Nikon 400 F/4.5 lens announced

[O]

Thanks! I've followed the 1001 Nights essays since soon after Haruo Sato started the series Some aspects are too technical for my rusty physics but I've learnt much and continue to.... It's timely to get this history published and it's in the public domain.

As for Thom's essays, he enjoys waxing lyrical, but I'm one who's learned to trust his reviews and assessments. He overdoes the buzzing but someone needs to keep telling Nikon the lie of the market. Nevertheless, he's a cumdugeon (his words!).

His books are well worth the money IME. His newer Z System site is probably unmatched in quality.
A few years back I found his earlier editions of the Rationalizing Essays to be reliable and above all useful. Rereading, it will be interesting to hear if anything of similar scope and quality covering the contempary F mount ecosystem.

Rationalizing Zoom Lens Sets | DSLRBodies | Thom Hogan

Rationalizing Zoom lens choices for DX and FX cameras

www.dslrbodies.com

Rationalizing All Nikkors | DSLRBodies | Thom Hogan

A Complete look at all Nikon f-mount lenses for DSLR cameras

www.dslrbodies.com

I have been a admirer of Thom for his grounding effect on me for a while.

I have little reliance on Ambassadors, respectably meant, they seem to suite the uninitiated first or novice buyers which makes sense.

Thom has guided me out of the valley of GAS disease and into reality and freedom, enabling me to invest and rely on my own skill sets, and focus on photography, not just the latest gear.

I sold of many of the exotic or expensive lenses and cameras 18 -24 months ago, my current position is deliberating what it is i would like to do or achieve going forward.

Robbie Williams the singer in a interview once said something that resonated with me, he said

"in the 80's 90s' musicians artist did great things, differently, they were out there creatively with great and unique talent".

Today everything is more ordinary and pretty much the same as each other..........

I find this observation is something that i see also in photography.

Only an opinion

 

[EricBowles]

@EricBowles ... You left off the statement that preceded your quotes, so I'll add it below. This the point that I have been stating in all of these threads:

" If you already have the 500mm, I'd probably say just hold onto it and get the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S for some flexibility and close focus work. Unless, of course, you are always leaning on a teleconverter, in which case the 400mm f/4.5 VR S is the slightly better choice over the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S."

Had I not sold my 70-200S + Z1.4x after receiving the 100-400, I would have purchased the 400 f4.5. However, as an owner of the 100-400 and 500PF, I continue to read that the straight PF has an optical edge (both in detail and speed) over the 400 f4.5 + Converter.
For those of you who have that one "best" lens like a 400mm f2.8 (Z or E), 600 f4, 500 FLE, 800PF selecting the 400 f4.5 is an easier mark. For those of us who found the purchase of the 500PF a stretch and consider it the sharpest/longest affordable tele owned, it is a tougher decision to step down 100mm just to add a converter to get back to start.

my 2C's again.
bruce

Bruce makes a good point. There are basically two kits being discussed - a 100-400 and 500 PF, or a 70-200 and a 400mm f/4.5. In both kits you would likely want a teleconverter. The TC is simple for the Z only kit, but a hybrid kit might need two teleconverters. With both kits you might add something longer like the 600mm or 800mm PF depending on your subject of choice. Each kit has pluses and minuses in terms of widest aperture and image quality at specific focal lengths and apertures. For example, you might make your decision based on the 300-350mm focal length because you photograph dragonflies, and the shorter minimum focus distance of the 100-400 is compelling. The may also be a difference depending on whether you own a lens or are buying today.

We might also want to look ahead. Nikon will be releasing a very good Z 200-600 soon. This lens will likely be very good to excellent across the range. I'm viewing it an an upgrade to the 200-500 - a very good lens at an excellent price point. Historically there may be some drop off at the longest end, but it may make a very economical 70-200 + 200-600 kit.

 

[Ken Miracle]

@EricBowles Good summary.

My wife and I represent two different needs and approaches.

One benefit for us is we are both using Z bodies and all Z mount lenses so we can mix and match.

My wife is 73 105lbs and has arthritic hands and back issues she needs light and easy to hold.

Her basic kit is simple and light. Z50 with Z400 f/4.5 her birding lens and a Tamron Z70-300 for most everything else.

