New Nikon Z 400F2.8

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).

uday592

Member
If there is no degradation in image quality with a external 1.4TC than it becomes a very versatile lens. You have 400-560-780mm going from f2.8 to f5.6 which is quite good.
 

ccirelli

Active member
Absolutely impressed by everything about this lens. I have a funny feeling Nikon's going to come in lower than expected $-wise, just like they did with the Z9.
Either way, this one's likely not in my price range, but I'm anxiously awaiting the upcoming 200-600 announcement. Exciting times!
 

ccirelli

Active member
Must have been too early for me. It looks like 3 rings?
Focus, and 2 other control rings. Jared mentioned the "piano key" one closest to the front element could possibly be used to jump from FX to DX (ideal!). But I suspect both rings will have the same list of custom functions available.
 

RichF

Well-known member
Supporting Member
Don't understand why Nikon would let him have the lens!! He bashes Nikon and is loud and IMO obnoxious. Perhaps that gets attention which is what Nikon wants.
 

12markus12

Markus
Supporting Member
Don't understand why Nikon would let him have the lens!! He bashes Nikon and is loud and IMO obnoxious. Perhaps that gets attention which is what Nikon wants.
1.4M followers on youtube is a great & efficient multiplier for Nikon -- just a pity they didn't give it to some others (yet) I like/rely more on....
 

Nimi

Well-known member
Supporting Member
Don't understand why Nikon would let him have the lens!! He bashes Nikon and is loud and IMO obnoxious. Perhaps that gets attention which is what Nikon wants.
It's an ad. Like Reality TV. No serious photographer cares what he says, maybe, but Nikon is counting on the flagship body to spill into the other Zs and he is as sure a way to get to the audience.
 

Patrick M

Drives a Jeep
Supporting Member
At the risk of starting a war, I really can’t see why people want long primes. I’d imagine a zoom offers greater creative opportunities. Gone are the IQ issues to a large degree.
id never be able to buy a $12,000 lens in any event, so the issue is moot.
live never owned a long prime. Longest I has was the Nikon F 200-500 on my D7500, a DX, making that lens equivalent of 300-750. I’m now waiting Nikon’s Z 200-600
 

jeffnles1

Well-known member
Supporting Member
At the risk of starting a war, I really can’t see why people want long primes. I’d imagine a zoom offers greater creative opportunities. Gone are the IQ issues to a large degree.
id never be able to buy a $12,000 lens in any event, so the issue is moot.
live never owned a long prime. Longest I has was the Nikon F 200-500 on my D7500, a DX, making that lens equivalent of 300-750. I’m now waiting Nikon’s Z 200-600
I don't think you're starting a war at all. There are trade offs with either. In a Prime, the engineers can optimize everything for a single focal length thus having "potentially" better image quality and optical perfection. However the tradeoff is you're stuck at one focal length and not every photo opportunity can the "zoom with your feet" advice be applied. There are times when it is impossible, either via trail restrictions, dangerous conditions, skittish animals, whatever, it is sometimes impossible to move closer or farther away and still get the shot. With the zoom you get the flexibility to zoom in and out but there are compromises made. Today's lenses are less than days gone by but sill some compromises.

I'm in your camp, and like the zooms. but every photographer has different needs. If the 200-600 knocks it out of the park like the 200-500 did when it was introduced, I'll most likely make the switch to the Z system.

Jeff
 

gdecamp

Well-known member
Supporting Member
Can mount external TCs as well..that's what Jared mentioned in his YouTube video comment.
Hmmm he said that? I'll bet it was a guess rather than a fact but who know for sure. I asked NPS and they can't comment on that yet but he said he will message me when he is allowed!
 

RichF

Well-known member
Supporting Member
It's an ad. Like Reality TV. No serious photographer cares what he says, maybe, but Nikon is counting on the flagship body to spill into the other Zs and he is as sure a way to get to the audience.
what does that say about our fellow photographers? Pretty sad story
 

John Navitsky

Well-known member
hard to say. it’s possible the configuration
Hmmm he said that? I'll bet it was a guess rather than a fact but who know for sure. I asked NPS and they can't comment on that yet but he said he will message me when he is allowed!
I don’t recall him making any comment about stacking the TCs. I don’t think you can stack the regular z TCs?
 

