Gene_Hughes
Active member
Well, I placed the order this morning.
If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).
Thanks. That’s where my thoughts are on this right now. I think the extra focal length of the 500mm offers me more than than the 2/3 stop at this time (but I could always use the extra stops). I’d like to have all native lenses to eliminate the ftz, but it’s not a big deal.It's up to you but honestly unless you really want to go to an all native Z mount kit I don't see a reason to swap your 500mm PF for the new 400 plus TC seeing as you already have the 400mm focal length covered with your 100-400mm. Sure if there's some other reason like you really like the programmable control ring on the S lenses or you frequently find the 500mm too long for the work you do (but again you already have a 400mm lens) then it could make sense or if you don't want to carry and use the F mount adapter.
Personally I'd probably hold tight with the kit you have and keep an eye out for the 200-600mm which sounds like the lens you really want. If nothing else the 400mm lens will probably be easier to get six months or a year from now after the initial sales demand if you decide that's what you really want. But as always I'd ask myself if this new lens solves a problem that you can't solve with your existing kit, if not I'd keep working with my existing gear.
it's a very interesting quandary. i'd be very interested in a head-to head, 100-400 vs the new 400I think this lens looks great, but trying to decide if it makes sense for me. I currently have the Z100-400mm and the 500mm PF.
it's a very interesting quandary. i'd be very interested in a head-to head, 100-400 vs the new 400
Yeah, when building a lens system based on prime lenses a focal length doubling approach is a pretty good way to go with a 1.4x TC handy for splitting the difference.Thinking on this lens some more, I think I'd be fairly happy with a Z9, 400/4.5 and 800PF. Would use the 400 for 400 and 560.
Otherwise I'd just get the 4002.8 and be done with it![]()
What are the rumors of the Z8?I'll pass on the new 400s because the 100 - 400s, 500 PF, and the 800 PF fit my wildlife / birding photography kit very well. I'd rather use the $3200 towards the rumored Z8.
Ah.. Google Nikon Z8 and there's a plethora of rumor speak....What are the rumors of the Z8?
everyone believes the z8 is exactly the camera they are wishing forWhat are the rumors of the Z8?
Yup, the soon to be announced and rumored products are always the best products ever invented ... until they're actually releasedeveryone believes the z8 is exactly the camera they are wishing for![]()
Ah.. Google Nikon Z8 and there's a plethora of rumor speak....![]()
How about a Z 9.9 - Z9 with 30 FPS raw and raw precapture plus all button could be assigned to any functions. Hold it - that is a marriage of Sony A1 and Nikon Z9 - perhaps it will be Sokin A9 or Z1?everyone believes the z8 is exactly the camera they are wishing for![]()
Interesting lens, but at $3300 may not are a hot seller.
Per B&H today I can have a 70-200 f2.8 S and a 2.0TC S for $2894.
A 400mm f4 that focuses at 1.64 feet and weighs 1630g.
One is paying a lot of money for 185g less weight while sacrificing F4 for F6.3 and minimum focal distance of 1.64 feet for 8.2 feet.
Yes, I agree this may not be a hot seller.
Well you can look at Canon's 400 f/4 DOII as that is a "PF" lens. Maybe Nikon could have improved on it as Canon's is an older lens but you need an even larger front element. Same length but Canon's is heavier. Seriously I don't know how Nikon got the weight and length so low without using PF.If the lens was PF, would it be likely that it is F4 (roughly in the same size/weight) or would it still require a large physical size increase to achieve F4? Just trying to understand the tradeoffs of why they went with F4.5 instead of F4 and why not PF.
The wide open aperture is determined by the diameter of the front element and the focal length and is the same whether it's a PF lens or uses more traditional lens elements. The overall length and weight can be reduced by using diffraction optics, particularly the weight, but the diameter of the front element will be the same for a given wide open aperture regardless of whether the designers use PF elements.If the lens was PF, would it be likely that it is F4 (roughly in the same size/weight) or would it still require a large physical size increase to achieve F4? Just trying to understand the tradeoffs of why they went with F4.5 instead of F4 and why not PF.
What is f/4 and what is f/6.3?Per B&H today I can have a 70-200 f2.8 S and a 2.0TC S for $2894.
A 400mm f4 that focuses at 1.64 feet and weighs 1630g.
One is paying a lot of money for 185g less weight while sacrificing F4 for F6.3 and minimum focal distance of 1.64 feet for 8.2 feet.
Yes, I agree this may not be a hot seller.
What is the (perceived?) benefit of "more magnesium" vs plastic? Particularly since "plastic" is a very generic term that covers myriad different materials/composites. What's "better" about magnesium? And why?... the incredible light weight....suggests more plastic and less magnesium... Does it really matter, well, it wont to most, but it does to me, frustrating more than anything.
F4 was typo error on my part.What is f/4 and what is f/6.3?
The 400 is f/4.5 and the 70-200 with 2x is f/5.6.
Also I don't know who would want to have to get to within 1.64 feet to get MM. That is tough to do even with live macro subjects and impossible with birds. But if you can you'd get a MM of 0.4x (2 x 0.2x) instead of 0.16x on the 400/4.5.
Also, using a 2xTC on a zoom lens, even a high quality one like the 70-200Z, is not going to come close to the IQ of this native 400mm lens.