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).

I think the price is high. Many of us have the 100-400 and the 500 pf. Not sure this lens fills a niche. I won’t be a purchaser. But I will buy the 800 f6.3 when it becomes available.
I take far more small bird ID shots than anything else. Took the 100-400 w 1.4 tc on a whim today . Really missed my 800 pf it rocks for my needs.
 
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.
If you want the absolute best, the 400 F/2.8 TC is for you. No only is the 400 F/2.8 an S lens but also has gold ring. the 400 F/4.5 only has a silver ring. And the 200-600vwill not be an S 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.
And the f/6.3 was a typo also?

Who mentioned BIF? Not me....

I've seen Ricci's examples showing it best the 100-400Z and be about equal to the 500PF so I know where the lens stands already, that is a start. I'd never compare it to a 70-200/2.8 with 2xTC anyways....been there and done that too many times....only disappointment can come of it.
 
... I'd never compare it to a 70-200/2.8 with 2xTC anyways....been there and done that too many times....only disappointment can come of it.
Totally agree. Anyone buying a lens(particularly a zoom) with a plan up front to routinely shoot it with a TC is setting themselves up for disappointment. Unless the TC is paired with rose colored glasses :unsure:
 
Totally agree. Anyone buying a lens(particularly a zoom) with a plan up front to routinely shoot it with a TC is setting themselves up for disappointment. Unless the TC is paired with rose colored glasses :unsure:

Normally I would agree with you. I certainly have no desire to get a 100-400 to try and get to my desired 500-750 range. Ideally, I want to use a 500 F4 paired with a 1.4 TC. Such a lens does not exist in native Z mount, and is nowhere on the horizon. Given the price of the F mount lens, it is likely not an ideal option for someone switching to mirrorless. If you don't already own the 500 PF or one of the other exotic lenses and are looking for a wildlife option for the Z mount, what makes sense?

The 400 4.5 does not have an ideal focal length, but if married to a 1.4 TC, it is is perhaps the only sensible(ish) option if you can't afford the 400 2.8 TC. The 200-600 might be an option, but, unless the performance is superior to the 200-500, I am not sure I would consider it.
 
I am struck by the progress in lens design. Typically a telephoto's overall length is around the focal length - a 400mm lens is going to be @400mm overall length, plus or minus. This lens is a whole lot shorter than that.

My first 'long' lens was a 400mm f/5.6 AIS Nikon, and I thought I'd gone to heaven when I finally could afford the 400mm f/3.5. (silly, but I almost wish I still had that lens). The 5.6 was relative svelte, the 3.5 anything but :)

Life has improved for wildlife photographers over the years, and this lens is actually more of an advance in design than most people give it credit for.
 
If you want the absolute best, the 400 F/2.8 TC is for you. No only is the 400 F/2.8 an S lens but also has gold ring. the 400 F/4.5 only has a silver ring. And the 200-600vwill not be an S lens.
Thanks Rich, logical of course but I was just hoping for more from Nikon, my expectations were probably too high, to me this should have been a gold ring lens and also an f4 aperture. For birds and wildlife my current options are A1, Z9, Sony 200-600G, 400f2.8 from both Nikon and Sony, 600f4G from Sony, these latest releases from Nikon including the 800PF and 400f4.5 just somehow aren't quite there. It's just me, we are all different, guess time will tell once more people get field experience with them, how they perform with teleconverters and so on.
 
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?
It all depends on how much plastic/composite is used in relation to magnesium, I have an engineering background so these things maybe matter more to me than others. I did mention in my post that they could be using carbon composite materials, I am all for making things stronger and lighter, so long as it doesn't compromise the design, either now or after several years use.

So long as the main structure containing the glass elements, focus motor and so on is magnesium then I would be pretty happy. If the outer cosmetic elements are composite then that isn't a problem to me, of course if the lens get knocked about, there is a chance of damaging the composite vs metal, which would likely survive. Also my money would go on magnesium to not distort or deteriorate over time, composites, not so much.

Maybe I am old school, but if I am dropping $3000-7000 on a lens then I like to so seem some magnesium in between the focus rings/grip sections. Of course I would be complaining if it was too heavy :D but somewhere in the middle ground would be good.
 
It all depends on how much plastic/composite is used in relation to magnesium, I have an engineering background so these things maybe matter more to me than others. I did mention in my post that they could be using carbon composite materials, I am all for making things stronger and lighter, so long as it doesn't compromise the design, either now or after several years use.

So long as the main structure containing the glass elements, focus motor and so on is magnesium then I would be pretty happy. If the outer cosmetic elements are composite then that isn't a problem to me, of course if the lens get knocked about, there is a chance of damaging the composite vs metal, which would likely survive. Also my money would go on magnesium to not distort or deteriorate over time, composites, not so much.

