Nikkor 800mm f6.3S VR PF announced

[chambeshi]

https://www.nikon.com/news/2021/1214_lens_02.htm

it's clear Nikon is now confident they can mass produce phase-fresnel elements of 127mm ø  Impressive engineering!

[Akira]

Interesting.  The latest 400/2.8 and 600/4.0 by Sony and Canon are roughly 1kg lighter than the F-mount lenses of the same specifications, and Nikon hasn't responded to the competition.  Now that Nikon announced this 800/6.3 PF which should be significantly smaller and lighter than the F-mount 800/5.6, the up-and-coming Z-mount 400/2.8 and 600/4.0 could be game changers!

[Jan Anne]

Same length as the S 400/2.8 but a lot slimmer and probably a lot lighter and cheaper.

The Sony 400/2.8 only weighs 2.9kg and 600/4 3.0kg so the 800mm could land around the weight of a 200-500VR 

[Ilkka Nissilä]

The PF element doesn't necessarily have to be one of the largest ones, though admittedly it has been in the two PF Nikkors available so far.

[chambeshi]

It will be interesting to see the final optical design.

If the prime on launch corresponds to the existing silhouette in the roadmap, then back-of-the-envelope ratios (calculated off the 100-400 S) puts this 800 f6.3 at approx 140 x 315 mm overall dimensions.
Without a reliable Phase-Fresnel scaling factor for telephoto mass, the weight is harder to guesstimate, but 58% of 4.59kg = 2.66 for a hypothetical 800 f5.6, so a 800 f6.3S PF can be expected to weigh < 2.5kg, perhaps even 2.3kg. Consider the 300 PF @ 89 x 148 mm, 0.755kg [58% of the 1.295kg 300 f4AFD] and 500 PF @ 106-237 mm, 1.46kg.

Compared to the 4.59kg 800 f5.6E FL of 160 x 461 mm, this 140 x 315 mm 800 f6.3S PF has indeed undergone a major slimming! One often reads forum posts stating a 3kg telephoto is about their maximum comfortable handholding weight, but I manage short durations with 5.3kg of 400 f2.8E & D5 with TC2, so I another who finds that handholding the 500 PF is a doddle.

I also learnt some years ago how a heavy DSLR is a key to balance a long heavy lens. Poor weight distribution can be a killer IME if a telephoto is 'front-end heavy', this makes a 300 f2.8G VRII harder to handhold than the much better balanced 400 f2.8E FL. Besides this 800 f6.3 PF trimming major weight for handholding, hiking and flying, we also know the Z MILC AF works reliably at lens speeds slower than f8. So the superior image quality of the TZTC14 and ZTC2 underscore even more bonuses.

[Jan Anne]

Those PF lenses are defying the expected laws of physics for focal length vs weight ratios.

Chris Dees came over for coffee and lunch last Friday and I briefly handled his 500PF which was a very strange experience, it was so short and well balanced that the brain had a hard time computing it was really a 500mm 5.6 attached to the D500. I fully understand its popularity now when it is as sharp as people claim

I am curious where the pro wildlife and bird photographers will gravitate to, am recently following Steve Perry and Mark Smith on the tube whom are both Nikon shooters whom are now using the Sony 600/4 on an A1 and the 200-600mm on a second body. Both have ordered the Z9 so it will be interesting to see which blend of F and Zee tele lenses they will end up with using now that there will be more options to choose from on the Zee platform.

[Roland Vink]

I couldn't help wondering if a 700/5.6 would be a better balance between focal length and speed. 800mm and f/6.3 seems rather long and slow to me (it is nearly two stops faster than the Canon 800/11). A 700/5.6 would have the same size a front element as the 800/6.3 so overall the lens would be about the same size, a little shorter, which would be even easier to hand-hold. Adding a 1.4x TC would also give a useful 1000/8 lens. However, I have no doubt the 800/6.3 will be popular with birders where every mm of reach is useful.

[MILLIREHM]

A very well add-on to the overall lens line-up. So far no Z-Supertele is available, two development announcements and the 100-400. Lets see what is still to come  and how these lenses perform. So far I am very  reluctant to plan aquisition of  a Z-mount supertele as I am well equipped with F-mount "big-glass".

[MFloyd]

I have about 30’000 retained pictures made both with the 500 PF and the 70-200E FL. The weight difference is nil (30 grams). The 500mm is 3cm longer. However, the handling of the 500mm is much “lighter”, easier (less weight to the end). 

I was quite skeptical about Fresnel lenses. Though, it was probably the best “lens” thing which happened to me: weight, optical quality.

So, a very good thing that Nikon finally dares to extend their PF line 

[Bill De Jager]

I couldn't help wondering if a 700/5.6 would be a better balance between focal length and speed. 800mm and f/6.3 seems rather long and slow to me (it is nearly two stops faster than the Canon 800/11). A 700/5.6 would have the same size a front element as the 800/6.3 so overall the lens would be about the same size, a little shorter, which would be even easier to hand-hold. Adding a 1.4x TC would also give a useful 1000/8 lens. However, I have no doubt the 800/6.3 will be popular with birders where every mm of reach is useful.

