Z 400 f/4.5 - Purpose?

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).

JoelKlein

JoelKlein

Well-known member
Supporting Member
Marketplace
Member's gallery
Good midnight everyone…

Sunday Funday, weather was nice, no wind, cloudy and a giant softboxed sun. Perfect for the 400/4.5 outdoor portrait session testing. Me and my wife took chances experimenting. We immediately got stunned from the quick and snappy auto focus. Z9 was set to AF-C (with focus priority) and Auto-Area people.

This lens is EXTREMELY sharp. Actually, its too sharp! The Bokeh is a dream!! Oh my is that nice! Just put whatever you want behind the subject and the bokeh is gorgeous. The Hudson River, a long trail, empty landscape.

Another great thing about this lens is the VR. We were shooting with it like we would shoot the 70-200 literally. Wide open f/4.5 ISO 64 while the shutter speed was the same as we use it in studio, 1/160 for tack ultra sharp results. I can’t say the same for the 500pf which needed a shutter of 1/500 to get tack sharp images.

We reviewed the images later in our editing room, we were disappointed of the sharpness… too sharp… even more so from the 105 MC. We had to dial down the contrast, dial back the sharpness to get the skin looking pleasing, then it looked too unnatural, we had a hard time dialing it in. It captures the skin with microscopic detail. Not literally microscopic, but you get the point.

Which brought me to question the purpose Nikon had when designing this lens. Certainly not for human faces. Sports? That also includes human faces. Wild life? Birds? What was the purpose of this lens? To use it with a TC to soften it?
I brought along the 1.4 TC just didn’t get to test portraits with it. Besides 560mm is too much backing up to frame a human subject.

We were looking forward using this lens for outdoor portraiture, because customers liked the bokeh of the 500pf. but this is way sharper. its too sharp. Too much tiny skin details, like macro shooting a face… the 500pf didn’t resolve that much details.

I’m not returning it… I need it for water fowl, birds, etc. which I didn’t get a chance to try yet. But I would like to know what was Nikons intention when designing it.

Thank you 😊 🙏
 
Member's gallery
If I had to guess, I would say their intention was to create a lightweight and hand-holdable and sharp 400mm wildlife lens that has a faster aperture than f/5.6 . In this case, they succeeded brilliantly and are offering something no one else has.

(Note - I rented one and it is brilliant but it's not for me because I can't live without a zoom lens.)
 
Member's gallery
while i don’t think they strictly had portraiture in mind, i don’t agree a lens can be too sharp 🤣

it is interesting the new 85 1.2 is reportedly a tad softer at 1.2 and you do wonder if that may be considered a plus for portraiture and specifically weddings

i did a few candids of humans at my last event and i kind of screwed it up because i forgot i had only animal detect on and the focus was on the closest feature, not the eyes. something i should have expected, but didn’t think about in the moment
 
Member's gallery
John Navitsky said:
while i don’t think they strictly had portraiture in mind, i don’t agree a lens can be too sharp 🤣

it is interesting the new 85 1.2 is reportedly a tad softer at 1.2 and you do wonder if that may be considered a plus for portraiture and specifically weddings

i did a few candids of humans at my last event and i kind of screwed it up because i forgot i had only animal detect on and the focus was on the closest feature, not the eyes. something i should have expected, but didn’t think about in the moment
Click to expand...
With the new 85/1.2? You have it?
I ordered mine immediately when B&H opened up midnight
 
Member's gallery
The 400 f4.5S is a bargain considering its high sharpness in such a portable telephoto, which Brad Hill rates very close to the 400 f2.8S TC.

Nikon's engineers scored full marks

"Answer: The NIKKOR Z 400mm f/4.5 VR S combines the high resolution and soft bokeh characteristic of a bright prime ultra-telephoto lens for enthusiasts who value lens portability.... "
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
JoelKlein said:
Good midnight everyone…

Sunday Funday, weather was nice, no wind, cloudy and a giant softboxed sun. Perfect for the 400/4.5 outdoor portrait session testing. Me and my wife took chances experimenting. We immediately got stunned from the quick and snappy auto focus. Z9 was set to AF-C (with focus priority) and Auto-Area people.

