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

tron

CR Pro
Nov 8, 2011
5,222
1,616
No intention to switch brands, but I'm afraid my EOS mirrorless activity will remain limited to the EOS R plus 24-105 f4.
Since I have most lenses I need, I could perhaps buy in RF a new 14mm TS and save my money for travel. I certainly won't replace excellent EFs with only slightly better (?) RFs.
The RF 1,2 50 & 85 are superb, much better than the EF counterparts, but, having Leica M Summiluxes, I just don't need them.
Similar for me and the new super tele RF lenses. I have 300 400DO and 500 latest EF versions and III TCs. I believe it's enough, especially with the super crazy prices. It is more important to try and find time to travel (and use at least a small subset of all these!).

Also as I have already mentioned in a previous post the price and weight of a Z9 adds to price and weight of 800PF so there is that. I would so much prefer an F mount 800PF but I am afraid/sure that I am a minority.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
D

Deleted member 381342

Guest
The weight of the Z9 is close to the weight of the venerable Canon 1DX2 which is like a battleship compared to new offerings such as the Sony A1 or the Canon R3. That said, I'm confident the build quality of the Z9 is very high and superior to the Sony A1 or the R5.
The Z9 feels really fantastic in your hands and sturdy. It feels very much more like a 1Dx than a R5 or A1 and that in my view is a good thing, especially once you put a sizeable lens on it. It works best with the 70-200, 100-400, and 400 at least form the lenses I have tried. The big lenses feel right on it but I don't like it as much when I put on one of the f/1.8 S lenses as they feel too small on it and work better on the Z6 which is more sized with the R5. The Z9 has never felt too heavy and instead has always felt like it was well balanced with a re-assuring "I am holding something" feeling which is hard to explain fully. The R3 feels similar but it doesn't feel quite as solid. Its a body so far that has been out with me since December in rain, wind, snow, and into such negative temperatures my phone stopped working until it heated up again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
The weight of the Z9 is close to the weight of the venerable Canon 1DX2 which is like a battleship compared to new offerings such as the Sony A1 or the Canon R3. That said, I'm confident the build quality of the Z9 is very high and superior to the Sony A1 or the R5.
How's the battery life between these 3 bodies?

Lenses tend to be kept for decades and bodies replaced within the decade.
 
Upvote 0

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
CR Pro
Aug 9, 2018
3,298
4,185
Well no one is forcing you to buy it. I use the EF 100mm macro and the EF 180mm macro on my R5, and they are both stunning lenses. Canon have to offer extra features or higher specs in order to sell the RF lenses, but I'm not at all tempted by the RF 100mm due to a) the shorter front lens to subject distance at 1:1, b) the 1.4x magnification which I don't need, c) the aspherical aberration control that I don't need and d) the cost.
And e) focus-shift...a world premiere for a real macro lens.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Upvote 0

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
1,998
2,438
UK
The Z9 feels really fantastic in your hands and sturdy. It feels very much more like a 1Dx than a R5 or A1 and that in my view is a good thing, especially once you put a sizeable lens on it. It works best with the 70-200, 100-400, and 400 at least form the lenses I have tried. The big lenses feel right on it but I don't like it as much when I put on one of the f/1.8 S lenses as they feel too small on it and work better on the Z6 which is more sized with the R5. The Z9 has never felt too heavy and instead has always felt like it was well balanced with a re-assuring "I am holding something" feeling which is hard to explain fully. The R3 feels similar but it doesn't feel quite as solid. Its a body so far that has been out with me since December in rain, wind, snow, and into such negative temperatures my phone stopped working until it heated up again.
Yes, it makes a lot of sense to have the z9 for shooting with big primes and long tele-zooms, especially if you're photographing animals & birds from a vehicle or hide, where the extra weight isn't an issue. The only problem is transporting the stuff - many internal flights in Africa and Asia have very stringent restrictions on luggage weight - sometimes just 10-15kg, and that has to include your clothes etc as well as your camera gear!

Big lenses can feel unbalanced and awkward on smaller bodies, while wide-angles and macro lenses are more comfortable on something smaller like a z7.

It will be interesting to see whether the "z8" manages to bridge the gap and provide a good compromise for tele and wideangle lenses on a single body.
 