Charlie Lasswell

Well-known member
If you can put a 2x tc on a 100-400mm then this really should take an external tc.

I re-watched parts of the video where he was handling the lens and it sure looks light in the hand. I'm excited about this one.
 

uday592

Member
At the risk of starting a war, I really can’t see why people want long primes. I’d imagine a zoom offers greater creative opportunities. Gone are the IQ issues to a large degree.
id never be able to buy a $12,000 lens in any event, so the issue is moot.
live never owned a long prime. Longest I has was the Nikon F 200-500 on my D7500, a DX, making that lens equivalent of 300-750. I’m now waiting Nikon’s Z 200-600
There are situations where you need fast f4 or even a 2.8 lens. Early mornings comes to mind and places that don't get much light till later in the day due to tree canopy, being in shade etc.
 

arbitrage

Well-known member
If the external TCs fit the lens may keep me shooting Z. I think for sports photographers external TCs won't be important. For bird/wildlife shooters it may be a deal breaker. It would be a deal breaker for myself as I want the option to get to ~800 (784) by using an external 1.4TC. I then could go out depending on the light and subjects with either a quick switching 400/560 or a quick switching 560/784.

If it doesn't take TCs then the best option is an 800PF over one shoulder and the 400/560 over the other :p

There is very little room for the TC protrusion at the end of the 400/2.8 lens before the drop-in filter. There may still be enough but it is going to be tight. We shall see who is correct...B&H or Fro.
 

dupcak

New member
So is your guess that the external 1.4X + internal 1.4X + 400 will be a better choice than external 2.0X + 400 (no internal)? I've been doing some mental gymnastics and trying to convince myself one way or another - will the extra lens/air interfaces of the 1.4+1.4 be worse than a single interface of the 2.0. So far I can't convince myself either way. (Of course all of this is all predicated on the answer to your last statement.)

- Rob

If the external TCs fit the lens may keep me shooting Z. I think for sports photographers external TCs won't be important. For bird/wildlife shooters it may be a deal breaker. It would be a deal breaker for myself as I want the option to get to ~800 (784) by using an external 1.4TC. I then could go out depending on the light and subjects with either a quick switching 400/560 or a quick switching 560/784.

If it doesn't take TCs then the best option is an 800PF over one shoulder and the 400/560 over the other :p

There is very little room for the TC protrusion at the end of the 400/2.8 lens before the drop-in filter. There may still be enough but it is going to be tight. We shall see who is correct...B&H or Fro.
 

arbitrage

Well-known member
So is your guess that the external 1.4X + internal 1.4X + 400 will be a better choice than external 2.0X + 400 (no internal)? I've been doing some mental gymnastics and trying to convince myself one way or another - will the extra lens/air interfaces of the 1.4+1.4 be worse than a single interface of the 2.0. So far I can't convince myself either way. (Of course all of this is all predicated on the answer to your last statement.)

- Rob
I'm not sure. When I owned the Canon 200-400 EXT I preferred the dual 1.4s over the 2x. IQ was about the same...maybe even slightly better with the dual 1.4s but the flexibility won over any small IQ differences one way or the other. The funny thing was that with my Canon, using the external 1.4 without internal was slightly better than the internal 1.4 without external...go figure...I'm sure there is some copy variation involved. Things will be different with Nikon and being an f/2.8 lens will help with all TC combos. Also newest Z TCs are likely better than older Nikon TCs and my Canon Mk III TCs.
 

dupcak

New member
I'm not sure. When I owned the Canon 200-400 EXT I preferred the dual 1.4s over the 2x. IQ was about the same...maybe even slightly better with the dual 1.4s but the flexibility won over any small IQ differences one way or the other. The funny thing was that with my Canon, using the external 1.4 without internal was slightly better than the internal 1.4 without external...go figure...I'm sure there is some copy variation involved. Things will be different with Nikon and being an f/2.8 lens will help with all TC combos. Also newest Z TCs are likely better than older Nikon TCs and my Canon Mk III TCs.
Flexibility makes sense - I just finished reading your responses over on FM - guess I should have caught up with all my websites before posting!
 

arbitrage

Well-known member
Any ideas on what the ring with ridges like piano keys - Jarod referred to it as the piano ring - does?