We share: Z24-120, Z50 f/1.8, Z14-30 f/4, Z70-200 f/2.8, Z1.4TC

We share: Z6II with battery grip. If my wife uses it the grip comes off.

I am blessed to be quite fit at 74 180lbs with no issues that prevent me from lifting weights, doing high intesity interval training and hiking over pretty much any terrain.

My basic kit is a Z9 with Z800pf and a Z100-400 ... my wish list has the Z200-600 on it or an equivelant focal range Z mount Tamron lens. Tamron is making some great Sony mount lenses.

 

[NorthernFocus]

...Thom has guided me out of the valley of GAS disease and into reality and freedom....

Now you are ready, Grasshoppa...

 

[BLev65]

Bruce makes a good point. There are basically two kits being discussed - a 100-400 and 500 PF, or a 70-200 and a 400mm f/4.5. In both kits you would likely want a teleconverter. The TC is simple for the Z only kit, but a hybrid kit might need two teleconverters. With both kits you might add something longer like the 600mm or 800mm PF depending on your subject of choice. Each kit has pluses and minuses in terms of widest aperture and image quality at specific focal lengths and apertures. For example, you might make your decision based on the 300-350mm focal length because you photograph dragonflies, and the shorter minimum focus distance of the 100-400 is compelling. The may also be a difference depending on whether you own a lens or are buying today.

We might also want to look ahead. Nikon will be releasing a very good Z 200-600 soon. This lens will likely be very good to excellent across the range. I'm viewing it an an upgrade to the 200-500 - a very good lens at an excellent price point. Historically there may be some drop off at the longest end, but it may make a very economical 70-200 + 200-600 kit.

To be clear, had I the foresight of Nikon's lens introduction and pricing, I am not sure that I would have chosen the suite of lenses that I have settled on. I was shooting a hybrid F-mount / Z-mount system with the D500 + 500PF and Z6/Z7 (i/ii) bodies. My 200-400 was fixed on the Z6ii and my 70-200 S and wide-angle lenses were on the Z7/Z7ii. When the 100-400 was introduced, I thought it was time to offload all of my F-mount glass. After shooting the 100-400S and the 70-200S + 1.4x Z, it became clear that the 100-400 could replace two lenses (70-200 and 200-400). The liquidation of this and a 4th body allowed me to buy a Z9... this history of use, sales, and new purchases have led to my current system.
The 400mm f4.5 came out of nowhere. Had Nikon been more transparent about the upcoming lenses, I would have stayed with my 70-200S lens. The Z-system has understandably taken a long time to mature, and if funds are limited, one needs to make choices based on that mix of need / desire/ and availability.
Looking at my current system and recognizing that Nikon Z - prime telephotos are in very short supply, I am hesitant to make any rash moves. The 400 f2.8S and 800 f6.3 remain unavailable, and the 400mm f4.5 continue to be out of stock everywhere I look (local and afar). It is very hard to be excited about lenses that may be out of stock for 12 months or more.
If I could buy the 800mm f6.3, I'd do so today. The latter would lead to the sale of my 500PF. While there is a huge gap between the 100-400 and 800mm focal length, I could imagine that this would not be a barrier for me.
As for the addition of teleconverters... I continue to see this as a short-term fix. I personally would not invest in a 1.4xIII for a 500PF. Converters cost a stop of light, impact AF speed, and reduce image quality. For my needs, I am better off using my Z9 in DX mode to hit 750mm rather than create a mushy (to me) 48MP file that will just need to be downsampled to maintain the quality that I desire.

cheers,
bruce

 

[abc123brian]