Upvote 0

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
1,998
2,438
UK
Sony have had their 200-600mm out for 3 years, and Sigma have been producing their 150-600mm models since 2014. Canon have the 100-500mm which by all accounts is an excellent lens, but has limitations when using tele-extenders, and doesn't have quite enough reach without one.

I'd be unlikely to switch brands because the performance and specs of almost any recent hi-res FF body would be fine for me. But I would consider switching to (or adding) a Nikon or Sony body just to get access to certain lenses. When I last switched brands, 11 years ago, Canon had the best (for me) range of lenses, but I think Sony and Nikon have better ranges (for me) now.

And I'd be happy to replace my 5DMkiv and R5 with a z9 and z7ii. Unfortunately, I can't justify the expense of switching, or to be more precise I'd much rather spend the money on travelling and discovering new places and subjects to photograph.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,095
12,857
Well no one is forcing you to buy it. I use the EF 100mm macro and the EF 180mm macro on my R5, and they are both stunning lenses. Canon have to offer extra features or higher specs in order to sell the RF lenses, but I'm not at all tempted by the RF 100mm due to a) the shorter front lens to subject distance at 1:1, b) the 1.4x magnification which I don't need, c) the aspherical aberration control that I don't need and d) the cost.
e) the focus shift that is a 'feature' of the lens design.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 3 users
Upvote 0
That's a big hit on Canon's face, Nikon is pushing back and they are doing really well...as Canon did to catch Sony I can see Nikon coming fast and cheaper them both...Canon has been abusive with their prices, for a real-world photographer it's nonsense the new prices, and if you already have your L lens set Canon makes you really think about where they are going.
If I'm just starting I don't know if would choose Canon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
12,351
22,524
Sony have had their 200-600mm out for 3 years, and Sigma have been producing their 150-600mm models since 2014. Canon have the 100-500mm which by all accounts is an excellent lens, but has limitations when using tele-extenders, and doesn't have quite enough reach without one.
The limitation with extenders is that you can zoom out only to the 300mm setting, a niggle. But, as tiggy pointed out the extenders work best when they are close to the rear element of the lens, and so Canon has compromised on getting the best IQ at maximum zoom rather than maximum zoom range by having the TC go deep into the lens. And, believe me, it has worked. The RF 2x on the 100-500 has less image degradation than any combination of the EF 2xTC III with an EF lens I have ever tried (100-400mm II, 300mm f/2.8 II, 400mm DO II etc). The quality of the image from 1000mm is really good and as it is zoomed out to 600mm with the RF 2x. That 1000mm reach really is worth having, and you can zoom out to 600mm for BIF. I think you will love it for your butterflies close up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Apr 23, 2021
13
16
We? Proper? Canon needs no lesson. Merely because someone releases a cheap lens means very little. Most owners of xtra long lenses are not searching for discounts.
something tells me if Canon came out with a $6,500 800mm lens it would magically not be a cheap lens in your eyes but a grand creation from Canon that would have buyers scrambling? lol.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
1,998
2,438
UK
The limitation with extenders is that you can zoom out only to the 300mm setting, a niggle. But, as tiggy pointed out the extenders work best when they are close to the rear element of the lens, and so Canon has compromised on getting the best IQ at maximum zoom rather than maximum zoom range by having the TC go deep into the lens. And, believe me, it has worked. The RF 2x on the 100-500 has less image degradation than any combination of the EF 2xTC III with an EF lens I have ever tried (100-400mm II, 300mm f/2.8 II, 400mm DO II etc). The quality of the image from 1000mm is really good and as it is zoomed out to 600mm with the RF 2x. That 1000mm reach really is worth having, and you can zoom out to 600mm for BIF. I think you will love it for your butterflies close up.
I agree that the 100-500mm seems the best affordable compromise among the Canon range for bird and mammal photography, and I'll probably be getting one later in the year when I will visiting India and South Africa. I'd rather have a 150-600mm range though, and I'd rather have a wider max aperture at the long end, for subject isolation as much as for light-gathering. For UK birding, for the moment I'm getting extremely pleasing results using my EF100-400mm with 1.4x, and pretty good results from my 800mm F11.

