioning of the two lenses.

Nikon is for primarily an outdoor, wildlife and bird photography lens that generally does not generate any revenue for working photographers.

Canon is for well lit indoor, wildlife and bird photography that generally generates revenue for working photographers.

In both marketing position the price reflects this. The timing is also great considering we're getting out of COVID and many have a lot of unused cash to spend on.

My dream lens would be a 400/2.8 with built-in 1.4x & 2.0x TC that was designed for this lens design in mind. This lens would consolidate the 3-4 lens SKUs that are

- 400/2.8
- 600/4.0
- 800/5.6
and possibly
- 500/4.0

Having consolidated 3-4 lens SKUs into one would increase its sales by possibly 3-4x.

Many would ask... why a prime and not a zoom? Primes are simpler in design and lighter in weight as compared to a zoom.

Another wish list for me would have all mirrorless lens design using material science advances in PF (Phase Fresnel) and DO Diffractive Optics.

 

[dilbert]

Nikon is for primarily an outdoor, wildlife and bird photography lens that generally does not generate any revenue for working photographers.

Canon is for well lit indoor, wildlife and bird photography that generally generates revenue for working photographers.

This is an arbitrary distinction that you're making and you're making it incorrectly. It's a completely assinine statement because it bears about as much resemblence to reality as does certain claims about an election being stolen.

The difference between the Canon and the Nikon lens is 1/3 of stop, or the difference between ISO 800 and 1000.

If you want to imagine that this difference means that one lens can be used for X and the other cannot then it says more about you than it does about the equipment.

 

[dolina]

This is an arbitrary distinction that you're making and you're making it incorrectly. It's a completely assinine statement because it bears about as much resemblence to reality as does certain claims about an election being stolen.

The difference between the Canon and the Nikon lens is 1/3 of stop, or the difference between ISO 800 and 1000.

If you want to imagine that this difference means that one lens can be used for X and the other cannot then it says more about you than it does about the equipment.

I am referring to the Z 800/6.3 and RF 800/5.6 based on their price point, physical weight and f-number. Not the brands, companies or mirrorless systems they represent.

At a difference of 1/3rd stop, 1/2 physical weight and 1/3rd price point what would be the target use and who would be the target market?

Focus on the intended use case. At $6.5k & $17k what would be bought based on application.

Majority of wildlife/birds are non-revenue generating activity like a hobby.

While press, sports, etc is normally done for revenue.

In the marketing of the Z 800mm has a skinny under 5'4" young lady shooting with a less than 2.4kg lens.

The RF 800m 5.6 has an older, taller and more heavy set man.

If I were to consider buying a 800mm I would not be so cynical to be obnoxious to other people.

 

[scyrene]

Again, more selective hearing on the niche thing. It’s not just wildlife photographers we’re talking here, it’s anyone that uses supertelephoto lenses and the fast, higher end bodies. Same market. They rushed their entire supertele line out.

I just disagree with your much-repeated contention that Canon has 'rushed' or 'scrambled' anything. Given continued gaps in the supertelephoto lineup, the opposite is easier to argue.

If that were the case most of the conversation in forums such as this would be worthless.

You're saying it's not??

 

[dolina]

I just disagree with your much-repeated contention that Canon has 'rushed' or 'scrambled' anything. Given continued gaps in the supertelephoto lineup, the opposite is easier to argue.



You're saying it's not??

Canon did not rush the 800 or 1200 out.

They looked for a cost effective way to reuse existing intellectual property to create a new SKU.

I would not be surprised that the R&D cost for the 800 & 1200 were largely paid for by the 400 & 600.

Heck, it's in the CR post about it.

 

[AlanF]

Canon did not rush the 800 or 1200 out.

They looked for a cost effective way to reuse existing intellectual property to create a new SKU.

I would not be surprised that the R&D cost for the 800 & 1200 were largely paid for by the 400 & 600.

Heck, it's in the CR post about it.

The R&D for the RF 400 and RF 600 were largely paid for by the EF 400 III and 600 III as they are identical optically. And the 800 and 1200 cannibalised those. Not bad, 3 generations of lenses from one basic design!

 

[dolina]

The R&D for the RF 400 and RF 600 were largely paid for by the EF 400 III and 600 III as they are identical optically. And the 800 and 1200 cannibalised those. Not bad, 3 generations of lenses from basic design!

They did an Intel! Intel got stuck in a die shrink for about a decade...

Once Apple Silicon chips were revealed Intel all of a sudden can do die shrinks again.

