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

[entoman]

Much as I love my R5 -

The Z9, 800mm F6.3 and 100mm macro are almost enough to get me to switch to Nikon.
If Nikon announced a stabilised 180mm or 200mm macro, that would swing it for me.

Recent and impending gear from Nikon are causing me to delay decisions about getting deeper into the Canon system.

 

[entoman]

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

Yes, atmospheric haze can impact very heavily on image quality when shooting subjects in the mid distance. Often it's better to try and get closer with a 400mm than to shoot from way back with a 800mm. Best time of day is just after sunrise, when lighting is beautiful and haze is minimal. 800mm is a great choice for small birds though, which can be hard to approach, and are usually no more than 5-10 metres away.

 

[reef58]

Embarrassing is the right word here for Canon. Honestly, those repackaged superteles and their pricing from Canon were just a kick in the teeth to their bigger spenders. Arrogance is another word that comes to mind; seems like Canon didn’t learn its lesson in humility after Sony ate its lunch for a while there—they are back to their old ways of overcharging and arrogantly releasing incremental improvements to get us paying more money over time. The creeping apertures, pricing, and lack of effort turns me off as someone who spent a lot of money to invest in the RF mount. Nikon’s playing catch-up and has a bold pricing strategy, understood, but they’re really exposing the gouging and ridiculousness of Canon’s strategy right now. Glad they continue to have some competition or we’d all be paying $30k for recycled EF lenses by now and chanting “high ISO images are no problem these days, thank you, Canon!” Gimme a break.

I shoot several systems and in general am not brand loyal, so I don’t really care for the brand wars, but Canon needs to get it together and treat their customers better here. My Canon budget is shifting to the Z mount, not by choice, but really it’s just the principle of the thing at this point. I don’t feel like Canon really gives a damn about me or my business. Nikon also offers a lot more for my money as a wildlife photographer.

And I don’t think we’re looking at a leapfrog scenario here; Canon is on a growing trend and I can’t even imagine them offering something like that 800PF at that price—no way will we see it. They’d cripple it somehow to avoid cannibalizing their larger $20k primes they want you to buy. And they wouldn’t undercut their own pricing strategy with all those superteles at those price points now—too late to go back. No, if you want high-quality in a small package from Canon, you are going to be paying big big bucks…their bar is set.

6 Months ago everyone was covering Nikon with dirt, now they are the greatest since sliced bread. It is fine and dandy to get cheaper gear, but if camera companies don't make enough profit to make it worth while they will throw in the towel. Be careful in hoping for a race to the bottom.

If is nice to have three major players in the market. Keeps prices in check and innovation ongoing.

Don't forget Canon has an 800mm lens for less than $1000 since no one cares about f stop anymore.

 

[Czardoom]

6 Months ago everyone was covering Nikon with dirt, now they are the greatest since sliced bread. It is fine and dandy to get cheaper gear, but if camera companies don't make enough profit to make it worth while they will throw in the towel. Be careful in hoping for a race to the bottom.

If is nice to have three major players in the market. Keeps prices in check and innovation ongoing.

Don't forget Canon has an 800mm lens for less than $1000 since no one cares about f stop anymore.

I know most forum folks dismiss anything but full frame, but I would certainly consider OM System (formerly Olympus) when it comes to wildlife and BIF. So, maybe not a major player in forum members' minds, but certainly a 4th alternative to the "big 3". If you are looking for much cheaper, much smaller, much lighter, I would consider adding a new OM-1 and an Olympus 100-400mm lens if you are looking for 800mm reach for wildlife and birds. People are talking about switching to the Nikon Z9 and this 800mm lens which would cost $12,000, compared to $3,600 for the new OM-1 camera and lens. This Nikon lens - while very impressively priced and small and light - is still twice as heavy as the Olympus 100-400 and over 4 times as expensive. Plus you get the significant advantage (in my opinion) of having a zoom.

Yes, the Olympus 100-400 is not a "PRO" lens, nor a fast lens, so you could choose the Olympus 300mm f/4 (equivament 600mm reach) instead. Adding a 1.4 teleconverter will get you over 800mm and it will still be less than half the price of the Nikon 800mm PF (about $3200 for the lens and 1.4 TC) and about 700 grams lighter. Yes, these MFT alternatives will give you higher equivalent F stops resulting in less bokeh and more noise. For me, the advantages of cost, size and weight far outweigh the disadvantages. Most of my BIF shots are against blue skies or backgrounds considerably far away, that bokeh is not an issue. Noise reduction programs like Topaz and others, make any additional noise (usually rather minor compared to my FF camera) a non-issue.

