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

[tbgtomcom]

Can’t buy class with all that money, Tom.

Pity, you could use some. Sell some more wildlife photos, maybe your ship will come in.

 

[Alan B]

Steve Perry likes it (great insight)

 

[1D4]

For the price of only the RF 800mm f/5.6 (17K$) you get the Nikon 800mm f/6.3 (6.5K$) + the Nikon 100-400mm (2.7K$) + the Nikon Z9 (5.5K$) and you still have 2300 $ left to spend on ice cream or whatever you want. Canon is embarrassing!

Not to be a Canon cheerleader, but the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 800mm f/5.6E is over $16,000, so you could say the same thing about that lens. That being said, I've said for a long time that Canon needs to make light/compact lenses equivalent to the 300PF and 500PF, and I don't know why they haven't, as they'd sell like hotcakes, much like the Nikons have.

 

[neuroanatomist]

If the wildlife community was not such a large market, we wouldn’t see the big three scrambling to acquire them. Canon put out these supertele lenses so quickly because they know wildlife shooters, while only a subset of the market, spend a TON of money.

I’d wager that Canon/Sony/Nikon make far more total profit on sales of 24-xx and 70-200 zooms than on supertele primes.

Supertele lenses are meant to be conspicuous on the sidelines of televised events and other locales. There’s a reason Canon paints them white (and Sony copied that), and it has nothing to do with keeping fluorite cool (which Nikon previously claimed was why their ED elements were better than fluorite, at least they claimed that until they started putting fluorite elements in their black lenses).

I get that you’re a wildlife photographer and you want to think your view represent a large segment of the market. Anecdotes and inference aren’t data.

 

[reefroamer]

Maybe this will push Canon to introduce a well-featured R7 (APS-C) body at around $2,500. Joined with the excellent RF 100-500, the 1.6x crop factor would yield 800mm equivalent @ f7.1. Such a body-lens combo would be under $6,000. While ceding a few megapixels to the Z9/PF800, the crop combo would be lighter and far more affordable to many more shooters. Oh, and that $1,000 RF 800 becomes 1280mm at f11 on the same crop body. Recall the popularity among wildlife shooters of the 7D/100-400 combo. Canon does have some options here.

 

[Deleted member 387325]

I’d wager that Canon/Sony/Nikon make far more total profit on sales of 24-xx and 70-200 zooms than on supertele primes.

Supertele lenses are meant to be conspicuous on the sidelines of televised events and other locales. There’s a reason Canon paints them white (and Sony copied that), and it has nothing to do with keeping fluorite cool (which Nikon previously claimed was why their ED elements were better than fluorite, at least they claimed that until they started putting fluorite elements in their black lenses).

I get that you’re a wildlife photographer and you want to think your view represent a large segment of the market. Anecdotes and inference aren’t data.

You’re telling me that anecdotes and inference aren’t data, and yet you’re presenting your own as conjecture. I don’t have the data—do you? I’m making assumptions based on observations; these three massive companies are scrambling early for wildlife/sports/PJs and the only conclusion I arrive at is because it makes them loads of money. We buy roughly the same products, so when they release superteles and fast pro bodies, that’s the market we’re talking about here. It’s their top-tier products…

 

[john1970]

Not to be a Canon cheerleader, but the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 800mm f/5.6E is over $16,000, so you could say the same thing about that lens. That being said, I've said for a long time that Canon needs to make light/compact lenses equivalent to the 300PF and 500PF, and I don't know why they haven't, as they'd sell like hotcakes, much like the Nikons have.

This is a very good point to make. One could ask of Nikon how can a F-mount 800 mm f5.6 sell for $16K while a Z mount 800 mm f6.3 sells for ~$6? In all serious where are the savings in the Z mount? Are PF lenses 3x less costly to produce that typical fluorite-based super telephoto lenses?

 

[john1970]

Serious question: The Nikon 800 mm f5.6 in F mount cost $16.3K while the newly announced Nikon 800 mm f6.3 in Z mount cost $6.5K. How is this possible? Are PF lenses that much less expensive to produce? Does going from f6.3 to f5.6 at such long focal length that much more costly?