Maybe I am old school, but if I am dropping $3000-7000 on a lens then I like to so seem some magnesium in between the focus rings/grip sections. Of course I would be complaining if it was too heavy :D but somewhere in the middle ground would be good.
I do recall that the magnesium frame in the D800 was known to crack in some instances. The successor D810 used a composite frame which suffered no cracks. It was a much improved camera. BTW, where are you reading what this new lens is made from?
 
It all depends on how much plastic/composite is used in relation to magnesium, I have an engineering background so these things maybe matter more to me than others. I did mention in my post that they could be using carbon composite materials, I am all for making things stronger and lighter, so long as it doesn't compromise the design, either now or after several years use.

So long as the main structure containing the glass elements, focus motor and so on is magnesium then I would be pretty happy. If the outer cosmetic elements are composite then that isn't a problem to me, of course if the lens get knocked about, there is a chance of damaging the composite vs metal, which would likely survive. Also my money would go on magnesium to not distort or deteriorate over time, composites, not so much.

Maybe I am old school, but if I am dropping $3000-7000 on a lens then I like to so seem some magnesium in between the focus rings/grip sections. Of course I would be complaining if it was too heavy :D but somewhere in the middle ground would be good.
Oh, an engineer. Then you're no doubt aware that carbon fiber composites have lower thermal coefficients than magnesium and are stiffer under mechanical bending stresses. Also less prone to plastic deformation if the lens were to be dropped etc. I'm really surprised that Nikon has clung to magnesium all these years. Though it may actually be less expensive to manufacture with magnesium. Or it could simply be that they're fighting the negative perception of "plastic" lenses among old school photographers :)
 
Oh, an engineer. Then you're no doubt aware that carbon fiber composites have lower thermal coefficients than magnesium and are stiffer under mechanical bending stresses. Also less prone to plastic deformation if the lens were to be dropped etc. I'm really surprised that Nikon has clung to magnesium all these years. Though it may actually be less expensive to manufacture with magnesium. Or it could simply be that they're fighting the negative perception of "plastic" lenses among old school photographers :)
I would have hoped for more from a BCG forum member to be honest, keeping it civil and so on. Regardless, I'm about as old school as Tesla, and have owned a few carbon composite products over the years, one of which didn't fair too well when the carbon met the concrete. Nikon will probably never divulge what they use, but I would suspect more plastic than carbon composite, with that said, probably best if neither of us assume anything at this point 🙂
 
Thanks Rich, logical of course but I was just hoping for more from Nikon, my expectations were probably too high, to me this should have been a gold ring lens and also an f4 aperture. For birds and wildlife my current options are A1, Z9, Sony 200-600G, 400f2.8 from both Nikon and Sony, 600f4G from Sony, these latest releases from Nikon including the 800PF and 400f4.5 just somehow aren't quite there. It's just me, we are all different, guess time will tell once more people get field experience with them, how they perform with teleconverters and so on.
Why should it be a gold ring lens (as if this really matters) and f4? Do you sincerely believe that there is a line of photographers with $5400 waiting to buy a 400mm f4 lens?
Not every wildlife photographer has the budget to spend that type of money. To date, Nikon has done a really good job pricing their lenses to attract a new audience or coaxing money from their wallets... In just the Z mount... 400mm f/2.8 w/TC (upwards of $12000, 800 f6.3 $6300, 400 4.5 $3200, 100-400 $2600... If you include Nikons latest F-mount teles that are less than 5-6 years old... 180-400 wTC $12000, 120-300 f2.8 $7800, 500 PF $3600, 300 PF $2000.
This is the type of price structure that creates new photographers and "feeds" existing one.
Canon has run the following for about 2 decades: 400 f2.8, 400 f4, 400 f5.6, 100-400 f5.6. I bet you can tell me which lenses are the top two sellers.
I also have little doubt that the 100-400 and 400 f5.6 have been gateways to much larger purchases.

regards,
bruce
 
Why should it be a gold ring lens (as if this really matters) and f4? Do you sincerely believe that there is a line of photographers with $5400 waiting to buy a 400mm f4 lens?
Not every wildlife photographer has the budget to spend that type of money. To date, Nikon has done a really good job pricing their lenses to attract a new audience or coaxing money from their wallets... In just the Z mount... 400mm f/2.8 w/TC (upwards of $12000, 800 f6.3 $6300, 400 4.5 $3200, 100-400 $2600... If you include Nikons latest F-mount teles that are less than 5-6 years old... 180-400 wTC $12000, 120-300 f2.8 $7800, 500 PF $3600, 300 PF $2000.
This is the type of price structure that creates new photographers and "feeds" existing one.
Canon has run the following for about 2 decades: 400 f2.8, 400 f4, 400 f5.6, 100-400 f5.6. I bet you can tell me which lenses are the top two sellers.
I also have little doubt that the 100-400 and 400 f5.6 have been gateways to much larger purchases.

regards,
bruce
Hi Bruce, gold ring doesn't really matter in reality. My hope is that Nikon make a great 200-600z which levels or beats Sony, then focus on quality primes like 400 f4 and the other usual suspects, if people will drop $6000+ on an 800PF then yes I believe people would spend $5400 on a 400f4. Truthfully I feel they should have made a native Z 500mm f5.6 to replace the current 500PF. But of course there will be sports photographers who will be delighted with the 400f4.5, that makes perfect sense.

