Z 400pf coming soon!

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).

I'm a little surprised by the enthusiasm for the 200-600, given my own experience with the 200-500. I purchased and sold that lens *twice*, because it was too heavy and too clumsy for what it did, and spent 90%+ of its time at max anyway - 500mm. Which made the 500PF a far better choice for me. I understand the Sony enthusiasm for their 200-600 a little more, since the long lens choices in that ecosystem are relatively more limited (not bashing, just observing). The 200-600 may turn out be a stellar lens, but to me the preferred kit would be the 100-400 and the 500PF (with TC) (or 800PF, which I haven't tried). Especially given the remarkable results people are getting with the 100-400 +TC1.4. I'm not a candidate for the 400PF (unless there's something really remarkable about it like a built in TC) since I already have the 500PF, but it might be a great for someone who doesn't already have the 500.

I have actually used the Tamron 150-600mm (G2) quite a lot, as I found it sharp and easier to handle than the Nikon 200-500. I also liked the additional reach. Unfortunately, my copy of the Tamron has proven unreliable; it has gone off to New York twice now for warranty repairs, first for the autofocus mechanism and then for a sticky aperture. The Sony 200-600 focuses and zooms internally and is actually pretty easy to handle; my assumption (or hope?) is that the Nikon version will be similarly ergonomically superior to the 200-500. I understand what eaj101 says about this kind of zoom usually being used at maximum focal length. But there are many situations where suddenly one needs zoom back to accommodate a wider view; even if this is only for one photo out of ten or twenty, sometimes you NEED that flexibility without having to change lenses.
 
I am keen to get the 200-600 Z Nikon. I currently shoot Z9 with with 500 pf.
Becky on the Greys of Westminister said the images of birds at a greater distance weren't sharp on her 800 PF. If anybody has read my previous comments in the forum, you would know that the 500 PF beyond the 100 feet mark tends to produce softer results as opposed to a good quality zoom lens like the 200-600 Sony.

So I am sure Nikon Z 200-600 can be just as good.

400 f4.5 PF is tempting but I wish they made a 500 Z PF f5.6.

Besides the 200-600 Z will help with composition & better video capabilities compared to a 500 pf.
 
I'm a little surprised by the enthusiasm for the 200-600, given my own experience with the 200-500. I purchased and sold that lens *twice*, because it was too heavy and too clumsy for what it did, and spent 90%+ of its time at max anyway - 500mm. Which made the 500PF a far better choice for me. I understand the Sony enthusiasm for their 200-600 a little more, since the long lens choices in that ecosystem are relatively more limited (not bashing, just observing). The 200-600 may turn out be a stellar lens, but to me the preferred kit would be the 100-400 and the 500PF (with TC) (or 800PF, which I haven't tried). Especially given the remarkable results people are getting with the 100-400 +TC1.4. I'm not a candidate for the 400PF (unless there's something really remarkable about it like a built in TC) since I already have the 500PF, but it might be a great for someone who doesn't already have the 500.
There is quite a bit of difference in the build of the Sony 200-600mm and the Nikon 200-500mm. I was happy with the IQ of my 200-500mm, but I had a few complaints with it. The top three issues I had with it were the long throw of the zoom, overall weight, and slowish AF. The Sony 200-600mm fixes all three of those things. The hope is that Nikon’s will also fix those three things. I have the 100-400mm and it’s a great lens and does work well with the TC, but I’d rather work without TCs and not be at F/8.
 
us nikon peeps agree. it’ll come.
Maybe before the end of the year: Nikon announces the release of the new Z8 - the mirrorless replacement for their D850 DSLR Flagship camera! Yes indeed, sign me up for two of them immediately! Might give the owner some controls to limit the focus range of any lens you choose to put on the camera. Sometimes you can find an area setup that works till you move 50 feet and then it goes berserk again. You don't need lens control, you need software control. AFC single point can make the 500PF unusable. It looses focus and the software resets and attempts repeatedly to gain focus. Once locked in that endless loop, you must break the loop and start all over again. Shots missed, irritated photographers entertaining thoughts of switching systems. Thousands of dollars to change systems and they are all running basically the same AF software. Same problems no mater whose system you are using. There may be drastic differences in the physical implementation of the hardware or not. The software has to match the hardware to get flawless results. I suspect that the hardware is pretty well stable at this point as there does not appear to any drastic changes being made in that department. Maybe these camera companies need to send their software engineers on paid vacations 5 or 6 times a year to test their products in the real world. The jungles of Costa Rica, the plains of Africa, the Rocky Mountains and the deserts of the Great South West for starters. It is way easier to write code for that goofy looking camera if you understand what it is supposed to do.

