Nikon to announce a new AF-S 800mm f/5.6 VR lens

Nikon will announce a new AF-S 800mm f/5.6 VR lens. You can see the patent for this lens here. Expect the official announcement between now and Photokina (September 2012).

There were some rumors in the past about a new 800mm f/4 lens, but it seems that Nikon settled on a f/5.6 aperture similar to the old Nikkor 800mm f/5.6 IF-ED lens that was announced in September 1986 and discontinued in December 2005 (read more on the old version here):

The old Nikkor 800mm f/5.6 IF-ED lens

Both Sigma and Canon currently have a 800mm f/5.6 lens in their lineup. The longest telephoto lens from Nikon currently is the AF-S 600mm f/4G ED VR.

This entry was posted in Nikon Lenses and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Craig

    On a related note, has anyone use the Sigma 800mm or 300-800mm? Thoughts?

    • AM

      I haven’t.

      • W


      • Dixie

        I don’t have one either, but I have a need to comment everything.

    • @Craig, it should be called the 300-700mm, because everything beyond 700 is soft. But hey, the lens is still very good, but not on par with the Nikon glass. I went with the 400mm f2.8 instead, with TCs.

  • I want a 400mm f/4. Is that so hard to ask?

    • Ibbo

      400/4? The 200/2 plus TC20 III works like a dream.

      • Jamez

        Or 300/2.8 + 1.4x = 420/4 , sharp wide open…

      • Anthony

        And what does that cost, Ibbo?

        • Ibbo

          Bought some time ago: £2500 plus tax.
          I don’t think a new 400/4 would be much cheaper.
          Everyone has gtheir own solution to the long lens conundrum.
          My own solution is to use the 200/2 and 600/4 with TCs, which gives me the options of:
          Works well for me. YMMV.

  • Drunkcaballo

    18mm-1000mm f/2.8 please

    • litawor

      you have to buy Nikon Coolpix P510 and be happy…

    • zoetmb

      Which would be the size of a small car and cost even more.

  • neversink

    From the Department of Redundancy Department – I repeat, there is no need for the 800mm and all that cumbersome weight and size. The 500 and/or 600 are just as good and aren’t as bulky.
    So I repeat in a redundant and repetitive fashion:

    I prefer the 500mm / f4, the lightest of the big arsenal. With the IQ of a D800, D4 or even the 12 mp D3s/D700 sensors, I can always crop a bit.
    With a TC 1.4 I have 700mm / f 5.6
    With a TC 1.7 I have 850mm / f 6.8
    With a TC 2.0 I have 1000mm / f 8

    All of these are AF ready on the D800 & D4, admittedly the AF above f5.6 has some limitations, but works brilliantly within those limitations.

    So why do I need the 800m 5.6 ???? I could only use the TC 1.4 with it if I wanted to retain a semblance of AF. With 1.4 TC on the 800 I have 1120mm at f8 – And so much more weight than the 500mm F4!!!!!! But I know a ew doctors and lawyers who will buy this and use it once…..

    And now for a parenthetical prognostication:

    But when Nikon puts out their 13 – 1200mm f 1.2, then I might be willing to spend some bucks on something ridiculous. Of course it would be impossible to pick up. You would need to hire a bunch of Sumo wrestlers as assistant schleppers (but after buying the lens, could you afford to pay for help????)

    • Arthur

      Of course you are very cool and impressive with your sarcasm, great job!

      But, for people who’s main usage is around 800mm… a single lens is always better than a lens and a teleconverter.

      But it doesn’t matter! You can always have an opinion and shout it out loud as a fact, feeling better about yourself that you are smarter than hundreds of Nikon-engineers who work full time on this stuff. We all have great admiration for you Neversink!

      • Jake

        Arthur, Nice!

        800mm with…..

        1.4tc = 1120
        1.7tc = 1360
        2.0 = 1600

        I’m sure the image quality will be great too.

        Or how about those focal lengths with OCF and radio triggers???