 

[Vilacom]

This from Nikon is really confusing to me, a company says they can deliver top tier professional results for 1/3 the price and like half the weight(and a $6500 lens is still absolutely a niche top level professional lens) and to showcase this incredible step in lens development they use it to release a lens that only hardcore professional sports and wildlife photographers will use assuming they even want an 800mm. Why not release a lighter less expensive 70-200 2.8 that basically every single professional photographer on the planet would love to have as an option regardless of their specialty? Why release a 400mm f2.8 not two months ago that is double the price of this lens? Clearly this was being worked on at the same time.

Ultimately this release....kind of doesn't matter unless its the start of this kind of price and weight reduction for all lenses with no loss in the quality people have come to expect from professional level products from any company. If this is where the industry is going then we will all eventually enjoy the benefits, but somehow I don't think this single lens is going to cause the kind of upheaval the social media space is jumping on right now

 

[Deleted member 387325]

This from Nikon is really confusing to me, a company says they can deliver top tier professional results for 1/3 the price and like half the weight(and a $6500 lens is still absolutely a niche top level professional lens) and to showcase this incredible step in lens development they use it to release a lens that only hardcore professional sports and wildlife photographers will use assuming they even want an 800mm. Why not release a lighter less expensive 70-200 2.8 that basically every single professional photographer on the planet would love to have as an option regardless of their specialty? Why release a 400mm f2.8 not two months ago that is double the price of this lens? Clearly this was being worked on at the same time.

Ultimately this release....kind of doesn't matter unless its the start of this kind of price and weight reduction for all lenses with no loss in the quality people have come to expect from professional level products from any company. If this is where the industry is going then we will all eventually enjoy the benefits, but somehow I don't think this single lens is going to cause the kind of upheaval the social media space is jumping on right now

Some fair questions in there. I think ultimately Nikon sees their advantage in lens development, particularly supertelephoto lenses. They take pride in the professional wildlife/birding community, which is obviously what this lens is catered to. Sure, some PJs and sports shooters will opt for this depending on their beat, but we saw a similar example already in their 500PF. That lens caused an uproar from this same community, and I’m guessing must have been a huge boon for Nikon because here they are, yet again, going for that market with a similar move and lens. This is their first PF for the Z mount and they really have no competition in this space—Canon’s DO line and pricing strategy is not up to the task—so start with your biggest advantage and let it trickle down. We’ll definitely see more PFs in the lower end of teles. Besides, look at Canon’s RF 70-200; it’s not going to be as huge of an advantage going with PF technology by comparison. Just my opinion. This 800PF is a lens that will absolutely bring in new Z system users, both transitioning from the F mount as well as other brands. The 500PF did that as, well—there was nothing else like it and it’s a big draw for this community with limited options and handholding large glass.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Serious question: The Nikon 800 mm f5.6 in F mount cost $16.3K while the newly announced Nikon 800 mm f6.3 in Z mount cost $6.5K. How is this possible? Are PF lenses that much less expensive to produce? Does going from f6.3 to f5.6 at such long focal length that much more costly?

Perhaps Nikon is sacrificing profit in an attempt to gain market share. They were #2, now they’re #3. The ILC market is shrinking, and cameras represent a larger fraction of the company for Nikon than for Canon (and only a tiny fraction for Sony). Desperate times call for desperate measures.

 

[Vilacom]

Some fair questions in there. I think ultimately Nikon sees their advantage in lens development, particularly supertelephoto lenses. They take pride in the professional wildlife/birding community, which is obviously what this lens is catered to. Sure, some PJs and sports shooters will opt for this depending on their beat, but we saw a similar example already in their 500PF. That lens caused an uproar from this same community, and I’m guessing must have been a huge boon for Nikon because here they are, yet again, going for that market with a similar move and lens. This is their first PF for the Z mount and they really have no competition in this space—Canon’s DO line and pricing strategy is not up to the task—so start with your biggest advantage and let it trickle down. We’ll definitely see more PFs in the lower end of teles. Besides, look at Canon’s RF 70-200; it’s not going to be as huge of an advantage going with PF technology by comparison. Just my opinion. This 800PF is a lens that will absolutely bring in new Z system users, both transitioning from the F mount as well as other brands. The 500PF did that as, well—there was nothing else like it and it’s a big draw for this community with limited options and handholding large glass.

