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

[SteveC]

Internet forums are full of Sony users, and some of them the very best bird photographers around. But, like you, I hardly ever see one on my regular birding outings, less than 1%, and see similar ratios to you of about 70:30 or 80:20 Canon to Nikon. And most of them have 100-400 Canons or 150-600 Sigmas or Tamrons. Maybe, we just live in a poor part of the world, and it's a different balance in the USA and Canada. The 500 PF is popular with the Nikon crowd, and despite what jam05 writes, a damn good lens.

Oddly, I see much more Nikon than Canon around here. I was surprised when I first learned here that Nikon's (worldwide) market share was so low.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I wonder how many ever bought the EF 800mm f/5.6? @dolina on CR has one but I've forgotten or missed who else has. It has been pretty much a niche lens for a few real experts. Maybe it was because of the serious pricing and Nikon will make it much more popular. But, it is still a fairly specialised focal length.

I appreciate that @dolina recognizes he’s in a niche group, unlike the members here who seem to think they are representative of a large swath of the market.

 

[Deleted member 381342]

I wonder how many ever bought the EF 800mm f/5.6? @dolina on CR has one but I've forgotten or missed who else has. It has been pretty much a niche lens for a few real experts. Maybe it was because of the serious pricing and Nikon will make it much more popular. But, it is still a fairly specialised focal length.

The Canon EF 800 f/5.6 was one to avoid as the 600 II gets you a sharper image with the 1.4x. The Nikon 800 was one to rent when you knew you needed it and could carry it to the right location.

The new Nikon 800 is looking like it can replace the 600 + 1.4x that many birders resort too but in a smaller package that you can get down with lower than your tripod and still get a sharp image at 1/320s.

 

[AlanF]

The Canon EF 800 f/5.6 was one to avoid as the 600 II gets you a sharper image with the 1.4x. The Nikon 800 was one to rent when you knew you needed it and could carry it to the right location.

The new Nikon 800 is looking like it can replace the 600 + 1.4x that many birders resort too but in a smaller package that you can get down with lower than your tripod and still get a sharp image at 1/320s.

You may well be right, and its price is a key factor.

 

[Deleted member 381342]

You may well be right, and its price is a key factor.

Weight was a bigger factor for me personally. I was fully prepared to pay well over £10,000 for the 800mm as I had based my savings on the cost of the Canon and the preceding Nikon 800mm. I could have even imagined paying more for the lighter weight. This is a 800mm that I can take with my 100-400 and 105 macro in one backpack for a long treks into the middle of nowhere.

 

[Czardoom]

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.

Yes, I tend not to think of that Pro lens as it is way beyond my price range - but if I had the funds to consider a wildlife/birding lens that cost over $6,000, The Olympus 150-400 would be a no-brainer. As I said, the Nikon 800 PF is no doubt a great lens (and early reviews seem to back this up) - and I briefly owned the 300mm PF, so have experienced the very high quality of Nikon's PF lenses, but a zoom is so much more versatile and easier to use. The Olympus is $1,000 more, but it's 500g lighter and 70mm shorter.

 

[stochasticmotions]

This lens looks like it will be great for Nikon users. Along with their other PF lenses they have some great "lighter" options for nature photography at a pretty reasonable price. So far the only camera from Nikon that is good for the same purpose in my eyes is the Z9 but I would prefer a much smaller body like the R5 or A1.

I really hope this gets Canon back working on their DO lenses (the 400 II was really quite good) or Sony gets in on the game. At some point I'm likely to move on from the 500 f/4 EF lens but I will probably wait to see if either Canon or Sony step up with some similar PF (DO) type lenses. For now I'll stick with the 500 on the Canon and the 200-600 on the Sony.

A lighter 800 would be pretty sweet....I most often use the 500 with the 1.4 teleconverter, this was shot today with that combo.

 

[Blue Zurich]

I know it's petty but it still makes me cringe.

There is no such word as 'lense'

Now then, this statement will not change some folks and I will accept that as I also have many flaws myself...spelling the word lens incorrectly on a photography forum not being one of them. Pointing out others mistakes, yes...I need to work on that.

 

[AlanF]

I know it's petty but it still makes me cringe.

There is no such word as 'lense'

Now then, this statement will not change some folks and I will accept that as I also have many flaws myself...spelling the word lens incorrectly on a photography forum not being one of them. Pointing out others mistakes, yes...I need to work on that.

German for lens is linse and so our German members sometimes make that small spelling mistake. Their English is usually so good you won’t otherwise know it is not their mother tongue.

 

[Blue Zurich]

German for lens is linse and so our German members sometimes make that small spelling mistake. Their English is usually so good you won’t otherwise know it is not their mother tongue.