Plus, Olympus and OM system gives you Pro-Capture, allowing you to catch the action before you actually hit the shutter button. A great feature. If I'm not mistaken, Canon has it in the M6 II (?), but can't understand why it's not in the R5, R6 or R3. (or is it? If it is, please let me and everyone else know.)

 

[dolina]

Unless people actually vote with their wallets and not just ‘on paper’, Canon won’t care. Nor should they.

My guess is that most people who post something like this:

…are irrelevant because they don’t have even the price of the Nikon 800/6.3, much less the price of the RF 800/5.6, to spend on camera gear.

The price of the Z 800mm is $6.5k and RF800mm 5.6 is $17k.

I've had the 2008 EF800mm for over 13 years and on paper the price & weight of the Z 800mm is good enough for me to consider selling my EF800mm at a $1,500 lower price than the Z 800mm MSRP.

Back in 2008 when I was evaluating between the EF800mm and the original EF600mm IS my priories were (1) weight and (2) age of technology. I chose the the EF800mm as it started shipping weeks before the purchase and was nearly 1kg lighter.

Many birders contended that it was slower by 1 stop but to which I counter it had multiple stops of a newer IS system. I'd lose the flexibility of being able to use a 1.4x with a 600/4 that allows for 840/5.6. 40mm more focal length at diminishing image quality from circa 1999 materials science is not something i particularly like.

Over a dozen years I've traveled extensively with this 800mm by kilometers on foot, by plane both internationally and domestically and rubber boat for inter island travel.

My conclusion is: 1/2 the weight is half the weight and at 1/3rd the price... it's no contest.

If someone approached me toay about a birding setup from scratch I'd recommend they build around this Z 800mm lens.

It's (1) 1/3rd the cost at (2) 1/3rd slower f-stop at (3) 1/2 the weight of faster 800mm lenses.

If they balk at the above $1,000 price tag then I'd suggest the 800/11 STM

After photo news agencies the typical buyer of birding & wildlife lenses are over 60yo who typically avoid weight training. Very atypical that under 40 who do CrossFit would spend on something like this as they have better things to do.

 

[Deleted member 387325]

6 Months ago everyone was covering Nikon with dirt, now they are the greatest since sliced bread. It is fine and dandy to get cheaper gear, but if camera companies don't make enough profit to make it worth while they will throw in the towel. Be careful in hoping for a race to the bottom.

If is nice to have three major players in the market. Keeps prices in check and innovation ongoing.

Don't forget Canon has an 800mm lens for less than $1000 since no one cares about f stop anymore.

Agreed on the competition being good. We all know what Canon would offer us without it. Goes for all the companies, really, but Canon is without a doubt the worst culprit.

Quoting my post and saying everyone was throwing dirt on Nikon—I was not. I’m open to any of the brands and encourage them all to succeed. Canon is price gouging and offering lesser products for more money; that’s deserving of criticism. After all, if everyone just sits by and takes it, these companies wouldn’t change. People are welcome to cheer on their brands all they want but when the brands screw them, it’s good to speak up so they don’t continue doing it. Everyone loses when folks are doing their damage control for them.

I haven’t shot with the 800 f/11 because I have a hard enough time with my 100-500 at f/7.1 and moving critters at dusk. I’m sure it’s a great lens for some folks, just not me and my shooting style. Nice to have options though, agreed. And not worrying about apertures is a bit of a stretch considering the PF is f/6.3 while the more expensive $20k glass is f/5.6. A third of a stop? Hardly not caring about apertures. F/11 however is in quite another discussion.

 

[dolina]

6 Months ago everyone was covering Nikon with dirt, now they are the greatest since sliced bread. It is fine and dandy to get cheaper gear, but if camera companies don't make enough profit to make it worth while they will throw in the towel. Be careful in hoping for a race to the bottom.

If is nice to have three major players in the market. Keeps prices in check and innovation ongoing.

Don't forget Canon has an 800mm lens for less than $1000 since no one cares about f stop anymore.

You make a very valid point for markets where Nikon depends on a 3rd party distributor due to very low volume of sales.

In the Philippines that was the #1 complaint about the previous distributor. This was the same complaint about Sony even when its Sony Philippines handling after sales support.

Historically cameras at these price points generally do not break down easily so even if the camera brand goes belly up it isn't as worrisome as you are projecting it to be. Odds are even if they file for bankruptcy another company would buy them out for their IP and possible sales for the future.