        Notice the first 7 images in the link below were shot with a 800mm f5.6 lens:

        • CHD

          Jake, nice portraits but what’s the deal with dragging an 800mm lens around to do portraits??? What’s wrong with the cheaper and lighter 70-200…

          Can’t imagine how ridiculous you must have looked…shooting from the other side of the park lol.

          • Pablo Ricasso

            Nothing “wrong” with anything. Consider the difference in perspective from the angles presented by the two lenses. Someone must have preferred the one perspective over the other. Of course someone else will not understand because I could, after all, also shoot the same subject with a wide angle…

            • rg

              someone must be really fat to have to need that long of a lens!!

          • Dave

            “Can’t imagine how ridiculous you must have looked…shooting from the other side of the park lol.”

            Because we all know the most import thing about good photography is avoiding looking ridiculous at all costs, right? You couldn’t have gotten these images with a 200.

        • Jake

          I feel like I need a more original name. You are the third “jake” or “Jake” on here I’ve seem.

      • neversink

        Yes, Arthur…. and Jake

        But you probably can’t pick up the 800 mm lens without the help of an assistant….Seriously, I’m not saying the 800mm is not beautiful or worthy or useless or brilliant. I’d love to use one. But, the need for it given the 500mm and 600mm lenses, for me, makes no sense, particularly given the fine workmanship and optical pairing the Nikon teleconverters bestows upon us. Tie that into the cropping ability of the D800 bodies and I already have a monster telephoto. Thank you Nikon…. (I use the TC 1.7 a lot with my 70-200, so I don’t have to lug around bigger lenses, and I can see using it with the 500mm.

        Unfortunately Jake, right now, you can only use the TC 1.4 on the 800 and retain minimal autofocus capabilities on the D800 cameras or D4 where you can autofocus up to f8, (unlike the earlier Nikon models where AF is limited to a maximum aperture of F5.6., You can’t use the other teleconverters with the 800mm. And one can’t use a TC attached to the 800mm on a on a D3 camera, D700, D7000 or any other Nikon body. Unless you want to focus manually.

        So the 500mm and 600mm actually give me longer practical focal length when attached to the TC 1.7 or 2.0… And the optics are still nothing short of superb.

        And the 500mm (and even the 600mm) will weigh and cost much less than the 800mm.

        However, Nikon is brilliant for reintroducing this lens,as many more millionaires exist today, particularly in developing Asia. And I am sure there will be many people, besides my friends in the legal and medical professions, who wold love to own one just because they can…

        I have shot for a lot of people who love showing me their gear they never use, but they love collecting it. i once had a client who actually owned a 13mm lens, but he never shot it. I think his estate eventually sold it.

        • PHB

          Its a paparazzi lens. Only real use for it is going to be sporting events and the like. The people who cover that stuff know exactly where they are going to be sitting and the lens they need to take.

          I guess the birders might find a use for it, but its gonna be very heavy like the other mammoth lenses.

          That it is returning to the Nikon range probably has more to do with there being few lenses missing from the range now.

        • EnPassant

          Weight will be about 5 kilogramme.
          You have trouble picking that up?
          Then I guess you have to stay away from the 600/4 as well…

          As a general rule no TC or a 1.4 TC will give better IQ than a lens with a 2.0 TC.

          For some 800/5.6 + TC-E 20 III, i.e. 1600/11 would be useful even with manual focus only.
          Remember the 1200-1700/5.6-8 16 Kg monster was manual only. A stop less with todays digital cameras is no problem compared to the analog cameras that lens was built for.

    • Pablo Ricasso

      So throw out your 90 mm macro lens and just use your 60 on a converter! I’m sure the 60 is as good as the 90, so no need for redundancy! Speaking of which…

    • PeterO

      Hmmm, so much complaining – why? Is this not “Nikon” rumors? Is this not a Nikon product? It’s like complaining about General Motors producing newer versions of trucks, when all you drive is a Malibu and want a 2013 model.

      • De Michel

        Don’t worry,

        Nobody wants cars from General Motors.

