Nikon 400 Z F4.5 S Lens

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).

RichF

Well-known member
Supporting Member

Warren D

Well-known member
Not sure what the point is in announcing another new lens when they can't make the ones they already have. The 800pf hasn't, to the best of my knowledge, had a second shipment in almost 2 months. Other recent Z lens releases are in short supply if you can even find one.
 

DRM

New member
Not sure what the point is in announcing another new lens when they can't make the ones they already have. The 800pf hasn't, to the best of my knowledge, had a second shipment in almost 2 months. Other recent Z lens releases are in short supply if you can even find one.
I think Nikon fairly recently released some sales forecasts that seemed pretty ambitious. Missing forecasts in the negative is a bad look and something shareholders don’t like. Perhaps Nikon believes the supply shortages will be significantly less going forward.
 

Darrellhar

Active member
The 800 PF is a S model as well, but I agree, I can’t spot the PF label on the lens :unsure:
It seems like they are moving away from calling them PF lens for some reason. 800mm doesn't have PF in its name either. Maybe it's a way to further separate F from Z mount? PF has a great reputation so I have no idea why they would move away from it.
 

arbitrage

Well-known member
I'm still a bit surprised it isn't a PF. But I don't know if that is 100% confirmed yet??
800PF doesn't have PF in the official name. It does however have that ugly yellow Phase Fresenel lettering on the lens. This prototype doesn't have that same yellow Phase Fresnel lettering. So is that because it isn't PF or did Nikon decide to drop that ugly lettering for this lens even though it does still have a PF element in it?
 

Darrellhar

Active member
I'm still a bit surprised it isn't a PF. But I don't know if that is 100% confirmed yet??
800PF doesn't have PF in the official name. It does however have that ugly yellow Phase Fresenel lettering on the lens. This prototype doesn't have that same yellow Phase Fresnel lettering. So is that because it isn't PF or did Nikon decide to drop that ugly lettering for this lens even though it does still have a PF element in it?

I think its safe to say it's a PF even if they don't call it that. I wish I knew why they were getting away from that label. They had a great reputation with them so not sure why they would move away from it unless they are just trying to differentiate between F and Z mount more. Someone at Nikon must have thought it was a good idea to drop it. Not sure anyone outside of Nikon would agree with whatever reason they have for it.
 

theEntreriCode

New member
For wildlife, I'm unsure if this would make any sense over the 500 PF in F mount. It's likely designed to be mated to the Z mount D500 equivalent. Very likely they'll announce them together.
 

Darrellhar

Active member
For wildlife, I'm unsure if this would make any sense over the 500 PF in F mount. It's likely designed to be mated to the Z mount D500 equivalent. Very likely they'll announce them together.
I was a sceptic when this was rumored but it makes a very good poor man's 400 f2.8 alternative for outdoor sports shooters. I don't shoot a ton of wildlife but it sure sounds like 500 and 600mm are more in the wheel house for wildlife shooters. I'm sure many, like Steve, are eagerly waiting for the 600mm Z lens to be released.
 

jeffnles1

Well-known member
Supporting Member
I'm sure this will be another great lens. The couple reviews (Matt Irwin, DPR and, dare I say it "Fro") this morning make it look like it is going to be a carry away hit.

However, for my style of shooting and locales where I most frequently shoot, a zoom is much more practical than a bag full of primes. I typically carry 2 or 3 lenses (200-500, 105 Macro, 24-70 F2.8). I have a lot of other lenses but these are my workhorse lenses.

With that out of the way, I'm eagerly awaiting the mystical and mythical 200-600 unicorn. Lack of that lens and an updated mid-tier Z camera body (D850 or D500 replacement) is what is keeping me hanging onto my D500 set up.

Jeff
 

abc123brian

Well-known member
I'm sure this will be another great lens. The couple reviews (Matt Irwin, DPR and, dare I say it "Fro") this morning make it look like it is going to be a carry away hit.

However, for my style of shooting and locales where I most frequently shoot, a zoom is much more practical than a bag full of primes. I typically carry 2 or 3 lenses (200-500, 105 Macro, 24-70 F2.8). I have a lot of other lenses but these are my workhorse lenses.

With that out of the way, I'm eagerly awaiting the mystical and mythical 200-600 unicorn. Lack of that lens and an updated mid-tier Z camera body (D850 or D500 replacement) is what is keeping me hanging onto my D500 set up.

Jeff
This is one of three lenses I have been looking forward to on the roadmap. Not necessarily purchasing, but to make a decision on what to do. The other two lenses are the 800mm PF and the 200-600mm. Now I have some information on two of the three so also waiting on the 200-600. I have went with the 24-120 and 100-400 combo and it is working great, which there is a equivalent setup for the other brands as well. I’m trying to decide what makes the most sense for 400+ focal lengths now. I think the 200-600 is going to be one I purchase, but I’d still like a nice longer prime as well. With this being F/4.5, I have to decide if 2/3 stop advantage is worthwhile over the 100-400mm. It would be a 560 F/6.3 with the 1.4x TC which is more usable than F/8, but if I have the 200-600 that is also redundant. I really hope the 200-600 make an appearance soon.
 