Nikon, Sony, Canon and Co will never please everyone. My simple theory is that all the top brands should be making stellar 100-400 and 200-600 options, first and foremost, followed by some mid range primes and then the 400f2.8 and 600f4. I wonder how many Sony cameras got sold off the back of the 200-600G lens, I suspect a large number, similarly with the Canon 400 f5.6.

I understand most do not have an unlimited budget, hence why a Z6ii and 200-600z from Nikon would be a wonderful kit for many wildlife photographers, or at least it will be when Nikon release that lens.
 
I would have hoped for more from a BCG forum member to be honest, keeping it civil and so on. Regardless, I'm about as old school as Tesla, and have owned a few carbon composite products over the years, one of which didn't fair too well when the carbon met the concrete. Nikon will probably never divulge what they use, but I would suspect more plastic than carbon composite, with that said, probably best if neither of us assume anything at this point 🙂
Not sure what I said that was uncivil but my apologies. No intent to be offensive. Early morning and was likely typing faster than I was thinking :confused:
 
I said in my original post that I was not planning on ordering the z400 f/4.5. Then as I noticed the weight, length and other specs I thought it would be something my wife might want to replace her Tamron 100-400 on her Z50 for birding. When I showed her that the 400 f/4.5 was shorter than her Tamron 100-400 with the ftz adaptor even when not extended and that the z400 f.4.5 weighed 2.7 pounds compared to the Tamron 100-400 with the FTZ weighing 2.75 pounds she told me to order one :) So my pre order is in.
 
Last edited:
I said in my original post that I was not planning on ordering the z400 f/4.5. Then as I noticed the weight, length and other specs I thought it would be something my wife might want to replace here Tamron 100-400 on her Z50 for birding. When I showed her that the 400 f/4.5 was shorter than her Tamron 100-400 with the ftz adaptor even when not extended and that the z400 f.4.5 weighed 2.7 pounds compared to the Tamron 100-400 with the FTZ weighing 2.75 pounds she told me to order one :) So my pre order is in.
I also said in my original post that I would pass on the z400 f4.5 since I was already well covered with the 100-400 and 800 Z lenses. Then I looked more carefully at the specs and some videos about the lens and I went and pre-ordered it. I decided it made more sense to be able to use the 400mm with teleconverters than to use the 100-400 with teleconverters. Also I was holding on to my F-mount 300mm f4 PF lens to be used with the F-mount teleconverters. Now I can sell the 300mm + the teleconverters and now only be traveling with Z lenses.
 
Here is a brief head to head between the 100-400 and 400. (I know this was already posted but seeing the comment above I will post it again)
Spoiler: 400 wins for AF speed and IQ. But whether the difference is enough to matter is up to the individual.


 
Totally agree. Anyone buying a lens(particularly a zoom) with a plan up front to routinely shoot it with a TC is setting themselves up for disappointment. Unless the TC is paired with rose colored glasses :unsure:

I think you have to take such a statement on a case-by-case basis. Many lenses can take a 1.4x with very little issue. A few can handle a 2x and still perform well. I shot for years with a Canon 300/2.8 IS with a Canon 2x, and got great results in a much more hand-holdable package than the next bigger option (500/4 IS). Today I regularly shoot my 500PF with a 1.4x, and I also get very good results.

I agree that it’s generally better for image quality to use a bare lens of the focal length you want. But shooting a lens+TC is not only a good way to get more reach, it’s also a good way to keep your kit compact if you have a self-imposed weight limit.

In that vein, I was a bit disappointed in Ricci’s impromptu 400/4.5 test with the Nikon 2x. It was surely unfair to compare it to the 800/6.3, but while sharpness appeared good, there was more loss of overall image contrast than I expected from a 2x that has received quite a bit of praise.
 
Here is a brief head to head between the 100-400 and 400. (I know this was already posted but seeing the comment above I will post it again)
Spoiler: 400 wins for AF speed and IQ. But whether the difference is enough to matter is up to the individual.



Personally, I think the bigger advantage the 400 has is that it more happily pairs with a 1.4x. 400mm is pretty short for wildlife, so it’s really tempting to reach for a TC, and the 400 appears to do very well at 1.4x.
 
Back
Top