To be clear, had I the foresight of Nikon's lens introduction and pricing, I am not sure that I would have chosen the suite of lenses that I have settled on. I was shooting a hybrid F-mount / Z-mount system with the D500 + 500PF and Z6/Z7 (i/ii) bodies. My 200-400 was fixed on the Z6ii and my 70-200 S and wide-angle lenses were on the Z7/Z7ii. When the 100-400 was introduced, I thought it was time to offload all of my F-mount glass. After shooting the 100-400S and the 70-200S + 1.4x Z, it became clear that the 100-400 could replace two lenses (70-200 and 200-400). The liquidation of this and a 4th body allowed me to buy a Z9... this history of use, sales, and new purchases have led to my current system.
The 400mm f4.5 came out of nowhere. Had Nikon been more transparent about the upcoming lenses, I would have stayed with my 70-200S lens. The Z-system has understandably taken a long time to mature, and if funds are limited, one needs to make choices based on that mix of need / desire/ and availability.
Looking at my current system and recognizing that Nikon Z - prime telephotos are in very short supply, I am hesitant to make any rash moves. The 400 f2.8S and 800 f6.3 remain unavailable, and the 400mm f4.5 continue to be out of stock everywhere I look (local and afar). It is very hard to be excited about lenses that may be out of stock for 12 months or more.
If I could buy the 800mm f6.3, I'd do so today. The latter would lead to the sale of my 500PF. While there is a huge gap between the 100-400 and 800mm focal length, I could imagine that this would not be a barrier for me.
As for the addition of teleconverters... I continue to see this as a short-term fix. I personally would not invest in a 1.4xIII for a 500PF. Converters cost a stop of light, impact AF speed, and reduce image quality. For my needs, I am better off using my Z9 in DX mode to hit 750mm rather than create a mushy (to me) 48MP file that will just need to be downsampled to maintain the quality that I desire.

cheers,
bruce

Have you tried the 1.4xiii + 500mm PF on the Z9? I’m not a fan of teleconverters overall and prefer not to use them, but I’ve been surprised by the IQ I’m seeing with that combo. I’d say the image only gets mushy if you still need to do a lot of cropping. I would still prefer a native, bare lens over an adapted one with TC, but it’s been an amazing temporary solution. I just hate being at F/8.

 

[BLev65]

Have you tried the 1.4xiii + 500mm PF on the Z9? I’m not a fan of teleconverters overall and prefer not to use them, but I’ve been surprised by the IQ I’m seeing with that combo. I’d say the image only gets mushy if you still need to do a lot of cropping. I would still prefer a native, bare lens over an adapted one with TC, but it’s been an amazing temporary solution. I just hate being at F/8.

I have not used a 1.4xiii with the 500PF, but I have used converters with other "best" optics like the 300mm f/2.8 VR lens and the 200-400VR. I was not happy w/ the 200-400VR, and the 300mm f/2.8 was just OK w/ a converter.
How well do you think the 500PF + 1.4x will perform when light is low. I often find myself shooting at ISO6400 / f5.6 / 1/640 of a second. A 1.4x would result in a narrower field of view and less light (ISO6400 / f8.0 / 1/320 for second)...
I do most of my photography early in the morning, as this is when I get soft light, active subjects, and the fewest interactions with other people.

I know that I would benefit from the 400mm f/2.8S... this is my ideal lens. However, I am a teacher... this means that I make enough money to enjoy life, but not enough to spend $12000 on a lens.
regards,
bruce

 

[abc123brian]

I have not used a 1.4xiii with the 500PF, but I have used converters with other "best" optics like the 300mm f/2.8 VR lens and the 200-400VR. I was not happy w/ the 200-400VR, and the 300mm f/2.8 was just OK w/ a converter.
How well do you think the 500PF + 1.4x will perform when light is low. I often find myself shooting at ISO6400 / f5.6 / 1/640 of a second. A 1.4x would result in a narrower field of view and less light (ISO6400 / f8.0 / 1/320 for second)...
I do most of my photography early in the morning, as this is when I get soft light, active subjects, and the fewest interactions with other people.

I know that I would benefit from the 400mm f/2.8S... this is my ideal lens. However, I am a teacher... this means that I make enough money to enjoy life, but not enough to spend $12000 on a lens.
regards,
bruce

That is the issue I run into as well. Overall, the lens and TC perform fine, but either your ISO gets too high or shutter speed gets too low. F/8 is just difficult to deal with for me. I don’t tend to use the TC until after the best light in the morning and have to remove it when it gets late in the day. That is part of the reason I see it as a temporary solution. I also think the 400mm F/2.8 is the lens I need, but the price is beyond what I am willing to spend at this time and the physical size is larger than what i want to carry and pack. I am considering the 400mm 4.5, but not sure it gives me enough pros over the 500mm PF or the 100-400mm. I am waiting to see what the 200-600mm offers and will then decide what to do for a long prime.

 

[O]

Now you are ready, Grasshoppa...