This lens is EXTREMELY sharp. Actually, its too sharp! The Bokeh is a dream!! Oh my is that nice! Just put whatever you want behind the subject and the bokeh is gorgeous. The Hudson River, a long trail, empty landscape.

Another great thing about this lens is the VR. We were shooting with it like we would shoot the 70-200 literally. Wide open f/4.5 ISO 64 while the shutter speed was the same as we use it in studio, 1/160 for tack ultra sharp results. I can’t say the same for the 500pf which needed a shutter of 1/500 to get tack sharp images.

We reviewed the images later in our editing room, we were disappointed of the sharpness… too sharp… even more so from the 105 MC. We had to dial down the contrast, dial back the sharpness to get the skin looking pleasing, then it looked too unnatural, we had a hard time dialing it in. It captures the skin with microscopic detail. Not literally microscopic, but you get the point.

Which brought me to question the purpose Nikon had when designing this lens. Certainly not for human faces. Sports? That also includes human faces. Wild life? Birds? What was the purpose of this lens? To use it with a TC to soften it?
I brought along the 1.4 TC just didn’t get to test portraits with it. Besides 560mm is too much backing up to frame a human subject.

We were looking forward using this lens for outdoor portraiture, because customers liked the bokeh of the 500pf. but this is way sharper. its too sharp. Too much tiny skin details, like macro shooting a face… the 500pf didn’t resolve that much details.

I’m not returning it… I need it for water fowl, birds, etc. which I didn’t get a chance to try yet. But I would like to know what was Nikons intention when designing it.

Thank you 😊 🙏
Click to expand...
Your comment regarding processing approach has me wondering what profile you are applying on import . I always use Camera Flat in-camera and have Adobe Lightroom set to apply the in-camera profile. This makes a very nice starting point. This lens calls for a very light hand in applying edits IMHO. 😊
 
Member's gallery
I honestly don't think I've ever read a review that stated a lens was too sharpe. I'm not a Nikon engineer but I've never heard of a 400mm lens being considered a portrait lens. Obviously not to say that you can't use it for that, just has to be hard to work with model from that far away. LOL. My guess, and its only a guess is this was designed with sports and wildlife photographers in mind. 400mm is a great focal length for outdoor field sports and the F/2.8 version, even if you could get one, is crazy expensive for many of us. Nice balance of wide aperture and focal length. I'm considering borrowing one for a Memorial Day soccer tournament. I had thought about borrowing a 400mm f/2.8 FL for it but you certainly make me think otherwise. Appreciate your thoughts on it.
 
Member's gallery
If you are making portraits, a lens that is too sharp is a real issue - particularly for photos of women. That's why the various Portrait presets and Picture Control settings have less sharpness, clarity and contrast. A lens like the classic 85mm f/1.4 was designed for portraits and is not as sharp as it could be, but the softness and pleasing bokeh was a highly desired characteristic.

I have the 400mm PF and used it recently for horse racing and some equestrian photos. It was great for that purpose. As Joel points out, I used it like I would my 70-200. Like Joel, I found the lens to be very sharp. For my use case, I was further away and the sharpness was not a problem. With appropriate light, I definitely see great subject isolation and a 3D effect.
Aiken Training Track_20230222_380201.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.


I have done some testing of the 400 f/4.5 with and without the 1.4 TC photographing feeder birds. I've been very please at the level of detail when photographing just outside minimum focus distance and cropping further. This is with the 400mm f/4.5 and 1.4 TC without using Topaz at all, so sharpness has another level if desired (and of course sized for the web). My criteria for sharpness is being able to resolve the small feathers making up the eyering.
Birds - Test_20230121_378278.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
Like others, I think it was designed with wildlife and sports in mind. I also think Nikon designed it so images taken with it would hold up well after serious cropping. Just playing around with it on the Z 9 to see how far it could go, I’ve shot the 400 f/4.5 in DX mode and still had acceptable IQ after cropping in 100%. That’s crazy to me.