B&H says lens does not accommodate an external TC.
My guess is that this is just like the similar ring on the Canon and Sony super telephoto lenses. On those lenses this ring was traditionally used to quickly recall a preset focus distance (one of the options Nikon uses on the L-Fn button(s)). Now on MILCs you can do a few more things with that ring. Like on Sony you can set it to flick between FF/APS-C and I think a few other things. I can't recall what Canon allows now on the R series. I don't think Nikon has had that ring before (As they used the L-Fn button instead). So I think that will be what it is for freeing up an L-Fn button for something else. These rings typically work where they just turn a small amount in either direction and then automatically snap back to default. It is very effective but honesty I rarely made use of them on my (600II, 300II, 400DOII, 200-400 and 600GM).
 

Wes Peterson

Well-known member
My guess is that this is just like the similar ring on the Canon and Sony super telephoto lenses. On those lenses this ring was traditionally used to quickly recall a preset focus distance (one of the options Nikon uses on the L-Fn button(s)). Now on MILCs you can do a few more things with that ring. Like on Sony you can set it to flick between FF/APS-C and I think a few other things. I can't recall what Canon allows now on the R series. I don't think Nikon has had that ring before (As they used the L-Fn button instead). So I think that will be what it is for freeing up an L-Fn button for something else. These rings typically work where they just turn a small amount in either direction and then automatically snap back to default. It is very effective but honesty I rarely made use of them on my (600II, 300II, 400DOII, 200-400 and 600GM).
Technically the 400 f2.8tc already has a ring to do that. Im not sure having 2 rings that do the same thing makes much sense especially when they are so far apart and look so different.. The fact that fro wasnt really allowed to turn it or talk about it leads me to believe its something else. In my mind a ring like that should engage and disengage the Tc but Im not sure they would double up on that control either. it could be used to toggle between subjects the camera has identified. Possibly toggle through af modes. It almost makes to think "digital zoom" or something.
 

Neil Laubenthal

Well-known member
Supporting Member
At the risk of starting a war, I really can’t see why people want long primes. I’d imagine a zoom offers greater creative opportunities. Gone are the IQ issues to a large degree.
id never be able to buy a $12,000 lens in any event, so the issue is moot.
live never owned a long prime. Longest I has was the Nikon F 200-500 on my D7500, a DX, making that lens equivalent of 300-750. I’m now waiting Nikon’s Z 200-600
I'm with you…I only got the 500PF because it was small and light and actually usable without a tripod…and I ordered the 100-400…which as reported by Brad Hill and others has excellent IQ even with the Z TCs which I have both of. I could actually easily afford to spend 12K for a long prime if I wanted to…but all things considered…my skills, the size and weight as well as the larger tripod to hold it, the no hand holdability issue, and whether it would materially get me enough better shots to be worth 12K…the answer is just no.

I don't really plan on doing it much as I do whatever cropping is need in post with my Z7II…but putting the TC on the 100-400 and then shifting the body to DX mode turns it into a 1200mm lens essentially.

Long expensive primes…make economic sense for somebody who makes their living with the camera…or for people with way too much disposable income and the willingness to sherpa around the weight…neither of which category I fall into.
 

Darwin

Well-known member
Supporting Member
If the IQ is excellent with the added 1.4, what really gets me excited is being able to always keep the 1.4 attached, and being able to go from 540mm F4 to 784mm 5.6 at the flick of a switch!
 

zule11

Member
NIKON rumors

The Nikon NIKKOR Z 400mm f/2.8 TC VR S mirrorless lens for Z-mount is rumored to be announced tonight: very light and very expensive

 
Top