Love it.....LOL

 

[O]

I just returned from the international wild life nature photographic exhibition in Sydney, i felt it excluded full professionals or sponsored shooters.
Entries had seniors, 15 to 11 years and 10 years and under, so many of the works are just awesome, it was an amazing and inspiring exhibition, all images where shown at a minimum of around 1 meter high.

Out of the 100 plus entries 2% of photographers used a 300 2.8 VR II with 1.4 or 2 times Tc on a D5, 600 F4 with a 1.4 and 2x TC on a D4s or a D6 etc or Canon equivalent.

The rest were just consumer lenses and cameras, unbelievable, i saw used 2x D850, 1x Z6, 1x Z7, mostly DSLRS, 14-24-24-70 70-200 150-600 Sigma lenses.

It was impressive and immensely enjoyable.

In all cases the images where communicative very interesting, each had an story attached on where and how the photo was taken and where in the world, in some cases subjects photographed were waited on for days.

Not included here.........One image was a Tarantula Hornet wasp dragging along a huge Tarantula up the side of a fridge back wards, thought impossible to the eye, it seems only the female Hornet has the deadly poison to kill instantly.

1) A polar bare in the water swimming, the cubs where near by, using a 14-24 D810 Underwater housing, yikes.

2) Cheaters crossing the flooded river in Sri Lanka to chase prey on the other side. never seen that before.

3) Fox shot took days of following to understand its movements, Canon 7D 17-55 tastefully composed and yes used a Nikon Flash yes Nikon!!!.

4) DGI Drone with massive DOF amazing 28mm lens, 10% ? were drone entries, amazing images.

5) The spider web........... last image was taken in a crack in the wall at the local theme park in India, the coloured background was created by a passing Tuk Tuk, the photographer used a D5000 with a 85mm F3.5 lens, i believe the category was 10 years old and under division, i cant remember exactly.

The impressive thing with the exhibition was all the older gear we loved that was used successfully, and the compositional content over ruled many areas of needle sharp or ultimate technical perfection.

No one cared about the right or wrong use of TC 1.4 or Tc 2x they just used them to get the shot LOL amazing.

These shots are just random selections there are so many more brilliant images.

My Favorite ---------- I am amazed with the Cheaters swimming capture, so powerful.........

I believe Less is more in so many cases.

Only an opinion

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[O]

I have not used a 1.4xiii with the 500PF, but I have used converters with other "best" optics like the 300mm f/2.8 VR lens and the 200-400VR. I was not happy w/ the 200-400VR, and the 300mm f/2.8 was just OK w/ a converter.
How well do you think the 500PF + 1.4x will perform when light is low. I often find myself shooting at ISO6400 / f5.6 / 1/640 of a second. A 1.4x would result in a narrower field of view and less light (ISO6400 / f8.0 / 1/320 for second)...
I do most of my photography early in the morning, as this is when I get soft light, active subjects, and the fewest interactions with other people.

I know that I would benefit from the 400mm f/2.8S... this is my ideal lens. However, I am a teacher... this means that I make enough money to enjoy life, but not enough to spend $12000 on a lens.
regards,
bruce

There are some good 400 2.8 G lenses going as little at $4500 $5000 AUD at times.

 

[fcotterill]

Off topic, but I've read forum posts summarizing the gear used in this competition. It's clear the latest and 'greatest' lenses and cameras are the exception, and there is a trend for more winners are taken with a wide angle lens (not telephoto). One dpr thread and this recent commentary, but I cannot find the detailed analysis.

The overall winning entry for 2021 was a Siberian tiger captured with a remote Z7

2020 - Wildlife Photographer of the Year 56

The overall winning image is a fitting testimony to the tenacity of Sergey Gorshkov over many months in SIberian northern forests, and also the the image quality of the Z Nikkor 50 f1.8S. This capture likely also relied on the silent-shooting capabilities of a Z7 to depict this endangered...

bcgforums.com

I just returned from the international wild life nature photographic exhibition in Sydney, i felt it excluded full professionals or sponsored shooters.
Entries had seniors, 15 to 11 years and 10 years and under, so many of the works are just awesome, it was an amazing and inspiring exhibition, all images where shown at a minimu of around 1 meter high.

Out of the 100 plus entries 2% of photographers used a 300 2.8 VR II with 1.4 or 2 times Tc on a D5, 600 F4 with a 1.4 and 2x TC on a D4s or a D6 etc or Canon equivalent.