Canon's f/11 lens is 2 stops slower than f/5.6 unlike a 1/3rd stop speed difference. For under $1,000 it is a great value and the price reflects that compromise.

For those who want something faster the Z 800mm is (1) 1/3rd slower f-stop at (2) 1/3rd the cost at (3) 1/2 the weight of fastest 800mm lenses.

The f-stop argument is like those comparing a 1988 200/1.8L to a 2008 200/2.0L IS. Owners of both lenses told me that the 1/3rd f-number difference is inconsequential considering (1) 20 years of image sensor sensitivity improvements and (2) multiple stops of Image Stabilization.

After 14 years I think image sensor noise handling would improve to the point that 1/3rd slower isn't that big of a deal.

 

[jam05]

It is no dmn milestone. Nikon came up with this PF lens crap 7 years or so ago. Dont know why CR tries to keep rebirthing this hybrid lens. There is a reason why not all of their lenses are not PF type. They dont sell all that well despite their size. Reduce the amount of glass and replace it with polymers and its bound to be smaller. No rocket science here. Those that care to substitute precious glass with lens flare, have urselves a good time. But dont kid urselves into believing you have anything equivalent to its glass counterparts

 

[dolina]

It is no dmn milestone. Nikon came up with this PF lens crap 7 years or so ago. Dont know why CR tries to keep rebirthing this hybrid lens. There is a reason why not all of their lenses are not PF type. They dont sell all that well despite their size. Reduce the amount of glass and replace it with polymers and its bound to be smaller. No rocket science here. Those that care to substitute precious glass with lens flare, have urselves a good time. But dont kid urselves into believing you have anything equivalent to its glass counterparts

PF is the Nikon equivalent to Canon's DO.

For many the weight savings that creates a durability that is "good enough" is sufficient for 99% of most buyers of a $6.5k lens.

If ever the first Z 800mm has a catastrophic failure or even gets lost/stolen you'll have money left over for 2 more Z 800mm.

Those buying this lens aren't looking to go birding in eastern part of Ukraine & if they were then no argument that the RF800mm may be your cup of tea.

Your point of view is equivalent to pushing we buy a military-grade Humvee SUV just to go to the neighboring Costco to do the weekly grocery run. A Subaru Forester SUV would be more than sufficient for this application. Subaru too expensive or dykey? Then go with the Hyundai Kona of 800mm the 800/11 STM.

Nikon under immense pressure to make the Z mirrorless mount a success forced new & unique designs that addresses key concerns for current camera owners looking to upgrade to mirrorless and new buyers who want an easier time taking photos that go beyond people photography.

The only innovative mirrorless lens I can recall from Canon so far is the 800/11 and 1200/8. f/11 will get Sigma/Tamron/Tokina buyers to go back to 1st party. The 1200 is your bragging rights lens made accessible to people other than Saudi Oil Money

 

[dilbert]

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

No. That's no longer possible. That's a part of why Canon & Nikon are stopping old lens development: older lenses don't require their cameras.

 

[Birdshooter]

Thanks, to all for this mornings chuckles a whole 5 pages worth of them.

NIKON unless some of you are not paying attention, have lost numerous customers to mainly Sony and Canon.
I know in my little circle of the world at least six people that dumped Nikon for Sony. All owners of Nikon supertelephotos.
Those customers are NOT coming back just because Nikon introduces a new lens or a bunch of new lenses.

Carry on....

 

[Deleted member 381342]

Thanks, to all for this mornings chuckles a whole 5 pages worth of them.

NIKON unless some of you are not paying attention, have lost numerous customers to mainly Sony and Canon.
I know in my little circle of the world at least six people that dumped Nikon for Sony. All owners of Nikon supertelephotos.
Those customers are NOT coming back just because Nikon introduces a new lens or a bunch of new lenses.

Carry on....

Yet I've still to meet more than one Sony user. I have met one out of hundreds of photographers and that needed me to actively hunt one down to try out the Sony A1. The numbers of big lens shooters are still 60-40 or maybe 70-30 Canon to Nikon.

 

[tron]

I do not know if anyone mentioned the obvious before but the cost difference is less. At least for Canon users who do not have the Z9 and have to buy it too. If there was a version with the F mount I might consider it since I have D500 and D850. Having Canon DSLRs and mirror less and Nikon DSLRs is more than enough for me.