Ok, you get der pass

 

[tapanit]

I wrote they charge the same in every EU country. In case you didn't understand that, that is why they charge the same in Germany and Finland. They charge us and Norway more because we are not in the EU, or perhaps you didn't know that.

OK, I misunderstood you. But that explanation doesn't make any sense. Other countries outside EU are also cheaper than the UK and Norway.

 

[CrPr]

This lens looks like it will be great for Nikon users. Along with their other PF lenses they have some great "lighter" options for nature photography at a pretty reasonable price. So far the only camera from Nikon that is good for the same purpose in my eyes is the Z9 but I would prefer a much smaller body like the R5 or A1.

I really hope this gets Canon back working on their DO lenses (the 400 II was really quite good) or Sony gets in on the game. At some point I'm likely to move on from the 500 f/4 EF lens but I will probably wait to see if either Canon or Sony step up with some similar PF (DO) type lenses. For now I'll stick with the 500 on the Canon and the 200-600 on the Sony.

A lighter 800 would be pretty sweet....I most often use the 500 with the 1.4 teleconverter, this was shot today with that combo.View attachment 203022

Agree with you - great shot, congrats. Ím currently using the 400 DO II (with both extenders) on a R5 For most of my wildlife work. Image quality can only described as exeptional also with the extenders. Handling, stabilization and AF are outstanding as well - allowing even for some free hand bird videos with 800 mm …. This combination offers 3 important focal lengths for nature photography (400, 560, 800) with comparable size and weight compared to the new (interesting) Nikon lens. Thus, until Canon offeres one or more RF-DO lenses I´ll stick with my lenses (plus the really good RF 100-500 as well) and enjoy all the features of the lightweight and versatile R5.

 

[ISv]

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

!

 

[Deleted member 387325]

I appreciate that @dolina recognizes he’s in a niche group, unlike the members here who seem to think they are representative of a large swath of the market.

Seems like a thinly veiled comment at me from our previous discussion, so I’ll bite. You never responded to my last comment about the wildlife/sports/PJs buyers and instead chose to drop this little jab. We buy mostly the same gear so for you to discount the wildlife community as a niche group that doesn’t really account for much is akin to saying all of these types of shooters who buy the top-tier products (wildlife/sports/PJs) are a niche group. Every top of the line body with the fastest specs, all the high-end telephoto lenses used in these genres—all for niche users that don’t account for much according to your logic. It’s just flat out silly. Sure, they probably sell a larger quantity of wide lenses like you mentioned, but the margins are also a lot less. They wouldn’t be targeting wildlife/sports/PJs with the best, pro bodies and lenses if it was a niche group they didn’t make a significant amount of money from. Fewer quantity of higher priced goods with better margins. It’s a big deal for them. Not sure how you’re even trying to argue this, honestly.

 

[ISv]

Ok, you get der pass

What language it is? In German you have to start with "Jawohl ..."!

 

[AlanF]

OK, I misunderstood you. But that explanation doesn't make any sense. Other countries outside EU are also cheaper than the UK and Norway.

I wrote that the price in the UK is decided by Canon Europe. Countries like India, China and Australia are not in Europe and their pricing is decided by other sectors of Canon. Different regions have different pricing and that is how there are cheap grey market imports.

 

[Del Paso]

What language it is? In German you have to start with "Jawohl ..."!

Is it kind of a Schwyzerdütsch?
Grüezi mittenand!

 

[mariosk1gr]

I cannot understand Canon's marketing policy. From one hand they enter to milc world with innovative lenses such as 28-70, 50 1.2, 85 1.2 including DS version and others and from the other hand they stuck on old patterns with super telephoto lenses! Don't they understand that?

 

[Del Paso]

No company, not even Canon, could have developed from scratch a full new line of cameras and lenses from the widest WA to the longest tele, and this for a shrinking market.
So, they had to make a choice, whether to "recycle" EF lenses or to let customers wait a few more years to get brand-new designs. This, with regard to the strong competition they are facing, they couldn't do.
It may seem unsatisfactory, but it was reasonable.
Be patient...

 

[AlanF]

You can get some idea of relative lens sales from this amazing site that catalogues Nikon serial numbers http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/lenses.html . The 800/5.6 VR has sold only about 3,500 copies since 2013. The latest 600mm f/4 6, 6,900 since 2015, the 500/4 3900 since 2015 and the 400/2.8, 4,200 since 2014. The consumer 200-500, 225,000, give or take, since 2015. The 80-400 f/5.6, about 88,000 since 2013, and the 500mm f/5.6 27,000 since 2018. The "professional" big blacks are only very roughly 5% of those sales.

Maybe Canon does know where the sales are - those long expensive primes are niche products in the telephoto and supertelephoto categories and miniscule in the total lens sales. (I'd be surprised if the $6000 800/6.3 sells more than the $3000 500/5.6 PF).