Thoughts on the 400-800 f8

[Unframed Dave]

I purchased this lens a few months back after being gifted some money by my old Dad. It was a customer return from WEX with a 10% discount on the unboxed price. At this price, it was a bit of no brainer and if I didn't do something with the money, I'd only waste it on more velour leisure suits.

Anyway, I had one purpose in mind. I spend a lot of time in Spain and a lot of that time on nature reserves photographing birds. With this in mind, I thought the extra reach would be nice and the limited aperture not too much of an issue.

Today, is the first time I've given it a proper outing and these are my thoughts. All the photos below are jpegs, full frame and no processing. Those of you who know me by now, know that I don't process beyond cropping and straightening. This includes (or precludes) noise reduction software. To this end, ISO is very important to me. I don't have the luxury of not worrying about it.

So, how did it handle?

To begin with, it's a tad heavier than my 200 - 600, but a lot lighter than my 600 f4. I ended up mounting it on my monopod and carried it as you would a crucifix, camera, horizontally across my shoulders and mono, outright in front of me at about 20 degrees to the vertical. It wasn't any less comfortable than the 600, which I also use in this way, but it was less convenient than my 200 - 600, which I handhold everywhere. I handheld it the hides, and it was absolutely fine.

And, it's noisy. All the time. For an old fella, I have very good hearing, and this thing whirrs all the time, even if you're just carrying it, it whirrs. This annoys me, I rely on my hearing a lot to identify what's around me and where it is. It isn't so loud that it drowns other sounds out, but it distracts. Can anyone else with one have a listen to theirs? I suspect mine may have a fault. None of my other lenses do this. I also wonder how it's affecting battery life?

How did it perform?

It was predictable, when conditions were right, it performed brilliantly. Images were tack sharp and it had no problems finding and maintaining focus.

The issues are entirely predictable and don't apply to everyone. f8 is slow, even in the land of light, it can be too slow, if you're trying to keep ISO to a minimum.

The shots below are all full frame, I've picked the best. There where times, I'd loved to have my f4 available, the meadow pippit for example kept moving in and out of shade. There are also times, I'd have liked better subject/background separation, particularly the heron.

I've only kept the Kingfisher in, to demonstrate how well it managed to focus, I estimate that shot was taken at 25 metres and in between all those posts and reeds, it would have challenged a lot of lenses.


At the end of the day, these issues could have and were predicted from pre purchase. Is it a keeper? Too soon to say, I need to play more. Will I sell my 200 - 600, absolutely not. What about the 600? From my dead cold hands! It is still the Daddy in my view.

I'm going to take it out a bit more whilst here and form more of an opinion.

• ILCE-1
• FE 400-800mm F6.3-8 G OSS
• 800.0 mm
• ƒ/8
• 1/2000 sec
• ISO 640

• ILCE-1
• FE 400-800mm F6.3-8 G OSS
• 800.0 mm
• ƒ/8
• 1/1600 sec
• ISO 640

• ILCE-1
• FE 400-800mm F6.3-8 G OSS
• 800.0 mm
• ƒ/8
• 1/400 sec
• ISO 1000

• ILCE-1
• FE 400-800mm F6.3-8 G OSS
• 800.0 mm
• ƒ/8
• 1/2500 sec
• ISO 1000

• ILCE-1
• FE 400-800mm F6.3-8 G OSS
• 604.0 mm
• ƒ/8
• 1/1250 sec
• ISO 640

• ILCE-1
• FE 400-800mm F6.3-8 G OSS
• 800.0 mm
• ƒ/8
• 1/2000 sec
• ISO 640

 

[Unframed Dave]

I've just viewed these on the site and to be totally honest, the compression isn't presenting these at anything like actual sharpness. They are absolutely tack, apart from the kingfisher.

 

[AlphaWorld]

I've just viewed these on the site and to be totally honest, the compression isn't presenting these at anything like actual sharpness. They are absolutely tack, apart from the kingfisher.

I think you have to upload them as JPEGs at no more than 2000 pixels on the long side, or they get re-sized. To show more detail, I think you have to crop to show the details.

@Tim Mayo is the man to confirm that.

 

[Unframed Dave]

I think you have to upload them as JPEGs at no more than 2000 pixels on the long side, or they get re-sized. To show more detail, I think you have to crop to show the details.

@Tim Mayo is the man to confirm that.

I'll try in the morning. Thanks.

 

[Unframed Dave]

I think you have to upload them as JPEGs at no more than 2000 pixels on the long side, or they get re-sized. To show more detail, I think you have to crop to show the details.

@Tim Mayo is the man to confirm that.

• ILCE-1
• 800.0 mm
• ƒ/8
• 1/1600 sec
• ISO 640

• ILCE-1
• 800.0 mm
• ƒ/8
• 1/400 sec
• ISO 1000

• ILCE-1
• 800.0 mm
• ƒ/8
• 1/2500 sec
• ISO 1000

• ILCE-1
• 604.0 mm
• ƒ/8
• 1/1250 sec
• ISO 640

• ILCE-1
• 800.0 mm
• ƒ/8
• 1/2000 sec
• ISO 640

 

[Unframed Dave]

I think you have to upload them as JPEGs at no more than 2000 pixels on the long side, or they get re-sized. To show more detail, I think you have to crop to show the details.