I get what you're saying, and hey if this is where lenses are going and it maintains quality for all the different shooters then great! I guess the biggest bit of confusion still is the fact that they released a 400mm f/2.8 two months ago that's $2000 more than the canon equivalent, its just a strange set of releases if you have the ability to get similar/higher quality in these kinds of lenses for VASTLY cheaper...but then not to do that for other things that would absolutely see the same benefit

 

[entoman]

There appears to be just three downsides to the Nikon lens:

• The aperture is 1/3rd stop smaller than most 800mm supertelephotos.
• While better than most previous 800mm offerings, its minimum focus distance is still pretty far out, at more than 5 yards, giving the lens a 0.16x magnification ratio. This means that shooters have to back away from close subjects to get them in focus.
• You have to affix it to a Nikon body.

No one is going to care about losing 1/3 stop, unless they are absolutely fanatical about F-number bragging rights.

Minimum focus distance is a bit of a problem, as with the Canon RF 800mm F11, which would restrict its usage in certain scenarios, such as working from a hide where perches have been placed at too short a distance. So definitely a factor to take into consideration.

Fixing to a Nikon body might actually be seen as an advantage, not a disadvantage, since the launch of the Z9.

 

[AlanF]

No one is going to care about losing 1/3 stop, unless they are absolutely fanatical about F-number bragging rights.

Minimum focus distance is a bit of a problem, as with the Canon RF 800mm F11, which would restrict its usage in certain scenarios, such as working from a hide where perches have been placed at too short a distance. So definitely a factor to take into consideration.

Fixing to a Nikon body might actually be seen as an advantage, not a disadvantage, since the launch of the Z9.

tiggy’s comment about Nikon was tongue in cheek.

 

[Deleted member 387325]

I get what you're saying, and hey if this is where lenses are going and it maintains quality for all the different shooters then great! I guess the biggest bit of confusion still is the fact that they released a 400mm f/2.8 two months ago that's $2000 more than the canon equivalent, its just a strange set of releases if you have the ability to get similar/higher quality in these kinds of lenses for VASTLY cheaper...but then not to do that for other things that would absolutely see the same benefit

You’re paying for the additional light, speed, and versatility in the 400 2.8 with built in TC. It’s basically two large primes in one—a 560 f4, as well. Not to mention adding TCs externally. Incredibly versatile and useful for wildlife photographers going for the ultimate in image quality. It’s a brilliant design for a wide range of users in this space—sports, wildlife, PJs.

The 800PF is basically the same size as the 400 2.8 due to the PF, but it’s lacking the versatility, the additional light, and speed by comparison. A handholdable native 800 at this quality is unheard of, though. You’re talking using TCs as well, walking around getting 1600mm, high-quality images. The extra light is a debate that’s been going on for years—how much to pay for the additional light/speed at this range. This 800 is also mostly birders and really only birders/wildlife shooters, although a few PJs and sports guys will add it.

If I’m evaluating my options here, which I am, they’re two *very* different lens options for different uses. I’m using the 800PF to go birding with a walk around lens. I’ll use it for wolves and grizzlies walking around Yellowstone and wanting to remain nimble without a tripod. I can take this into the backcountry and get 1600mm. It’s a lot of lens for the price, but it is a special use lens. You’re still losing the light, though, and a little bit of subject separation; I think that’s the crux of your question—you’re paying an awful lot more for that and some find that a worthy trade off while others don’t.

 

[Czardoom]

Not to be a Canon cheerleader, but the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 800mm f/5.6E is over $16,000, so you could say the same thing about that lens. That being said, I've said for a long time that Canon needs to make light/compact lenses equivalent to the 300PF and 500PF, and I don't know why they haven't, as they'd sell like hotcakes, much like the Nikons have.