    • blackout

      An 800mm is a tool for special usage. Normally a photographer does not buy such a monster, but he rents it for specific assignments. Who rents it (at a cost which is proportional to that of the lens) also has one of 400, 500 or 600 and its TC.

      Why spend money to rent a monster when you have very valid alternatives?

      1) at f 5.6 is better than a 400, 500 or 600 + TC at f11;
      2) AF and VR are perfectly tuned;
      3) it can still be transported easily over rough terrain (eg. wildlife);
      4) can be used for hours in crowded environment on a monopod (eg. sports, airshow);
      5) can be used free-hand (eg. panning).

      The requirements are: an instrument of the highest optical quality with a mass slightly greater than that of a 400/2.8. If Nikon’s engineers will do the miracle of a mechanical robust and light, then it will be a success, where the success means the sale of a few thousand copies.

      In the era of web marketing wins who offers the product with the best usability features because people exchange opinions worldwide and spends large sums only for things that give real benefits.

      An 800/4 does not make sense because with a front lens of 8″ (20 cm) would have a weight and size incompatible with typical missions.

    • zoetmb

      The purpose of Nikon putting out an 800mm lens is simply because Canon has one. When Nikon released the current versions of the 400, 500 and 600, they were almost impossible to get for at least the first year, because they simply didn’t make that many, especially the 600.

      Canon’s 800mm currently has a U.S. street price of $13,900. My bet is that Nikon prices this lens at $15K. How many do you think they’re going to sell at that price? (Or even at $13K, but has Nikon ever undercut Canon on price?) Also, these will probably be hand-made, so they’ll never make that many anyway. If the lens is announced this year, you won’t see it at retail for 18 months.

      With all the missing lenses, I think it’s ridiculous for Nikon to be expending efforts on this lens.

      • EnPassant

        “has Nikon ever undercut Canon on price?”

        The Canon long tele lenses are considerably more expensive than the comparable Nikon tele lenses. In fact as much as $ 2.000 cheaper on some lenses! I therefore expect this AF-S 800/5.6 VR will get a price at B&H of about $ 11.900!

        Reason is Canon’s long lenses are considered state of the art to which other must compare, and priced as such. Nikon therefore, even if there long lenses are just as good or almost as good must have a smaller price tag to attract those looking for long tele lenses.

        Considering Nikon doesn’t have any 800 mm lens in their current lens program this is a must have flagship lens if Nikon is serious taking up the fight with Canon about the long tele users.

        I don’t find that ridiculous at all, especially as the development of the long teles propably have there assigned resources and don’t interfere in development of other lenses.

        • zoetmb

          I checked and you’re correct on the newer line of long Canon lenses.

          Street price on the Nikon 400 2.8 is $8999. The old Canon was $7999, but the new model is $11,499.

          The Nikon 500mm is $8399. The old Canon was $6900, but the new model is $10,499.

          The Nikon 600mm is $9799. The Canon is $12,999.

          So I’m changing my prediction. I expect the 800mm to come in at $11,200.

  • happily_using_D800E


    Have rumors about the 80-400 replacement at all? would it be announced alongside D600??

    Many Thanks!

    • PHB

      Seems that they think the 70-200 + TC20 is the better option. And they might well be right. Thats the route I am planning to take.

      • Richard

        Me too. I have the 70-200 f2.8 with a 1.4x TC and plan to add the 2x TC based upon recommendations of others who have tried it. It appears to offer a lot of flexibility at an attractive price, especially if you already have the lense. It will never be the equal of the 400mm f2.8 in certain regards, but then again there are a lot of us for whom the 400mm f2.8 is not an option. I would go for a 300mm f2.8 under some circumstances though….

        I have seen airshow images shot with an older 300mm f2.8 with a 1.7x TC on a D2. They were really tight shots and it was still a hand holdable combination or, when needed, usable with a monopod.

        • happily_using_D800E

          Indeed I own the 70-200 VR2 plus TC-20E3 combo. Used that quite a bit on D700, D800 and D800E.