800mm is the traditional upper end for telephoto lenses with conventional refractive optics over the last 25+ years, notwithstanding a few exceptions here and there in earlier decades (or the ultra-rare, ultra-expensive Canon EF 1200/5.6).  Nikon is probably thinking conventionally here, and not wanting to be left behind by Canon or Sony putting out an 800mm telephoto with a competitive or better aperture.  Nevertheless, your points are good and make sense. 

As it is, I'll be content with my 500/5.6 PF, on a D500 for now and at some later time on an FTZ.  For me, a field of view equivalent to that of a 600mm lens on a full-frame sensor has worked out well in most cases for photographing medium to large birds (i.e. 400mm on DX or 300mm on Micro Four Thirds).  Some cropping is still required most of the time, though.

Others will have different needs of course.  This lens should be very useful to many serious wildlife photographers.  It will be possible to carry it into the field some distance.  Together with VR and IBIS, photographers will be able to use this lens without a tripod at least at times though a monopod would be better.  That's still a much more portable setup than a conventional 800/5.6 on a hefty tripod.  The Z9 and this lens should be a killer combo for some applications, in providing previously unattainable combinations of reach, portability, resolution, and speed.

[Jan Anne]

A very well add-on to the overall lens line-up. So far no Z-Supertele is available, two development announcements and the 100-400. Lets see what is still to come  and how these lenses perform. So far I am very  reluctant to plan aquisition of  a Z-mount supertele as I am well equipped with F-mount "big-glass".

Same here, one day I would like to own some big glass again but am saving for a 6 in line Bimmer at the moment for the next series of fast paced roadtrips across Europe, for whenever things go back to normal with the lockdowns and such. Petrol cars are going extinct in a few years, might as well enjoy them for one more run now that they are still available and I am still young enough to enjoy them properly haha.

Once the wheels are sorted it would be nice to bring one of the new long teles along for the ride 

[fish_shooter]

800mm is the traditional upper end for telephoto lenses with conventional refractive optics over the last 25+ years, notwithstanding a few exceptions here and there in earlier decades (or the ultra-rare, ultra-expensive Canon EF 1200/5.6).  Nikon is probably thinking conventionally here, and not wanting to be left behind by Canon or Sony putting out an 800mm telephoto with a competitive or better aperture.  Nevertheless, your points are good and make sense. 

As it is, I'll be content with my 500/5.6 PF, on a D500 for now and at some later time on an FTZ.  For me, a field of view equivalent to that of a 600mm lens on a full-frame sensor has worked out well in most cases for photographing medium to large birds (i.e. 400mm on DX or 300mm on Micro Four Thirds).  Some cropping is still required most of the time, though.

Others will have different needs of course.  This lens should be very useful to many serious wildlife photographers.  It will be possible to carry it into the field some distance.  Together with VR and IBIS, photographers will be able to use this lens without a tripod at least at times though a monopod would be better.  That's still a much more portable setup than a conventional 800/5.6 on a hefty tripod.  The Z9 and this lens should be a killer combo for some applications, in providing previously unattainable combinations of reach, portability, resolution, and speed.

Nikon has made several 1200mm prime lenses as well as zooms covering the range. I have the 1200/11 ED two part tele lens that followed the non-ED version from the 1960s. My lens used 122mm filters and is light enough to pick up with one hand. The min focus distance is a bit challenging with either focusing unit. This new PF lens may be compelling enough for me to part with the 1200...

[Bill De Jager]

Nikon has made several 1200mm prime lenses as well as zooms covering the range. I have the 1200/11 ED two part tele lens that followed the non-ED version from the 1960s. My lens used 122mm filters and is light enough to pick up with one hand. The min focus distance is a bit challenging with either focusing unit. This new PF lens may be compelling enough for me to part with the 1200...

Yes, they did make both prime and zooms in that range in earlier periods which is why I put a time limit on my statement.  In more recent times 800mm has seemed to be the usual limit for photographic lenses from mainstream manufacturers.  Roland Vink's site is a great resource for Nikon lenses including manufacture dates.

[fish_shooter]

Yes, they did make both prime and zooms in that range in earlier periods which is why I put a time limit on my statement.  In more recent times 800mm has seemed to be the usual limit for photographic lenses from mainstream manufacturers.  Roland Vink's site is a great resource for Nikon lenses including manufacture dates.

Depends on one's age, 25 years ago is recent if one is a dinosaur like me. 2022 will be my 50th anniversary in the Nikon system. I suspect the apparent limit was not an arbitrary focal length but maximum aperture needed for autofocus to work as 25 years ago was well into the switch to AF. Recent developments in AF (especially off the image sensor AF) allow for much slower lenses to be AF-able.

[Bill De Jager]

Depends on one's age, 25 years ago is recent if one is a dinosaur like me. 2022 will be my 50th anniversary in the Nikon system. I suspect the apparent limit was not an arbitrary focal length but maximum aperture needed for autofocus to work as 25 years ago was well into the switch to AF. Recent developments in AF (especially off the image sensor AF) allow for much slower lenses to be AF-able.

Hey, I'm getting into dinosaur-land myself. It's now been over 50 years for me in photography, though too many decades in the middle were spent going nowhere and learning nothing. 

Good point about aperture - it used to be that f/5.6 was the realistic limit for AF.  There was not going to be a significant market for very expensive MF 1000mm or 1200mm lenses if 800mm AF lenses were available.