I'd find the 100-500mm far too heavy and bulky for butterfly photography, having used my EF100-400mm for that purpose a few times. Also I don't believe that the 100-500mm would perform well enough at near-macro reproduction rates, compared with a purpose-designed macro.For butterflies, damselflies and other smallish insects I use the EF 100mm macro which balances very nicely. I wouldn't get the RF version because I don't need aspherical aberration control or 1.4x macro, and reviews indicate that it's no sharper than the EF lens. My favourite lens is the EF 180mm macro, which balances nicely and has superb bokeh and background rendition. It also stabilises very well, on the R5.
 
Upvote 0

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
1,998
2,438
UK
That's a big hit on Canon's face, Nikon is pushing back and they are doing really well...as Canon did to catch Sony I can see Nikon coming fast and cheaper them both...Canon has been abusive with their prices, for a real-world photographer it's nonsense the new prices, and if you already have your L lens set Canon makes you really think about where they are going.
If I'm just starting I don't know if would choose Canon.
Canon make great camera bodies and fabulous lenses. The only reason to consider an alternative brand is if they offer a body feature that you desperately need, or if they offer lenses that are not available from Canon. My advice FWIW is to *always* look at the lens range before considering what body to buy.
 
Upvote 0
D

Deleted member 387325

Guest
See the numbers in the post by @AlanF.

I know I’m a niche buyer. Some people cannot be convinced of their own lack of importance in the larger picture. To be clear, that’s also a thinly veiled comment directed at you. :p

Note that niche doesn’t mean unimportant. Companies can and do focus on niche markets. I think it makes sense for Nikon to do so. They used to have a much larger market share than they do now. They’ve lost out to Canon and Sony. Sony did the same a decade ago when shifting to FF MILC. Sure, you could argue that they were prescient. But it’s no coincidence that they launched FF MILCs the same year Canon entered the MILC market. When the 800 lb gorilla enters your room, leaving is a good idea.

Leica has never gone after the majority market. Rich hipsters are a viable niche for them. I remember Nikon tried breaking into that one with the Df. Didn’t work for them.

Nikon used to hold around 40% of the ILC market. Now their share is well under 20%. Clearly they need to try something different.

As for margins, the RF lenses seem to focus on that. The production costs for lenses like the 14-35/4 and 70-200/2.8 are probably not much higher that the EF lenses they replace. The MSRPs are much higher. Pure profit for Canon.

Your suggestion that Canon ‘rushed to meet the demands of the high-end wildlife crowd’ doesn’t really hold up. They expended marginal effort. They redesigned the 400/2.8 and 600/4 as EF lenses. Then they turned those two new lenses into four expensive RF lenses by bolting an adapter or a TC+adapter. That’s not a focus, that’s a very limited effort. The novel designs are the 600/11 and 800/11, and the 100-400 non-L, all of which indicate a focus on the consumer market. Not on us. I’m fine with that. Seems you’re not. Deal.
You’re taking the wrong summary from all of this, and that’s kind of my point. There’s a big difference between being a niche and not having any influence. All of these genres of photography could be considered niche by the very definition, and I’m not “embarrassed” or “taking offense” to being in a niche of photography. Lol. That’s absurd and complete spin. But to say that a niche of wildlife/sports/PJs doesn’t have much influence is my point. That’s completely false and the argument that this group of users doesn’t really have any sway on how Canon responds or makes their products is just silly. They’re a niche, yes we agree, like all other genres, but they’re certainly not a niche without influence. After all the top products in each of these company’s lineups are tooled for these photographers specifically.

And Canon did scramble to meet this niche and demand as evidenced by their rushed and half-assed superteles. They could have easily repackaged them, dressed them up nicely to look RF unique with the control rings, and really gone the distance like the other companies have, and yet they slapped a few mounts and TCs on them and pushed them out with the R3. That’s what a rush job looks like to get products into the field and avoid a flurry of users switching.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
You’re taking the wrong summary from all of this, and that’s kind of my point. There’s a big difference between being a niche and not having any influence. All of these genres of photography could be considered niche by the very definition, and I’m not “embarrassed” or “taking offense” to being in a niche of photography. Lol. That’s absurd and complete spin. But to say that a niche of wildlife/sports/PJs doesn’t have much influence is my point. That’s completely false and the argument that this group of users doesn’t really have any sway on how Canon responds or makes their products is just silly. They’re a niche, yes we agree, like all other genres, but they’re certainly not a niche without influence. After all the top products in each of these company’s lineups are tooled for these photographers specifically.