Hang in there John. We are going to see some amazing things if we live long enough! ;)
 
So what does everyone think the price will be?

My guess is somewhere between 4499 and 4999 USD.

The thing is, if the specs are to go by (f4.5, 1.2kg) are to be believed, this lens is screaming for a high speed APS-C body (think 24-30 Mpx, stacked BSI, 15-20fps, no black-out EVF, no grip, somewhere around the 2999 USD price point).
 
This is one I will pass on. For my bird photography 400mm is just not long enough for a fixed focal length lens. I will prefer the 500mm f5.6 every time.

Meanwhile, I am increasingly baffled about the lack of an announcement re the 200-600mm, a lens that a LOT of aspiring wildlife photographers will want (and Sony's version of which is presently drawing a lot of new users to that camera system).
Yeah.I bought A1 to be paired with 200-600 & am ver happy with the combo.I also have the Z9 with 500 PF (which my wife uses mostly for video when we go shooting together). i I am sure this combo along with 24-70 & 7- -200 (Tamron) is all that we need for our upcominmg masai mara trip
 
Assuming this rumor has some basis in fact...After Canon introduced a 400mm f4 Diffractive Optics (DO II) lens in 2014, would Nikon opt to not match those specs 8 years later, especially after advancing their capabilites to produce a lighter, shorter, but still sharp, super tele?

My guess on weight is 1100g -- halfway between the weight of the 300 and 500 PFs.
 
I can't get excited about a 400mm PF lens that will be available in 2023 at the earliest when I have a 800mm order in with NPS since April 6 with no word on when it will ship and my 600mm f/4E lens is at Nikon's repair facility where it cannot be repaired as Nikon does not have the parts neeed. Top lens now for my Z9 cameras is the 500mm f/5.6 PF so my travel plans are on hold indefinitely. Hurray Nikon.
 
Assuming this rumor has some basis in fact...After Canon introduced a 400mm f4 Diffractive Optics (DO II) lens in 2014, would Nikon opt to not match those specs 8 years later, especially after advancing their capabilites to produce a lighter, shorter, but still sharp, super tele?

My guess on weight is 1100g -- halfway between the weight of the 300 and 500 PFs.
My suspicion is it will be an f4. Its not too crazy to think the initial listing of f4.5 is really a t stop. I dont put a lot of weight in measuring shadow next to other lenses the 800mm also changed in size relative to the shadow. Its already reported at 1250g
 
I think the 400 PF would be a lovely pairing with a D500-like Z camera. Not too many concrete rumours about such a camera, but I will keep hoping!
Crop camera plus the lens and possibilities for a 1.4x TC would make for a fantastic small, lightweight and still reasonably brigth setup 🤩
 
I seem to recall over the years on various forums many people saying they’d love to have a 600 5.6 PF lens. Well this 400 and a 1.4 TC is pretty close! I now have the 100-400, and combined with the 500 PF so I think I’ll skip this lens. However, I’m glad it’s being made and I suspect it will be excellent.
 
I was keeping an eye on the 400 to see if I could get a native Z replacement for my 500PF (I love the control dial!), but the f/4.5 rumor turns me off a bit. I’d already be leaning heavily on the 2x TC, and f/9 is getting pretty dark/slow. I’ll have to see it in operation before I commit. Given the current state of the market, I’m sure that means I won’t have one in my hands for 1-2 years!

As for a lighter body to go with this lens, I’m sure everyone is waiting with baited breath, but I think Nikon was wise to put out a relatively low-volume Z9 instead of trying to launch the mythical “Z8”. If Nikon had produced a $3K Z6-like camera with the Z9’s autofocus and frame rate, they would be back ordered for years.
 
I was keeping an eye on the 400 to see if I could get a native Z replacement for my 500PF (I love the control dial!), but the f/4.5 rumor turns me off a bit. I’d already be leaning heavily on the 2x TC, and f/9 is getting pretty dark/slow. I’ll have to see it in operation before I commit. Given the current state of the market, I’m sure that means I won’t have one in my hands for 1-2 years!

As for a lighter body to go with this lens, I’m sure everyone is waiting with baited breath, but I think Nikon was wise to put out a relatively low-volume Z9 instead of trying to launch the mythical “Z8”. If Nikon had produced a $3K Z6-like camera with the Z9’s autofocus and frame rate, they would be back ordered for years.
Yeah, I certainly wouldn't be looking at this lens if I was wanting an 800mm solution. I never buy a lens unless I want the native focal length as much as I want one or both of the teleconverted focal lengths. I also never buy a lens looking to use a 2xTC on it other than occasionally. Granted I haven't owned the Z TCs but I've owned all the F-mount, EF, RF and FE TCs and unless the Z 2xTC has somehow managed to significantly outperform all those other ones, it is a solution I'd only use when desperate.
 