          The D700 the results were alright. On D800/800E I usually restrict its use to 1.2x and DX crop mode. it is a bit sharper on the D800E than on the D800. But far from what I would call “decent”, it is at best “okay”. It might have more to do with subject distance than lens sharpness.

          When I don’t need all the way 400mm, I rather use the 28-300mm on my 800E for 1.2x/1.5x crop mode. at f/8 and f/11 the 28-300 is as sharp as the 70-200/TC-20E3 combo at 300mm+.

          A 80-400 remade are gonna be sharper than both of them, I reckon.

    • I have not heard anything about this lens in a long time.

      • happily_using_D800E

        Thanks admin. that’s a bad news nevertheless. 🙁

        Perhaps Nikon switched their focus to 100-300/4 for the higher end I reckon.

        • Richard

          That might not be all bad. A 1.4x TC gets you a 140-420mm f5.6 which should be sharp enough and probably lighter.

          I do think the market for a 100-300 f4 is larger which could be a consideration for Nikon.

          We’ll see what Nikon offers us, hopefully soon.

  • kin Notwell

    the 800 is overkill as is any thing over 5o and under 50 too
    I can shoot anything I want with my settings to get the picture i want
    Nikon needs a -10x to 20x tc and my 50 thats all I need

    • neversink

      Hey Notwell,

      It may be fun to make fun of Rockwell, but he never tells you to shoot like him. Yes, he is very opinionated, but he does do good reviews of lenses. Unfortunately, there are too many sheep out there and they all set their cameras the way Ken Rockwell does. Most of his shots are much too vivid for me, particularly the snaps of the kids. But he does know what he is doing.

      There is something said about shooting only with a 5omm on an FX camera. I did that yesterday. I took a hike in sweltering weather and wanted some great pics and didn’t feel like carrying heavy lenses or my wife’s Canon S90 P&S which takes great photos for such a little camera, if you understand its limitations.

      I wanted to go light yesterday, so I left my fx bodies home and grabbed the Nikon D7000 that I had sold but the check bounced from the guy who was supposed to take it off my hands, so I guess I didn’t sell it. Oh yes, and I also grabbed that silly plastic feeling and lightweight DX 35mm f1.8. (50 mm fx equivalent) (OK 52.5 mm equivalent for those counting pennies – but 50 mm is good enough for government work – actually it’s more precise than government work these days – government and work just are a contradiction in terms!!!!)

      I digress — At the end of the day, after my hike with my dog, I was very thrilled by the photos I took with this simple setup. No wide angel lenses were taken, which I would have loved to have used to get a panorama of the lake from the shore, but then again I could have climbed the mountain above the lake for a panorama but I am not crazy. It was hot outside yesterday. Yes, despite the obvious limitations of soloing with the 50mm lens there are benefits. Most importantly, you have to be more deliberate in your composition, take your time and think more.

      When I was a kid, my dad gave me an incredible birthday present. An Exacta vxii a with Zeiss lenses. The only caveat was that I could not get the 35 mm or 250 mm lens from him until I shot a certain number of rolls with the 50mm…. It was a good lesson on concentrating on the image and what you have rather than always switching lenses. I was about 12 years old. However, when he handed down the rest of his Exacta equipment with the Zeiss lenses, the macro tubes and all the filters, I was more excited than that kid in a candy store. I used that camera so much that I had to get the shutter curtains fixed twice. They were beautiful cameras, those Exactas, but Nikon put them to the test when they came out with the F.

      By the way, the shots from yesterday’s hike were beautiful…. (Even though there were moments I wished I had an FX body and the 17 – 35 lens. And there were moments I wished I had my 70-200 zoom. But there were no moments when I wished for all that weight on my back along with my food and hiking gear. Glad I went lightweight this time.)

      PS – I would have taken the 18-200 dx lens instead, but I smashed it on assignment and it is one of the few lenses I never got an extended no-holds-bar warranty on.