John Navitsky

Well-known member
i'd really be curious to see how this stacks up against the 100-400 in terms of image quality and handling. also be interesting to know if it'll take TCs and how it does with them.

this lens feels to me like it's targeted to enthusiast sports shooters who otherwise might have purchased the 400 2.8s
 

jeffnles1

Well-known member
Supporting Member
This is one of three lenses I have been looking forward to on the roadmap. Not necessarily purchasing, but to make a decision on what to do. The other two lenses are the 800mm PF and the 200-600mm. Now I have some information on two of the three so also waiting on the 200-600. I have went with the 24-120 and 100-400 combo and it is working great, which there is a equivalent setup for the other brands as well. I’m trying to decide what makes the most sense for 400+ focal lengths now. I think the 200-600 is going to be one I purchase, but I’d still like a nice longer prime as well. With this being F/4.5, I have to decide if 2/3 stop advantage is worthwhile over the 100-400mm. It would be a 560 F/6.3 with the 1.4x TC which is more usable than F/8, but if I have the 200-600 that is also redundant. I really hope the 200-600 make an appearance soon.
For my shooting a zoom is desirable. Some of the places I shoot, especially deer in the fall, are in preserves where going off trail is not allowed. The deer can show up anywhere from 10 yards away to 300 yards away. Those longer ones end up being "environmental" shots but still a zoom is good. In spring and summer I photograph a lot of wildflowers and the insects which pollinate them. A butterfly may show up anywhere from 5 feet away to 50 feet away. Also, I carry my macro around a lot too. While heavy and not a fast focusing lens, the 200-500 has become one of my workhorse lenses along with a 24-70 F2.8 and a 105mm Micro (macro) F2.8. With these 3 lenses and my D500 I'm ready for almost any situation I'm likely to encounter in the field (at least around here in the midwest and south east USA where I usually shoot.
 

arbitrage

Well-known member
I'm sure this will be another great lens. The couple reviews (Matt Irwin, DPR and, dare I say it "Fro") this morning make it look like it is going to be a carry away hit.

However, for my style of shooting and locales where I most frequently shoot, a zoom is much more practical than a bag full of primes. I typically carry 2 or 3 lenses (200-500, 105 Macro, 24-70 F2.8). I have a lot of other lenses but these are my workhorse lenses.

With that out of the way, I'm eagerly awaiting the mystical and mythical 200-600 unicorn. Lack of that lens and an updated mid-tier Z camera body (D850 or D500 replacement) is what is keeping me hanging onto my D500 set up.

Jeff
I think I actually would consider this lens over the adapted 500PF. I felt that the 500PF lost a lot of its magic once it had to have that FTZ adapter welded to it on my Z9. Not from IQ but just the extra length, worse balance etc. I think having this lens with a Z1.4TC (arguably better than F TC) to have just 1/3 less light but 60mm more focal length AND having the f/4.5 for lower light levels would make this new 400/4.5 something I would consider selling a 500PF for.
 

GrandNagus50

Well-known member
Supporting Member
I have zero problem using the 500mm f5.6 PF with the FTZ adapter.

I would have preferred, much, a 600mm f5.6 (or even f6.3) PF to a 400mm PF. In fact, I would have preferred a 600mm PF to the 800mm PF.

All this said, let's get real: we are moving our buying vision out toward a distant horizon here. What I mean is that overall, very few preorders for the 800mm PF lens have been filled, and catching up to those preorders apparently will take quite a while. So I would imagine that few people (except maybe a few NPS folk) will even sniff a 400mm PF for a good long while.
 

Gene_Hughes

Member
I know it's by using a TC, but you're getting a 560mm f6.3 as well as 400mm f4.5. And it's native, which should hopefully give an AF advantage. Also, if it follows the trend of other S Line lenses, the VR should be outstanding.
Not to mention the size and weight look to be impressive for what's there.

That said, if I had the 500pf it would be much more difficult to begin deliberations on a replacement. ;)
 

jeffnles1

Well-known member
Supporting Member
I have zero problem using the 500mm f5.6 PF with the FTZ adapter.

I would have preferred, much, a 600mm f5.6 (or even f6.3) PF to a 400mm PF. In fact, I would have preferred a 600mm PF to the 800mm PF.

All this said, let's get real: we are moving our buying vision out toward a distant horizon here. What I mean is that overall, very few preorders for the 800mm PF lens have been filled, and catching up to those preorders apparently will take quite a while. So I would imagine that few people (except maybe a few NPS folk) will even sniff a 400mm PF for a good long while.
sadly, I fear you may be correct.
 

EricBowles

Moderator
Supporting Member
I know it's by using a TC, but you're getting a 560mm f6.3 as well as 400mm f4.5. And it's native, which should hopefully give an AF advantage. Also, if it follows the trend of other S Line lenses, the VR should be outstanding.
Not to mention the size and weight look to be impressive for what's there.

That said, if I had the 500pf it would be much more difficult to begin deliberations on a replacement. ;)
This is the logic I've used for the 400 f/4.5. The ability to have f/4.5 is important and is a 2/3 stop advantage over the 500 PF. That's meaningful. The ability to have 560mm at f/6.3 with a TC is good when more frame filling is needed, but the 800mm is part of my solution for the long end.

I'm looking at dropping the 500 PF, 200-400 f/4, and maybe the 300 f/4 which all have apertures and focal lengths that can be covered with the kit of the 400 PF and 70-200 f/2.8. The one open item right now is the minimum focus distance and magnification of the 400mm lens. I don't plan to buy the 200-600 and have already sold the 200-500.
 
Last edited:
Top