The rest were just consumer lenses and cameras, unbelievable, i saw used 2x D850, 1x Z6, 1x Z7, mostly DSLRS, 14-24-24-70 70-200 150-600 Sigma lenses.

It was impressive and immensely enjoyable.

In all cases the images where communicative very interesting, each had an story attached on where and how the photo was taken and where in teh world, in some cases subjects appearing were waited on for days.

Not included here.........One image was a Tarantula Hornet wasp dragging along a huge Tarantula up the side of a fridge back wards, thought impossible to the eye, it seems only the female Hornet has the deadly poison to kill instantly.

1) A polar bare in the water swimming, the cubs where near by, using a 14-24 D810 Underwater housing, yikes.

2) Cheaters crossing the flooded river in Sri Lanka to chase prey on the other side.

3) Fox shot took days of following to understand its movements, Canon 7D 17-55 tastefully composed and yes used a Nikon Flash yes Nikon!!!.

4) DGI Drone with massive DOF amazing 28mm lens, 10% were drone entries, amazing images.

5) The spider web........... last image was taken in a crack in the wall at the local theme park in India, the coloured background was created by a passing Tuk Tuk, the photographer used a D5000 with a 85mm F3.5 lens, i believe the category was 10 years old and under division, i cant remember exactly.

The impressive thing with the exhibition was all the older gear we loved that was used successfully, and the compositional content over ruled any areas of needle sharp or ultimate technical perfection being picked on.

No one cared about the right or wrong use of TC 1.4 or Tc 2x they just used them to get the shot LOL amazing.

These shots are just random selections there are so many more brilliant images.

My Favorite ---------- I am amazed of the Cheaters swimming capture, so powerful.........

I believe Less is more in so may cases.

Only an opinion

View attachment 47963

View attachment 47964

View attachment 47965

View attachment 47966View attachment 47977

 

[O]

Off topic, but I've read forum posts summarizing the gear used in this competition. It's clear the latest and 'greatest' lenses and cameras are the exception, and there is a trend for more winners are taken with a wide angle lens (not telephoto). One dpr thread and this recent commentary, but I cannot find the detailed analysis.

The overall winning entry for 2021 was a Siberian tiger captured with a remote Z7

2020 - Wildlife Photographer of the Year 56

The overall winning image is a fitting testimony to the tenacity of Sergey Gorshkov over many months in SIberian northern forests, and also the the image quality of the Z Nikkor 50 f1.8S. This capture likely also relied on the silent-shooting capabilities of a Z7 to depict this endangered...

bcgforums.com

It was a great exhibition, some really lovely works and by all sorts of age groups, many of the photos were taken on traditional DSLRS, wide angle lenses and some telephotos with TCs. There were lot of underwater entry's as well.
That aside i was very impressed with the subjects and effort some people went to to enter and the results with the gear they used was impressive.
Each image had a explanation of how where what and when it was made, so informative.
I caught the train, a few streets from home, got of in the city, walked across the course way right onto the ferry that took me to the venue doorstep, had a wonderful few hours, a little lunch and a lea-surly ferry ride back to the train station and relaxing train ride home, no traffic LOL really lovely day. Inspirational what people can do with what they have.
The 300 2.8 VR ii with the 1.4 and 2 x TC provided great results, i loved the Cheetahs swimming LOL.
The exhibition goes till March then the next years competition starts.

 

[Patrick M]

I'd never have thought to use this z 400mm for landscapes, so this video surprised me. It shouldn't have, as I've seen a number of landscape vloggers saying how great the z 100-400 is for that ... makes me wonder if I NEED one now. uh oh, GAS attack

 

[BLev65]

I'd never have thought to use this z 400mm for landscapes, so this video surprised me. It shouldn't have, as I've seen a number of landscape vloggers saying how great the z 100-400 is for that ... makes me wonder if I NEED one now. uh oh, GAS attack

I used my 500mm lens for landscapes today...
My 100-400 is used more often for landscapes that any other lens I own... that includes my 24-120S. I think it is all about the type of landscapes one enjoys making.

bruce

 

[Chris K]

How well do you think the 500PF + 1.4x will perform when light is low. I often find myself shooting at ISO6400 / f5.6 / 1/640 of a second. A 1.4x would result in a narrower field of view and less light (ISO6400 / f8.0 / 1/320 for second)...
I do most of my photography early in the morning, as this is when I get soft light, active subjects, and the fewest interactions with other people.