I think Thom Hogan asked and answered an interesting question in a somewhat recent blog post about whether Z lenses could hold up if Nikon comes out with a higher than 45 megapixel camera. His answer was yes, generally speaking, and I think the 400 is no exception.
 
Member's gallery
Two classic fast Nikkor primes for portraits are the 'Cream Machine' - 85 f1.4AFD and the 'NeoNoct' - 58 f1.4G. I will never let my copies go. These can capture sharp images shut down but the softer edges do a stunning job on human skin particularly.

The interview shared here - in DC.Watch in Japanese - describes how Sato San and colleagues quantified spherical aberrations in these and other lenses to refine rendering at wide apertures with tasteful bokeh.


These modern fast G E gold ring Telephotos and now the S line models are designed for maximal edge to edge sharpness for sport and wildlife. Nevertheless, a 300 f2.8G or fast 400 have their interesting roles in portraiture
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
I've considered one myself…because it is slightly sharper than the 100-400…but so far I'm still on the fence/leaning towards not getting it for a couple of reasons. First is that for my output which is entirely screen based…I've found the the difference between the 100-400 and my 500PF (which is deemed as sharp as the 400/4.5) is negligible…while I can see some slight differences at pixel peeping 1:1 views in LR they are mostly not better/worse, just slightly different and most of that is due to aperture differences I think. Second…for wildlife down here in SW FL…especially from the boardwalks that are around a lot of the places we go…the zoom provides flexibility that is a good thing. Thirdly…to my mind having both the 100-400 and the 400 on two bodies on an outing seems like too much duplication in focal length…unless one just left the TC on the 400 and went out with 100-400 and 560. So far…at least for me…it's not an itch that I would scratch…the last few times out I've tried just a single body instead of having the 500PF on a second body but at this point I'm also considering whether to keep the 500PF, order the 400 which by the. time I use the TC and DX on the Z9 is up to 840 which is plenty of reach for my purposes.

Unfortunately…my sherpa abilities are far exceeded by what I would like to have along with me:)
 
Member's gallery
JoelKlein said:
...But I would like to know what was Nikons intention when designing it.

Thank you 😊 🙏
Click to expand...
In short, and to the point: to make Nikon money.

And it appears that they've succeeded by offering a wonderfuly fine lens, capable of many tasks, to their customers.

As far as what to do about a lens being too sharp, some photographers had lens filters that reduced sharpness for some portrait work. (Back in the old days of manual focus cameras.)
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
Never a fan of long primes as I generally don’t shoot sports and rarely BIF , I did rent one for two weeks for a trip to southern Spain last year.
I was very impressed, and even with the 2x the image quality was impressive.
Still, I’ll await the 200-600. I simply can’t do without the ability to compose that zoom lenses offer. I’m too old to change habits
 
Member's gallery
John Navitsky said:
@EricBowles i get what you are saying, but i don't think that's an argument for making a lens less sharp. for example, the 85 1.8 is very sharp wide open, and i don't think anyone is suggesting they make it otherwise.
Click to expand...
Yes - but there are situations where sharper is not going to add value, and improving the bokeh or the transition of out of focus areas is more important than incremental sharpness. They also design for the way out of focus areas fall off. Nikon can design for whatever the market needs. But when they are thinking about a portrait lens at the professional level, they don't need maximum sharpness and in most cases, even the post processing will have a much lighter touch on sharpness so the Portrait Picture Control has the lowest level of sharpening for any setting other than Flat.

In the case of the 85mm f/1.2, these qualities of the lens are of increased importance. For a wildlife lens or a landscape lens, they prioritize sharpness. I think we get carried away in evaluating lenses based on sharpness and focus speed without considering other qualities. Likewise we talk about low noise at high ISO levels with more importance than it deserves in comparing cameras. But when Nikon is designing lenses and cameras, they have a much broader perspective of what they are looking for - especially with gear for professionals.

