Nikon 400 F/4.5 lens announced

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).

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.
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.
 
Assuming the AF of this 400mm on the Z9 is up to snuff, it'll be a great combo, especially for outings involving longer hikes. Being native Z glass, I'd expect it to have better performance consistency on the Z9 than the 500PF. I could never get the latter play well with the camera. It's a great release for Nikon.
 
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 ;)
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.
 
Not for me, as I find the 500 PF with ftz adapter just fine on Z cameras. What I keep thinking about is, "sound and fury, but when wll people actually ever receive a lens?" There is very little mention these days of the complete stoppage of delivery of 800mm PF lenses after the first few went out to some NPS buyers. People holding out for the 200-600 have lots of time to save up their money :-(
 
Interesting, Nikon Canada website says "preorder" when virtually every new product beginning with the D6, in this new world of chip shortages and supply chain tangles, has said 'sold out' including on the day of announcement. Does that mean this lens will actually be in deliverable supply on release date? But for the weight appeal of this lens, I'll cover the 400 (and beyond) with my hernia producing 180-400 :) I can spend the time waiting for my 800 pf to arrive by watching the reviews of this new lens :)
 
Ah.. Google Nikon Z8 and there's a plethora of rumor speak....:)

everyone believes the z8 is exactly the camera they are wishing for 😂
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? :LOL: Hope I did not offend anyone. Don't want to run afoul of the brand bashing rule.
 
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 f5.6 that focuses at 1.64 feet and weighs 1630g.
One is paying a lot of money for 185g less weight while sacrificing F5.6 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.

Error noted not f4 my bad typing.
 
Last edited:
Not sure how I feel about the specifications on this lens, two things are a concern for me. First and foremost the use of a stepper motor for autofocus, secondly the incredible light weight. The latter is of course great for carrying with less fatigue, but, it also suggests more plastic and less magnesium, this is a vicious circle, best build quality is great, more weight is not. Now there could be some carbon composites in the mix here and that would be a great middle ground, hard to know about that level of detail though.

People will argue that stepper motors are fine, well yes, but if they were so fine, why don't Nikon use them in the 400 f2.8. I feel at this price they should be using best in class motors for this lens and the 800f6.3 for that matter. It's probably just me, I always hope for best quality components :oops: Does it really matter, well, it wont to most, but it does to me, frustrating more than anything.

Surely this will pave the way for the 200-600 specs, stepper motor drive again with more plastic and less magnesium, not sure that will make me happy, come on Nikon, prove me wrong please 😁

Should be good for the market place in general, will surely give Sony and Canon a kick up the behind regarding their tele lenses.
 
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.

I agree the minimum focus is better, but with teleconverter the 200 would be F5.6, not F4.
 
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.
 
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.
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.

IOW, a 400mm f/4 lens requires at least a 100mm diameter front element and realistically to deal with things like vignetting most lenses are designed with front element diameters a bit larger than this theoretical minimum. A 400mm f/4.5 lens must have a front element at least 88.9mm in diameter and again a real world lens is generally a bit larger as in the 95mm front element on Nikon's new 400mm f/4.5 lens.

So PF doesn't really have anything to do with the f/4.5 vs f/4 wide open aperture but if Nikon had decided to release this as an f/4 lens the front element would likely be up around 107mm in diameter instead of 95mm in diameter and the lens would have been bigger as a result. Sure a PF element could bring the weight back down but not the overall size with the need for a larger front element in an f/4 version.
 
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 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.
 
Well it's nice to finally have a look at it. Since I already have the 500mmPF it poses a bit of a dilemma. Have to decide whether it's worth it for the benefits of having native Z glass. I'm on the list with my LCS and no deposit at risk. So some time to decide I guess.
... 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.
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?
 
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.
F4 was typo error on my part.
People see a need to get real close to many subjects, not sure why the impossibility of shooting BIF at 1.64 feet is mentioned as no one suggested it to begin with.
As to the quality of a unknown lens, I would wait until actual copies are evaluated to draw a conclusion as to whether or not the IQ trade off is acceptable.
 
Back
Top