I use my 500 PF with a 1.4x regularly, and in dim Northern US climes in the winter.

With my Z6 I had AF issues in overcast mornings. The images that were in focus were good, but I lost maybe 10% more S-AF shots due to misfocus, and maybe 30% more C-AF shots.

With my Z9, I can shoot at f/8 from sun up to sundown. No AF issues at all. I get solid eye tracking on (for example) geese with no more tendency to hunt than I get in clear skies at golden hour.

As for the noise, you can do the math to figure out what images look like. Personally, I have no issues with a well-exposed image in good light at ISO 12800, so long as I’m not printing beyond 11x14 or so, or I’m not cropping past “DX” levels. (And I make heavy use of DX mode, especially for songbirds).

On the other hand, some people won’t touch ISO 3200, so you’ll have to be your own judge of acceptable ISO.

The closest thing I find to a limit with the 500PF+1.4+Z9 is shooting songbirds at dusk. If I have to keep shutter speeds beyond 1/1000, I lose feather detail and can’t crop heavily. I also find it’s tough to raise shadows on dark birds at high ISO, so I have to be very careful to expose properly.

The solution is of course the 800PF, but I’m not willing to go there right now…. I’m OK trading image quality for weight/cost.

 

[O]

I use my 500 PF with a 1.4x regularly, and in dim Northern US climes in the winter.

With my Z6 I had AF issues in overcast mornings. The images that were in focus were good, but I lost maybe 10% more S-AF shots due to misfocus, and maybe 30% more C-AF shots.

With my Z9, I can shoot at f/8 from sun up to sundown. No AF issues at all. I get solid eye tracking on (for example) geese with no more tendency to hunt than I get in clear skies at golden hour.

As for the noise, you can do the math to figure out what images look like. Personally, I have no issues with a well-exposed image in good light at ISO 12800, so long as I’m not printing beyond 11x14 or so, or I’m not cropping past “DX” levels. (And I make heavy use of DX mode, especially for songbirds).

On the other hand, some people won’t touch ISO 3200, so you’ll have to be your own judge of acceptable ISO.

The closest thing I find to a limit with the 500PF+1.4+Z9 is shooting songbirds at dusk. If I have to keep shutter speeds beyond 1/1000, I lose feather detail and can’t crop heavily. I also find it’s tough to raise shadows on dark birds at high ISO, so I have to be very careful to expose properly.

The solution is of course the 800PF, but I’m not willing to go there right now…. I’m OK trading image quality for weight/cost.

Very informative helpful coal face feedback, i think as you say the key comment not unreasonable is trading image quality for weight/cost.

I find the 600 F4 FL i rent is 900 or so grams heavier than my 300 F3.8 G bare, add the TCx2 to the 300 and there isn't much in it other than the 600 has the IQ edge due to not using the 2x TC.

The 1.4 TC on the 600 is excellent especially on the D6.

The 800 sounds ok but gee its hot on price, to me its ROI based on enough use at that length, i would rent one for a bit before ever buying one, although i just find it so hard to turn my back on F2.8 F4 Primes especially in lower light, or on the D6 for those really tough conditions.

In good light yes you can get away with a lot more.

I find in really challenging conditions the D6 for me is defiantly better than my Z9 especially a) especially at higher iso b) real stickiness in challenging back back grounds and light..

But yes lighter smaller is always the number one preference if the choice is available.

Oh how we are forced to pay for just that little more light when we need it.......

Only an opinion

 

[O]

I used my 500mm lens for landscapes today...
My 100-400 is used more often for landscapes that any other lens I own... that includes my 24-120S. I think it is all about the type of landscapes one enjoys making.

bruce

Absolutely agree, and i love using my 300 2.8 or 200-500 even as well as the 70-200 fl and yes my all time favorite 16mm Fish eye with a 180 degree view.

All as you say its what you like to do that matters.