Back to the original question, the 400 f/4.5 is a sports and wildlife lens, so it needs to be very sharp. They also considered the bokeh and made some decisions about not using a PF lens element in order to improve the performance of the lens for the intended use.
 
Member's gallery
Whiskeyman said:
In short, and to the point: to make Nikon money.

And it appears that they've succeeded by offering a wonderfuly fine lens, capable of many tasks, to their customers.

As far as what to do about a lens being too sharp, some photographers had lens filters that reduced sharpness for some portrait work. (Back in the old days of manual focus cameras.)
Click to expand...

Modern mirrorless and optics are in fact considered too sharp for many video applications involving close takes of people. There are numerous soft/mist/haze filters on the market, as well as post processing steps.
 
Member's gallery
Patrick M said:
Never a fan of long primes as I generally don’t shoot sports and rarely BIF , I did rent one for two weeks for a trip to southern Spain last year.
I was very impressed, and even with the 2x the image quality was impressive.
Still, I’ll await the 200-600. I simply can’t do without the ability to compose that zoom lenses offer. I’m too old to change habits
Click to expand...
When I look in my library about half of the images with my 200-500 have been at something less than 500. A lot of the areas where we shoot it is not feasible to "zoom with our feet". Some trails are through ecologically sensitive areas or areas where habitat restoration is in process and folks are not permitted to go off trail. Sometimes a critter comes up close and there would be zero time to change lenses. I'm not against primes. My all-time favorite lens is a macro in the 100mm range. I also like wide angle primes.

Interesting discussion here.
Jeff
 
Member's gallery
Whiskeyman said:
I haven't used these with a modern autofocus camera. Do they work well?
Click to expand...

Good question. I use the lower setting of 1/8 to 1/4 and I use it only for portraits where the face fills the frame and the Z9 has no issues finding the eyes on the 105 and 85. My guess it that higher effect and smaller face could affect AF. These filter reduce contrast, not sharpness. If I have critical shots I follow focus, not AF. I use Nisi and BW. For environmental shots, if I need to soften an image for a cinematic effect I just reduce contrast a little in post.
 
Member's gallery
In comparison to the 58 f1.4G (links in post above about the NeoNoct), the engineers aimed even higher with the 105 f1.4E : optimizing the sharpness with "three-dimensional high fidelity bokeh". This interview reveals some interesting aspects of how Nikon merges these features with clearly articulated objectives

dc.watch.impress.co.jp

AF-S NIKKOR 105mm f/1.4E ED（前編） 並々ならぬ「ボケ描写」へのこだわりを聞く

ニコンが8月26日に発売した「AF-S NIKKOR 105mm f/1.4E ED」は、焦点距離105mmながらF1.4という大口径を実現したことで話題となっているレンズだ。
dc.watch.impress.co.jp dc.watch.impress.co.jp

dc.watch.impress.co.jp

AF-S NIKKOR 105mm f/1.4E ED（後編） ピント位置近傍のボケを如何にになだらかに描写するか

前編はこちらhttp://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/news/interview/1017554.html
dc.watch.impress.co.jp dc.watch.impress.co.jp

It's noteworthy Hiroyuki Ishigami is centrally involved in design of the Z System

www.nikon-image.com

Z 9 開発者Special Interview vol.2～光学性能と小型化を追求したZ マウントシステムの開発意図と誕生秘話～ | ニコンイメージング

新次元の光学性能、システムの小型化、そして使いやすさを追求するニコン Z マウントシステム。具体的な製品の誕生秘話まで、Z マウントの開発意図や背景から、光学設計と商品企画プロダクトマネジャーのインタビュー記事をご紹介いたします。
www.nikon-image.com
 
Member's gallery
I bet there aren't many tele prime lenses produced in the last 20 yrs that aren't sharp enough, even for pretty critical eyes. And now perhaps even too sharp! I wouldn't be too concerned about sharpness of a tele lens these days, but rather look at the rendering of the bokeh, which in some cases aren't very pleasing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top