@Tim Mayo is the man to confirm that.

It seems you are correct. Didn't higher resolution uploads used to be part of the paid membership?

 

[Tim Mayo]

My 400-800 makes a little noise when focusing but nothing too annoying. I prefer to use my Sigma 500 most of the time though, I'm thinking the 400-800 wasn't my wisest of purchases. Like you say, you really need good light and it feels like a brick after using the Sigma. It's very sharp though

Regarding image uploads. Anything over 2048px at the long edge gets resized. So it's best to upload smaller than this if you can. I used to allow up to 4000px for Pro Members but this was only for uploads direct to the Media Gallery. Unfortunately there was no way to get this to work for image uploads into forum posts which most people are doing, so it was pretty much pointless and was removed from the Pro Member offering. It still actually works for existing pro members though.

Depending on what happens with hosting costs next year due to this memory and chip crisis, I may need need to look at alternative options for uploads. I think Fred Miranda only allows paying members to upload images, non paying members have to embed them from other sites like Flikr. Seems like a good way to potentially manage it.

 

[Unframed Dave]

Back to this lens.

Conditions yesterday were overcast and little was happening at our chosen Natural Parc, Clot de G'Alvany. Or, as the locals call it, Clot.

Parc management here seems a little odd to the British eye. It appears to be an all or nothing approach and being totally honest, they seem to have plundered this local haven. Still, there were a few opportunities, and if I had a mind, I could have reached out and grabbed a kingfisher, it was that close. Too close for a shot though.

I'm still divided on this lens, I need to stop comparing it to the 600, it isn't in the same category. Budget wise, it's nowhere near and the 600 won't fit in hand baggage. The only realistic comparison is with the 200 - 600.

So that said, the argument comes down to reach vs. speed. Yesterday, I'd convinced myself that with one of the bigger sensors, the reach didn't matter, but then this happened.

• ILCE-1
• ISO 1000

Now, as my little chum from the colonies has expressed, it's no wallhanger! and he's right, but what if I told you that those birds are at least 500 metres away.

Moving on, light conditions were "atmospheric", but a few shots presented themselves, such as this bathing Gadwall.

• ILCE-1
• 800.0 mm
• ƒ/8
• 1/2000 sec
• ISO 1600

And this female white faced duck.

• ILCE-1
• 800.0 mm
• ƒ/8
• 1/2000 sec
• ISO 1600

And this stunning winter plumage, black necked grebe. Checkout those eyes!

• ILCE-1
• 800.0 mm
• ƒ/9
• 1/1600 sec
• ISO 1000

Given the light conditions, the lens performed extremely well, and none of these were particularly close birds. Perhaps that reach comes into it's own some of the time.

I'm still on the fence.

I only add this one for a little help with ID, I've never seen a citrine wagtail before, is this a candidate (the lower bird)?

• ILCE-1
• 800.0 mm
• ƒ/8
• 1/1600 sec
• ISO 640

 

[Uncle Kevriano]

We need to compare lenses next year, because mine does not make a sound! I think it's a fabulous bit of kit.

 

[Chris 3754]

I am sure this is a great lens within its limitations as is the 200-600. They are just not in the same league as the 600. It’s like trying to compare my wife’s Mini Cooper Countryman 4WD to my Toyota Tacoma during a snow storm. Yes the Mini will probably get you through most storms, but I would rather be in my truck. On any other day, the Mini is just fine. I would like to see what your lens can do on a bright day with a good sky, my 200-600 does just fine in good conditions as long as I close it a stop or two. Using the 400-800 and 200-600 in overcast is like asking a college player to hit big league pitching. It may work sometimes. Ok enough metaphors and deep thought, lol.

 

[Unframed Dave]

It's not just me....

Turned off AF, OSS and DMF. It's still there.

 

[Unframed Dave]

Well, here's a thing. After reading the Facebook thread above, where somebody suggested that the 200 - 600 also does it, I checked mine. It does. So, I checked the 24 - 70 GM2, so does it and the 600 f4, is the worst of the lot.

I guess how good your hearing is at this range comes into things. Despite having worked in heavy industry and shooting most of my life, mine is pretty good for my age. Possibly due to disciplined use of hearing protection.

 

[THXGEEK]

I was thinking that, didn't mean to divert the attention from your original post. I may just delete them as I'm not making any changes just yet so would rather hold off on too much conversation about it for the time-being.

Concur.

My apologies, I did not mean to hijack the intent of the original post but felt the need to respond to an important tangent.

Sooo...

For me, the 400-800mm is quite sharp, but I don't use it unless the light is correct. Nor have I experienced any 'noise' from it. I will reassess at my earliest opportunity. I do not doubt for a second your observances, but......

(For @Unframed Dave, hearing noise is a distinct and documented characteristic of SMS and/or garlic deprivation. Please get help, my friend)