Meanwhile, I am increasingly baffled about the lack of an announcement re the 200-600mm, a lens that a LOT of aspiring wildlife photographers will want (and Sony's version of which is presently drawing a lot of new users to that camera system).

Could the delay in the 200-600 be due to a patent dispute? Or perhaps a manufacturing bottle neck - only certain production "lines" can make different types of lens. Zoom lens may require one set of lines while primes require a different line? Only guessing here
 
I'm sure it's going to be a great lens. Now, where is the 200-600 zoom and where are a couple new mid-tier cameras to be mirrorless D500 and D850? Hope soon, hope it is very soon.
Z7 II and Z9 is close to replacing the D850/D6. Nikon needs D500 (Z9 w/ DX sensor) badly.
 
I have the 100-400mm which is 5.6 at 400. If the 400mm PF is 4.5, is that enough to justify buying it as well? I was really hoping for a full stop. Curious to how others see it.
Unless you’re a pro…or making really large prints…it’s probably not worth it. For screen resolution output the difference will be negligible. I’ve got the 500PF, both the 70-200 and 100-400 zooms and the TCs…and in LR even at 2:1 there is essentially no difference except non center with the 2.0 TC. The shots look subtly different…and I can’t do an actual side by side because I didn’t use a static subject and rigorous testing process…but it isn’t a better or worse difference…just different subtly. The flexibility of the zooms and the outstanding performance with the 1.4 make them the winner IMO…and I’m actually thinking about selling the 70-200 as I rarely to never need the speed that a slight ISO change doesn’t handle and with the 14-24, 24-70/f4, 24-200 for walking around/travel/single kit convenience along with the 100-400 and the TCs I’m pretty well covered reach wise.
 
I have actually used the Tamron 150-600mm (G2) quite a lot, as I found it sharp and easier to handle than the Nikon 200-500. I also liked the additional reach. Unfortunately, my copy of the Tamron has proven unreliable; it has gone off to New York twice now for warranty repairs, first for the autofocus mechanism and then for a sticky aperture. The Sony 200-600 focuses and zooms internally and is actually pretty easy to handle; my assumption (or hope?) is that the Nikon version will be similarly ergonomically superior to the 200-500. I understand what eaj101 says about this kind of zoom usually being used at maximum focal length. But there are many situations where suddenly one needs zoom back to accommodate a wider view; even if this is only for one photo out of ten or twenty, sometimes you NEED that flexibility without having to change lenses.
This is why I think the ideal rig is two bodies with a 100-400 zoom and a long prime. Of course, that's assuming you're not having to carry it very far :)

I haven't done an exhaustive test, but AFAIK no zoom, especially not a variable aperture zoom, matches the images produced by a top end prime lens. It's not just pixel peeping, either, that shows the difference. One can look at 100% or 200% crops and conclude that the difference, if any, just isn't that big. But step back and look at the entire image and the difference, at least to me, seems clear. Punch, micro-contrast, color discrimination.. whatever you want to call it it's there.
 
Unless you’re a pro…or making really large prints…it’s probably not worth it. For screen resolution output the difference will be negligible. I’ve got the 500PF, both the 70-200 and 100-400 zooms and the TCs…and in LR even at 2:1 there is essentially no difference except non center with the 2.0 TC. The shots look subtly different…and I can’t do an actual side by side because I didn’t use a static subject and rigorous testing process…but it isn’t a better or worse difference…just different subtly. The flexibility of the zooms and the outstanding performance with the 1.4 make them the winner IMO…and I’m actually thinking about selling the 70-200 as I rarely to never need the speed that a slight ISO change doesn’t handle and with the 14-24, 24-70/f4, 24-200 for walking around/travel/single kit convenience along with the 100-400 and the TCs I’m pretty well covered reach wise.
I’m often shooting in lower light so the larger Aperture would be helpful, but i feel like I’d need a full stop, or something else unique to make it worthwhile. I really don’t like being at F/8 with the TC.
 
Z7 II and Z9 is close to replacing the D850/D6. Nikon needs D500 (Z9 w/ DX sensor) badly.
I guess I need some enlightenment. Why does Nikon need a mirrorless D500 replacement? The D850 in crop mode shoots just as well as the D500. Doesn’t that hold true for the Z9 as well? Now don’t get me wrong, I love shooting my D500 and I would probably buy a mirrorless D500 (Z?) once that arrives but I have always wondered why a complete line of new lenses had to be developed simply because Nikon developed cameras with crop sensors. And now they are developing a Z line of crop sensor lenses all over again.
 
Back
Top