 

[tarjei99]

It's a temptation to switch gear every time another manufacturer comes out with something better, but they leapfrog each other. It's taken Nikon 18 months to equal (better in some ways, worse in others) the AF on Canon's cheaper R5, and the Z 800/6.3 will have limited availability for quite some time. In 18 months time, Canon will undoubtedly have a new generation of bodies and new lenses. So jump to Nikon now and then jump again?

Canon does not work that fast. And they are frugal with new lenses. Remember, they still have not produced a new version of the EF 400mm F/5.6. Perhaps the lens is still good enough or would have been too god for the other 400mm lenses. Or improving it would have made it too expensive.

If I didn't have the EF 600 II, I would seriously consider an OM-1 with either a 100-400mm or 150-400mm zoom. It would cost less by far, have up to 800mm equivalent and Capture Pro. It is supposed to be very good on slow motion video, but I don't do video.

 

[Birdshooter]

Yet I've still to meet more than one Sony user. I have met one out of hundreds of photographers and that needed me to actively hunt one down to try out the Sony A1. The numbers of big lens shooters are still 60-40 or maybe 70-30 Canon to Nikon.

Are you talking about Super telephotos like the 600mm, as in Canada where I live I know a lot, yes a lot of Sony owners with 600mm and many with the Sony 200-600

As a 40+ year Canon user, I can't see the difference when looking at an image if it was taken by a Sony, a Nikon or a Canon super telephoto. LOL

 

[tarjei99]

I bunkered the money to get a state of the art big white as described for years now:
- switchable TC integrated
- light
- great IQ
- good close up performance
I turns out this lens to be black with a red ring. The prizing is OK, we get the adequate body including the lens within this prize range.

I would have thrown my money to a 400 with built in TC. And as a bonus this PF 800 as well. Now I have to check availability on the Nikon side.

Oh boy, Canon ....

You could have gone for the EF 200-400 F/4 with a built in teleconverter. Not an RF lens, so what!

 

[tarjei99]

I guess we can’t all be as wealthy and successful as you. I’ve spent about $35k on the RF system thus far and that’s a lot of money for me. I’m self-employed in the middle of a global pandemic and make my entire living off of wildlife photography. So yeah, if you’re asking me if $13,500 extra in my pocket is greener grass, going with Nikon’s 800 over Canon’s, I’d say yes…call me crazy. I’d argue the blind loyalty is more expensive.

Then you should consider Micro Four Thirds cameras. A 400mm is equivalent to 800mm and is a lot cheaper than even the Nikon is. I see that there are more than one zoom which end at 400mm.

I have my EF-600 II, so I am not in the market for a new long tele. If I was, I doubt that I would go with any of the big 3.

I was thinking about the OM-1 and the 150-400mm zoom, but decided that I will have to soldier on with the the EF-600. However, I keep thinking of a zoom 300-800mm equivalent. It is tempting.

If I was a professional wildlife photographer, I would probably have to go with the OM-1 anyway due to its video capabilities.

 

[dolina]

Thanks, to all for this mornings chuckles a whole 5 pages worth of them.

NIKON unless some of you are not paying attention, have lost numerous customers to mainly Sony and Canon.
I know in my little circle of the world at least six people that dumped Nikon for Sony. All owners of Nikon supertelephotos.
Those customers are NOT coming back just because Nikon introduces a new lens or a bunch of new lenses.

Carry on....

Did you ask why the F mount DSLR users sold their Nikons for a Sony or Canon at the time they sold theirs?

 

[tarjei99]

Yes, the Olympus 100-400 is not a "PRO" lens, nor a fast lens, so you could choose the Olympus 300mm f/4 (equivament 600mm reach) instead. Adding a 1.4 teleconverter will get you over 800mm and it will still be less than half the price of the Nikon 800mm PF (about $3200 for the lens and 1.4 TC) and about 700 grams lighter. Yes, these MFT alternatives will give you higher equivalent F stops resulting in less bokeh and more noise. For me, the advantages of cost, size and weight far outweigh the disadvantages. Most of my BIF shots are against blue skies or backgrounds considerably far away, that bokeh is not an issue. Noise reduction programs like Topaz and others, make any additional noise (usually rather minor compared to my FF camera) a non-issue.

The pro version of that zoom is the 150-400 F/4.5 with a built in 1.25 teleconverter.

If I didn't already have more EF glass than I can carry, I would consider the OM-1.

 

[danfaz]

If I'm not mistaken, Canon has it in the M6 II (?), but can't understand why it's not in the R5, R6 or R3. (or is it? If it is, please let me and everyone else know.)

Yes, the M6 II has this feature. It's quite a cool feature. Not sure why it's not in any of the R series cameras.