And Canon did scramble to meet this niche and demand as evidenced by their rushed and half-assed superteles. They could have easily repackaged them, dressed them up nicely to look RF unique with the control rings, and really gone the distance like the other companies have, and yet they slapped a few mounts and TCs on them and pushed them out with the R3. That’s what a rush job looks like to get products into the field and avoid a flurry of users switching.
Wildlife and bird photography-specific concerns were not addressed until the last 4 years with AF designed to keep track of the eyes of birds & other animals.

For decades the body & lens were really designed around the work challenges encountered by photo news agencies, photojournalists, sports photographers and other working photographers.

Wildlife & bird photography's just gravy that did not merit any material amount of R&D money

The RF super teles were designed to be as cheap to manufacture as possible so they may share parts with the last EF L lenses. Reason being it would allow after sales support and parts availability for as long as possible.

This was what they did with the 2015 5Ds R body whose ergonomics were largely copied from the 2012 5D Mark III. You can even use the same L bracket designed for the 2012 5D with the 2015 model.

In my mind I think they should not have bothered releasing these refreshed EF lenses as the RF system came out in Sept 2018.

2019

- Canon EF 400mm F2.8L IS III USM
- Canon EF 600mm F4L IS III USM

2018

- Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS III USM
- Canon EF 70-200mm F4L IS II USM

2016

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

Doing so feels like a "bait and switch".
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
People love threads which are an excuse to sound off opinions! It's fun, and why not!
I agree! I have no intention to buy anything but it's awesome to discuss toys for the big boys.

I have friends and family who want to start bird photography as such the Z 800mm is what I'd endorse followed by the RF 800mm f/11 if they want as light weight and cheap a system as possible for a full frame mirrorless body.

If I could do a redo I'd have sold my whole EF system at these key points in time

- Jan 2020... a few months before Mar 2020 COVID lockdown
- Sep 2017... a full 52 weeks before the RF system was announced to avoid sudden depreciation
- Mar 2011... to avoid being exposed to the a-holes of PBPF & WBCP who want me to join their org because I was the 1st person to have a 800mm lens. They also want free photos for their fund raisers for their "research" and to dictate to me what is acceptable photographing behavior even when what I'm doing is perfectly legal.
- Jan 2009... to avoid buying any birding gear and prep myself for my MBA instead. I rather butt heads with capitalists than go into virtue signaling urinating contest over hurting the feelings of the birds
 
Last edited:
  • Love
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,095
12,857
And Canon did scramble to meet this niche and demand as evidenced by their rushed and half-assed superteles. They could have easily repackaged them, dressed them up nicely to look RF unique with the control rings, and really gone the distance like the other companies have, and yet they slapped a few mounts and TCs on them and pushed them out with the R3. That’s what a rush job looks like to get products into the field and avoid a flurry of users switching.
That’s one possible interpretation. I’m not sure it’s a logically defensible position that Canon did a half assed job on products for a market segment they really care about. If they cared about it, they would’ve designed those expensive supertele lenses for RF with control rings, a seamless look instead of an obviously bolted-on adapter, and probably a new color of ‘white’ paint, and done so alongside the early FF MILC bodies instead of doing a rush job three years later.

A more likely scenario is that they did the bare minimum to appease a small number of users of their high-end gear, because that niche market is not viewed as a priority for them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,095
12,857
Another little thing that annoys me. They used to have a small red ball on the lens mount side. This is now a cheaper elongated dot. Problem is I can't feel it with my finger so I have actually look to find it. It mattes for a pro. Yet prices are higher.
The little thing that annoys me about the RF mount is that the rear caps only go on starting from a single position around the circle, instead of three. I hate it when an ‘improvement’ makes something harder to use.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 10 users
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,095
12,857
- Jan 2009... to avoid buying any birding gear and prep myself for my MBA instead. I rather butt heads with capitalists than go into virtue signaling urinating contest over hurting the feelings of the birds
I worked for a venture capital firm. Sometimes my bird photography reminds me of that.

85070D66-62B4-41CD-8383-C03A0A21AE6E.jpeg
 
  • Like
  • Haha
  • Love
Reactions: 5 users
Upvote 0