  • neversink

    Admin — Have rumors about the new 13mm – 1200mm f 1.2 lens?? Come on…
    Stop holding back!!!!

    • hehe, it’s actually a f/0.95 lens 🙂

  • GOGOGOal!!!

    Oh no!! an 800 5.6..
    Shame on you Nikon for making high quality equipment which us poor folk can’t afford to buy.

    To all of you complaining.. Meh nevermind, it would fall on deaf hears.

    To Nikon.. Please keep making quality equipment even if I can’t afford it, it will only drive me to make more money from my hobby 😉

    NR please keep on doing what you do, those of us who appreciate your work Thank you!

  • T.I.M

    Cut it in half an you have the 400mm f/4 that everyone needs.

    • ActionJunky

      They already have a 200-400 F4. The small amount of extra sharpness you may get from a 400mm prime is not worth the effort.

      • T.I.M

        My 200mm f/2 + TC20E-III give me a 400/4 with 1.8m minimum focusing !
        And the TC20E-III will not add D.O.F like a F/4 lens does, I still have that nice creamy f/2 bokeh !

        • Luis

          I do the 200/2VR + TC20E-III combo also to get to 400/4 and it is quite sharp. Also still pretty portable. However, I do have the older Nikon 800/5.6 when the reach is needed.

        • “And the TC20E-III will not add D.O.F like a F/4 lens does, I still have that nice creamy f/2 bokeh !”

          After reading that I think you were serious when you talked about cutting the 800 5.6 in half to get a 400 4.

  • ActionJunky

    Has anyone tested the 200-400mm with a teleconverter, compared to an older 800mm prime?

  • MB

    f/4 would mean almost 60mm more glass, couple of kilograms more weight and most likely 5000$ more money.
    On such a long lens DOF is paper thin even with f/5.6 and no one is making faster 800mm lens.
    It will be the best telephoto lens around and expensive enough as it is so no reason to go for f/4.

  • Pablo Ricasso

    MB, the weight would double. Consider the weight of a 300 f4 and a 300 f2.8 and then read about the weight of the 300 f2. Compare the weight of the 400 f3.5 to the 400 f2.8. Read about the old 600 f5.6 and then get the specs for any of the 600 f4 lenses. Or just think about the Sigma 200-500 f2.8 and remember that it is only one stop faster and 100 mm longer than the Nikon 200-400 f4.

    For those wanting other focal lengths, the long lenses to consider if size and price are strong motivators are the 300 and the 500. They are only about half as heavy as the 400, 600, and 800 lenses and only slightly less effective at gathering light. The 300 converts to a 600 f5.6 and the 500 makes a 700 f5.6. They also cost much less. But if you’re shooting far enough to consider the longer one, you know which one it is you would use if you could wave your magic wand.

    While the 200 f2 has the same form, the uses I find for it make it different enough that I really don’t think of it with the others. I would never consider using it on a converter, because aperature for aperature, the 300 2.8 is one of the few things that is better than the 200, and that’s without a converter.

    The only lens that gets a converter is the 400 3.5. Just like it says all over the internet, put the 2x converter on and shoot it WIDE OPEN for best results. Pop? Like the frickin CATALINA WINE MIXER… POP… POP… Like someone must have had that 400 lens in their office when they were designing the converter. Got it with the lens and the camera mounted to a single piece of metal. HATE the feeling when the camera is hanging on the converter and it’s wobbling around on the lens mount… LOVE the subject isolation and vivid colors… POP. POP. Some of the best few hundred bucks I spent and I was really skeptical at first, because most of those combinations really suck. Before trying it, I was looking to buy the 500 and the 600. Now I am looking again, but this is only because I want autofocus.

    • neversink

      Hey Ricasso….

      If you are concerned about weight, as from your comment it appears so, then I would choose the 500mm. There is no doubt the 600 is gorgeous, but the 500 is soooooooo much lighter.

      Just a peanut from the gallery giving unsolicited advice….