Here's the CR post about the reuse of lens designs.

Those who are having a fit over this may want to ask themselves what meaningful change in lens design & material science can you expect from Sep 2018 to today? That's less than 4 years difference!

Smart business move is to reuse the design 3x.

Typically introduction of a super tele upgrade is 11-12 years per cycle. So the June 2011 release of EF 600mm f/4L IS II USM should have been replaced by the RF successor by 2020 or 2021 with the R3.

The Series III should not have been released at all.

The EF lenses that should have came out in these sequence but 2 years later as RF lenses.

2018

• EF 400mm F2.8L IS III USM
• EF 600mm F4L IS III USM
• EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS III USM
• EF 70-200mm F4L IS II USM

2017

• EF 85mm F1.4L IS USM
• TS-E 50mm F2.8L Macro
• TS-E 90mm F2.8L Macro
• TS-E 135mm F4L Macro

2016

• EF 16-35mm F2.8L III USM
• EF 24-105mm F4L IS II USM

 

[AlanF]

They did an Intel! Intel got stuck in a die shrink for about a decade...

Once Apple Silicon chips were revealed Intel all of a sudden can do die shrinks again.

Here's the CR post about the reuse of lens designs.

Those who are having a fit over this may want to ask themselves what meaningful change in lens design & material science can you expect from Sep 2018 to today? That's less than 4 years difference!

Smart business move is to reuse the design 3x.

Typically introduction of a super tele upgrade is 11-12 years per cycle. So the June 2011 release of EF 600mm f/4L IS II USM should have been replaced by the RF successor by 2020 or 2021 with the R3.

The Series III should not have been released at all.

The EF lenses that should have came out in these sequence but 2 years later as RF lenses.

2018

• EF 400mm F2.8L IS III USM
• EF 600mm F4L IS III USM
• EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS III USM
• EF 70-200mm F4L IS II USM

2017

• EF 85mm F1.4L IS USM
• TS-E 50mm F2.8L Macro
• TS-E 90mm F2.8L Macro
• TS-E 135mm F4L Macro

2016

• EF 16-35mm F2.8L III USM
• EF 24-105mm F4L IS II USM

They had to release Series III as Sony also introduced the same optical designs and much lighter weights than Series II. Otherwise, Sony would have seemed years ahead.

 

[dolina]

They had to release Series III as Sony also introduced the same optical designs and much lighter weights than Series II. Otherwise, Sony would have seemed years ahead.

Good point so perhaps advancing the RF system to year 2016?

 

[neuroanatomist]

Good point so perhaps advancing the RF system to year 2016?

Presumably the EOS R was not ready for launch. No reason to release lenses that can't be used.

 

[dilbert]

I am referring to the Z 800/6.3 and RF 800/5.6 based on their price point, physical weight and f-number. Not the brands, companies or mirrorless systems they represent.

At a difference of 1/3rd stop, 1/2 physical weight and 1/3rd price point what would be the target use and who would be the target market?

Who would be the target market? Easy. For starters, anyone that doesn't own a Canon RF camera system and that's thinking of getting into that part of the photography scene.

Let me rephrase what you said slightly:
- professional shooters that want to use 800mm lenses are going to pay 3 times as much for a Canon lens that also weighs twice as much because otherwise they won't have a lens that is professional.

What an insult to photographers everywhere your comment is.

 

[Terry Danks]

It's been about 20 years since I jumped from N to C. It was over the issue of stabilization in long lenses back then. I haven't regretted that decision at all . . . . until now.
Doubt I will be dumping my C stuff but I am intrigued by the possibility of adding the 800PF and a Z9.

 

[dolina]

Let me rephrase what you said slightly:
- professional shooters that want to use 800mm lenses are going to pay 3 times as much for a Canon lens that also weighs twice as much because otherwise they won't have a lens that is professional.

What an insult to photographers everywhere your comment is.

That's your interpretation? Did someone hit you on the head?

Those opting for the f/5.6 will get it because they need the extra 1/3rd stop of light. This is helpful for paid work.

When you're not being paid then that 1/3rd stop of more light is not worth paying 3x more or carry 2x the physical weight.

Same way of prioritization between a f/2.8 IS vs f/4 IS zoom lens. If money & weight is a concern then the 2.8 is bought more for paid work while the 4.0 bought more for personal use.

@Terry Danks got his thinking correct... buying the Z 800mm + Z9 body is cheaper than getting a RF 800/5.6. So for this instance it may be optimal to go dual system. Drawback is you need to learn Nikon & Canon.