 

[EricBowles]

I'd never have thought to use this z 400mm for landscapes, so this video surprised me. It shouldn't have, as I've seen a number of landscape vloggers saying how great the z 100-400 is for that ... makes me wonder if I NEED one now. uh oh, GAS attack

This was a 4 (or 5) image pano taken with the 400mm f/4.5 at the PGA Tour Championship. The images were vertical compositions. The long lens allowed me to shoot this with minimal sky in the photo and still retained the detail. Part of what made the shot unique is it was an unusual morning finish to the third round, so there was a a backlit clubhouse and light coming through the flags. Normally the lighting is the opposite with the late afternoon sun lighting everything.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[O]

400 F4.5 or 200-600 F5.6 ?

As an overall thought on the 400 F4.5 , i feel its like a updated Z version of the highly successful smaller lighter 300 PF with 100mm plus some tweaks and new formula, i hear good reports about it.

I think a lens that is light and compact is really great, good on Nikon.

The 200-500 was the best value quality lens i have enjoyed, hands down.

Nikon by comparison gave us a lens too good to cheap at the time. I call it the retention lens LOL.

Given the performance of that 200-500 i am anticipating that with newer Z technology and lens formulas i am tipping the 200-600 could be a step up from the 200-500 providing they can keep the weight down, i don't know if FL elements is that good for zooms and just better for primes ??? only an assumption !
The other thing is Nikon wont pass up the opportunity to stick it to us as usual on price.
The Thing is that Tamron and Sigma make very good zooms especially in the 150-600 a 4=1 magnification ratio and massive market Nikon wants a share of may be it will hold on price a little.

The 200-500 at a 2.5-1 magnification ratio, versus the new 200-600 3-1 magnification ratio, hopefully wont be a challenge being at F5.6 i generally avoid anything that exceeds 4-1 Magnification ratio and i shy away from anything generally above F5.6, unless it proves otherwise.

I am waiting for the 200-600 to arrive........
I think the 400 Z PF is awsome as an option but gee there are some really cheaply priced 500 PFS hitting the market soon.

Only an opinion

 

[JamesFarrell]

O: The 400 f/4.5 is NOT a PF lens (thankfully).

 

[EricBowles]

I got a recent report that a dealer is offering $1800 for the 500 PF. I expect that lens should sell in the $2300-2600 range right now. The price difference is fair since the dealer needs to make a profit - but if someone is looking to buy a 500 PF, keep an eye out for sales at Nikonians and Fred Miranda.

 

[Ken Miracle]

400 F4.5 or 200-600 F5.6 ?

As an overall thought on the 400 F4.5 , i feel its like a updated Z version of the highly successful smaller lighter 300 PF with 100mm plus some tweaks and new formula, i hear good reports about it.

I think a lens that is light and compact is really great, good on Nikon.

The 200-500 was the best value quality lens i have enjoyed, hands down.

Nikon by comparison gave us a lens too good to cheap at the time. I call it the retention lens LOL.

Given the performance of that 200-500 i am anticipating that with newer Z technology and lens formulas i am tipping the 200-600 could be a step up from the 200-500 providing they can keep the weight down, i don't know if FL elements is that good for zooms and just better for primes ??? only an assumption !
The other thing is Nikon wont pass up the opportunity to stick it to us as usual on price.
The Thing is that Tamron and Sigma make very good zooms especially in the 150-600 a 4=1 magnification ratio and massive market Nikon wants a share of may be it will hold on price a little.

The 200-500 at a 2.5-1 magnification ratio, versus the new 200-600 3-1 magnification ratio, hopefully wont be a challenge being at F5.6 i generally avoid anything that exceeds 4-1 Magnification ratio and i shy away from anything generally above F5.6, unless it proves otherwise.

I am waiting for the 200-600 to arrive........
I think the 400 Z PF is awsome as an option but gee there are some really cheaply priced 500 PFS hitting the market soon.

Only an opinion

the 400 f4.5 is not a PF

 

[NorthernFocus]

400 F4.5 or 200-600 F5.6 ?

As an overall thought on the 400 F4.5 , i feel its like a updated Z version of the highly successful smaller lighter 300 PF with 100mm plus some tweaks and new formula...

Some tweaks and a new formula. Yes. 1) It's not a PF lens 2) 33 percent longer 3) Z mount with all of the additional controls not available in F mount lenses. IOW designed from scratch. So let's see... what do they have in common? They are both light/small for the focal length, they are black, they have a Nikon logo on them. So almost the same...

 

[O]

the 400 f4.5 is not a PF

So its a FL or something that makes it so light or does it have full glass ?