      • Pablo Ricasso

        Well, it’s probably going to be a 500 because it’s all I can afford. And yeah, it will be lighter than my 400 and the converter and the steel bar they are on, and a little shorter. And if I can’t afford that, there is the sigma 500 f4.5. And if I can’t afford that, there is the old old version of that, which I believe needs rechipped to work somewhat properly.

        The trio that I now have, 200 2, 300 2.8, and 400 3.5, cost me less than 2k all put together. I understand they are a little more now, but that figure still illuminates the size of my budget. I’m thinking that much might buy a sigma lens and twice that might buy a nikon. But you know that I have some pretty good lenses for the size of my budget. If I could shoehorn the 800 in there for anything close to that there’s a good chance that I would, even if I had your frickin 500 already. Image is everything. Stay thirsty, my friend.

        • neversink

          Amigo Pablo Ricasso —

          You can always rent the 500, 600 etc and test before you buy. If you buy from the place you rent from, the rental fee might be eliminated or steeply discounted. Then you can test to your heart’s delight. Also, I don’t know where you live, but if I rent on a Friday, I get the whole weekend for a one day rental fee. Then I can really go to town, or the woods, or the seaside…

          Personally, I don’t like Sigma. I had the 150 – 500 and it broke in the middle of an important shoot. Glad I was using on a second camera as backup, but still the quality is inferior to that of Nikon glass. The bokeh is hard and the focusing motor broke down. There is no way I could have repeated the scene if I had been dependent upon that lens.

          If my Sigma lens failure had been the only one in the book, I would have been fine with it, and said “lemon.”. However, do a google (or whatever search engine you prefer) search on Sigma lens auto focus failure. The list is long. The complaints are many, including duplicate replacements and fixes.

          Sigma is not Nikon and neither are other third party lenses. However, I wouldn’t hesitate to use a Zeiss lens on a Nikon body, though. There’s a reason why Sigma and the other wannabes are cheaper.

          It sounds like your budget is tight — Don’t know if any of my rantings really help. Good luck.

          • Pablo Ricasso

            Of course they do. Someone spent a half an hour on the phone urging me to buy that same Sigma. First I heard it was soft, then I heard they fixed something and was much better. In fairness I hear a lot more about the Tamron 200-500 breaking inside than it, but I didn’t buy that lens either.
            To be totally fair, consider what Nikon and Canon have offered in that focal length and price point.

            But yeah, I have a fear of Sigma. If it’s one with a lot of chromatic aberration, chances are good that it will say something like “APO” on it. Vignetting, flare, and corner softness are something I half expect. Despite the fact that they have been leading the way in wide angle zooms for over twenty years I don’t like the ones that I have. They dwarf the camera, have even less range than stated, hardly allow any light through, and remind me of the plastic that GM uses under the hood of their cars. I really do like the 100-300 f4. It has NONE of those issues and is incredibly sharp.
            I have a couple of 400 f5.6s that I still need to find a camera for. I am making a Minolta/Sony combo for casual use so I can enjoy vr with a cheap camera and cheap old lenses. I started out with a Quantaray/Sigma 135-400 and added the minolta 28-135. I figured I could fairly have it all with just those two lenses and then decided that I wanted the speed of some of their newer crop cameras over the ??? of the discontinued full frame, so I added a Tamron 20-40 to go wide. Then I got the 400s because the zoom is said to get soft at that length. One of the 400s is small and greyish white. It is so tiny it reminds me of the 200 f4micro but shorter and with a filter sized like the 300f 4.5. The other one is newer and said to be very sharp and it better be because it seems physically twice the size of the other. Sadly, they discontinued it so they could sell zooms like the one you complain about. 😮
            When I get a sony and if I remember I’ll let you know what I think of them and the quantaray after using them for a bit. I’ll probably keep the white one unless it’s softer than the zoom because it’s smaller than most mirror lenses.

            • neversink


              Quality Control is a big issue on these third party lenses. And QC will be a big issue, I am guessing, on the Nikon lenses from China.