Yes, we don't know why. Perhaps patent issues? Perhaps, since they haven't produced any PF lenses up to now, they are working on designing new lenses, which may take up to to 3 to 5 years until we hear about them (which seems to be the time it takes for lens design). Lots of forum folks seem to think a new lens (and cameras, too) can be designed and produced in a year or so. Nope. It may be 5 years until we can compare the Canon RF and the Nikon Z lens lineups.

 

[Vilacom]

You’re paying for the additional light, speed, and versatility in the 400 2.8 with built in TC. It’s basically two large primes in one—a 560 f4, as well. Not to mention adding TCs externally. Incredibly versatile and useful for wildlife photographers going for the ultimate in image quality. It’s a brilliant design for a wide range of users in this space—sports, wildlife, PJs.

The 800PF is basically the same size as the 400 2.8 due to the PF, but it’s lacking the versatility, the additional light, and speed by comparison. A handholdable native 800 at this quality is unheard of, though. You’re talking using TCs as well, walking around getting 1600mm, high-quality images. The extra light is a debate that’s been going on for years—how much to pay for the additional light/speed at this range. This 800 is also mostly birders and really only birders/wildlife shooters, although a few PJs and sports guys will add it.

If I’m evaluating my options here, which I am, they’re two *very* different lens options for different uses. I’m using the 800PF to go birding with a walk around lens. I’ll use it for wolves and grizzlies walking around Yellowstone and wanting to remain nimble without a tripod. I can take this into the backcountry and get 1600mm. It’s a lot of lens for the price, but it is a special use lens. You’re still losing the light, though, and a little bit of subject separation; I think that’s the crux of your question—you’re paying an awful lot more for that and some find that a worthy trade off while others don’t.

My question is if the PF version of an 800mm lens is worthwhile and as you've noted a very popular option for those who want something like this, then with the capability to release an 800mm PF that supposedly competes or exceeds the quality of a standard glass element lens like the canon, where is the PF 400 2.8? That would have been developed almost simultaneously with this lens and surely people who shoot with the 400mm are also interested in lighter less expensive glass that maintains professional quality?

 

[Deleted member 387325]

My question is if the PF version of an 800mm lens is worthwhile and as you've noted a very popular option for those who want something like this, then with the capability to release an 800mm PF that supposedly competes or exceeds the quality of a standard glass element lens like the canon, where is the PF 400 2.8? That would have been developed almost simultaneously with this lens and surely people who shoot with the 400mm are also interested in lighter less expensive glass that maintains professional quality?

My limited understanding of the PF technology is that its strength is in size reduction and smaller footprints but maintaining high image quality. If you put the PF technology in a 400 2.8 for the sake of making it smaller, you’ve still got the same physics diameter needed to capture that amount of light, so perhaps your PF size advantage is limited or insignificant. Whereas if you put it in the smaller package with a third or more loss of light and diameter, the advantage shines purposefully in a smaller lens and you’ve got market segmentation between the lenses that makes sense. I could be wrong but that’s my understanding. If they could make the larger diameter primes with PF tech in a smaller, cheaper package, we’d all buy them. Doesn’t seem like good business sense, but maybe that’s where things are heading. My education on this tech is limited admittedly. I like having the options, though.

 

[peters]

So..is there a Nikon Z to RF adapter with AF?

My first thought!
Incredible price for an incredible lense!
I would love to go on safari one day with such a lense. Last time I had the Canon 100-400mm f4,5-5,6L II IS. Which is great, but sometimes a little bit more reach would be great. Though often the amount of air between the lense and the subject is distorting the image anyway :-D

 

[Otara]

Perhaps Nikon is sacrificing profit in an attempt to gain market share. They were #2, now they’re #3. The ILC market is shrinking, and cameras represent a larger fraction of the company for Nikon than for Canon (and only a tiny fraction for Sony). Desperate times call for desperate measures.

Thats my take too, they know they have to make an impact both by being noticed and increasing share.

Given they probably cant produce this very quickly, Id say its more about visibility than even share.