              The great thing about the great Nikon lenses, besides their spectacular image quality, is that they retain their values. Notice I said “great Nikon lenses.”

              I have never used Quantaray, but I would stay away from this low end Sigma/Tokina stuff. (But then again I stay away from Sigma and Tokina also.) Quantaray, I have heard from my camera salesman, is the real poor man’s Sigma. YIKES!!!! As if Sigma didn’t have troubles. Along comes Q to make Sigma look great.

              Me. i would stick with a cheaper Nikon lens before I would purchase Quantary, Sigma, Tokina….

              Good luck.

            • Pablo Ricasso

              Thanks again. Actually, Quantaray is a label and they buy from Tokina, Tamron, and mostly Sigma. The Sigma lenses they sell are mostly older or discontinued ones and they usually have less problems because by the time Quantaray decides to order some they have chosen a design that has relatively few problems and good performance and Sigma has had time to work all the bugs out. For instance, you can use a Quantaray superwide 24 or 28 on some cameras that will not function with the older Sigma superwide II lenses. They are the exact same optic, but by the time they produced it for the fourth party they were able to update whatever info is on the chip that the various camera makers hid from the third party companies. Sometimes the coatings are newer as well. Usually the lenses are much cheaper because Quantaray has a bad to no reputation and because they order old designs in large quantities so they can initially sell them at a steep discount. The 135 to 400 is exactly a poor man’s Sigma, made in a Sigma factory. I bought it for a little over 100 when the same one marked as a Sigma was selling for around 300 used. The only downside is that Sigma will not rechip a Quantaray lens. Promaster does the same, but seems to buy more equally from the three and also from some lesser known companies. Some of their stuff is just fine and some of it is real garbage. I guess I should say to just figure out who really made the lens in question before giving it any consideration and then test it to see if it works ok for what your use.

    • Ibbo

      Interesting. I also have the old manual 400/3.5, which I used to use a lot with the TC301, making a very lightweight 800/7. I found it better on film than on digital bodies, though still no slouch. Maybe you just have a better copy. For me it went permanently back into store when I got the 200/2, 600/4 and TCs. The AF, the image quality, and the flexibility are so much better for what I need.

    • Andre

      Same old same old, hobbyists worry over technical details and price and the serious people just but the gear for the job.

      • Pablo Ricasso

        Seriously? Oh you big serious mover and shaper! Whatever would I do without you? Get but just the gear you need and do the serious, serious job of moving and shaping those serious images and don’t even think about clowning around because THIS IS REALLY REALLY IMPORTANT!!!
        And I’ll pick up but just the gear I WANT from you later when you don’t need it anymore for like a DIME on your dollar and then I’ll evaluate the technical details at that point…


  • V1 fan

    This is going to be a 2,160mm lens with my V1’s 2.7X zoom sensor!

    • “2.7X zoom sensor”

      Nikon 1 series mocking fail…

  • Pissed Off

    Another senseless release from Nikon. How about a 400mm f/5.6? Bloody overdue.

    But I guess it´s another manly endowment contest between Canon, Nikon and Sigma.. just keep on making 12000mm lenses with gazillion dollar price tags for the 10 photographers who can actually buy them..

  • Vin

    This is a good lens for shooting base ball.

  • Kevin

    hmmmmm looks like this will only cost a left kidney (if you’re right handed)

  • kin notwell

    hey neverstink (comment police )
    i’am very interested in this lens
    i really do like Ken Rockwell and spend time looking at his site
    i really did make fun of people trying to use tc’s to justify not gettting this 800
    i’m sure by the time this comes out we will see nikon working on an even bigger one
    maybe a 1200 double that and add a 1.5 factor = awesome

    • neversink

      ;–} Well Fester, I’m looking few some deputies!!!!!

      • neversink

        Sorry Notwell…

        The spellcheck turned “fer” into “few” with out my permission….

        I’m looking fer some deputies… (signed the chief of comment police)

        Argggghhhh.. Sorry for the rusty badge but it was all Dodge City could afford…

  • Mark B
  • Back to top