Z 400pf coming soon!

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).

jeffnles1

Well-known member
Supporting Member
I'm sure it's going to be a great lens. Now, where is the 200-600 zoom and where are a couple new mid-tier cameras to be mirrorless D500 and D850? Hope soon, hope it is very soon.
 

Darrellhar

Active member
My guess would be $2500 range too like many are thinking. I still don't understand why they are releasing this before the 200-600
 

Darrellhar

Active member
I'm beginning to think the 200-600 got a total redesign for some reason.
You might be correct.. either that or they are concerned that it will cut into sales of these other lens (or both reasons). Sure sounds like a lot more people are waiting for 200-600 than 400pf. I'm sure the 400pf will sell well but it just doesn't seem to have the hype around it that the 200-600 does. Unless they pull a fast one and this turns out to be a 500pf but is smaller than F mount. They did that, to a lesser extent with the 24-105 that turned out to be a 24-120. Pure out of the air speculation on this. If a 400pf was smaller than the 100-400 then I could understand it but the same size but less than a stop faster (4.5 vs 5.6) just seems strange to me. I'm not the one they are marketing it for though so that could be the reason.
 

Wes Peterson

Well-known member
Thread starter
You might be correct.. either that or they are concerned that it will cut into sales of these other lens (or both reasons). Sure sounds like a lot more people are waiting for 200-600 than 400pf. I'm sure the 400pf will sell well but it just doesn't seem to have the hype around it that the 200-600 does. Unless they pull a fast one and this turns out to be a 500pf but is smaller than F mount. They did that, to a lesser extent with the 24-105 that turned out to be a 24-120. Pure out of the air speculation on this. If a 400pf was smaller than the 100-400 then I could understand it but the same size but less than a stop faster (4.5 vs 5.6) just seems strange to me. I'm not the one they are marketing it for though so that could be the reason.
I for 1 would take a 400pf over a 100-400 AND a 200-600. It may seem counter intuitive but its a more versatile lens in real world use. I bet 90% of shots taken with the 100-400 are @400mm and the 400pf with a 1.4 tc wont be far off of the long end of the 200-600 no matter what you do with the 100-400 and 200-600 you will never have a 400f4
 

John Navitsky

Well-known member
I have the 100-400mm which is 5.6 at 400. If the 400mm PF is 4.5, is that enough to justify buying it as well? I was really hoping for a full stop. Curious to how others see it.
and a bit lighter. i'm guessing a bit sharper too. guess it would depend on your primary use case. adding a built in TC would make it more interesting tho
 

Darrellhar

Active member
Not that Nikon is always consistent with its marketing but its seems strange that they have the 400mm on the road map but not on its future lens page. Same goes for a couple DX lens and 26mm pancake lens.
Screen Shot 2022-06-06 at 5.07.32 PM.png
Screen Shot 2022-06-06 at 5.11.43 PM.png
 

abc123brian

Well-known member
and a bit lighter. i'm guessing a bit sharper too. guess it would depend on your primary use case. adding a built in TC would make it more interesting tho
Lighter would be welcomed though I don’t find the 100-400 too heavy. I’m happy with the sharpness of the 100-400 and how well it does for video. I agree a built in TC would be great but I don't expect that. My main use case it would to gain the larger Aperture for low light. I’m not sure 2/3 stop is enough to justify it. The size is nice, but considering it’s the same size as the 100-400 at 100, it doesn’t save any packing space.
 

GrandNagus50

Well-known member
Supporting Member
This is one I will pass on. For my bird photography 400mm is just not long enough for a fixed focal length lens. I will prefer the 500mm f5.6 every time.

Meanwhile, I am increasingly baffled about the lack of an announcement re the 200-600mm, a lens that a LOT of aspiring wildlife photographers will want (and Sony's version of which is presently drawing a lot of new users to that camera system).
 

jeffnles1

Well-known member
Supporting Member
This is one I will pass on. For my bird photography 400mm is just not long enough for a fixed focal length lens. I will prefer the 500mm f5.6 every time.

Meanwhile, I am increasingly baffled about the lack of an announcement re the 200-600mm, a lens that a LOT of aspiring wildlife photographers will want (and Sony's version of which is presently drawing a lot of new users to that camera system).
I would imagine a lot of us more seasoned wildlife and nature photographers are also looking forward to such a lens.
 

arbitrage

Well-known member
As to pricing....front element size should be almost identical to the 500PF. So I'd guess same price as 500PF with maybe a little Z-tax sprinkled on top.

Still....even at 500PF price if you compare this to Canon 400 f/4 DOII at only 1/3 stop slower which was sold for $6900 you are getting a bargin!!
 

GrandNagus50

Well-known member
Supporting Member
I would imagine a lot of us more seasoned wildlife and nature photographers are also looking forward to such a lens.
Yes, of course, me included. My thinking here is based on some recent experience in wildlife photography workshops (in Texas). Some of the participants new to bird photography asked about "a starter mirrorless outfit that's good for bird photography," and I had to conclude that Nikon is not yet able to offer a basic kit that matches the appeal of either Sony
( A7 IV or A9 II) and the 200-600, or Canon (R5 and the 100-500). The Z9 is terrific but it's a heavy, high-priced pro-level camera, and Nikon's current cheaper models don't track birds nearly as well as their competitors. The 100-400 is good but really too short for small birds, and the 500mm pf is fantastic but is expensive and of a fixed focal length. Nikon really needs to come out with a less expensive camera model with its state-of-the-art autofocus features, plus the apparently long-postponed 200-600mm.

I hope this isn't considered camera boosting or bashing; I am just commenting on the current state of what's available from each company.
 

jeffnles1

Well-known member
Supporting Member
Yes, of course, me included. My thinking here is based on some recent experience in wildlife photography workshops (in Texas). Some of the participants new to bird photography asked about "a starter mirrorless outfit that's good for bird photography," and I had to conclude that Nikon is not yet able to offer a basic kit that matches the appeal of either Sony
( A7 IV or A9 II) and the 200-600, or Canon (R5 and the 100-500). The Z9 is terrific but it's a heavy, high-priced pro-level camera, and Nikon's current cheaper models don't track birds nearly as well as their competitors. The 100-400 is good but really too short for small birds, and the 500mm pf is fantastic but is expensive and of a fixed focal length. Nikon really needs to come out with a less expensive camera model with its state-of-the-art autofocus features, plus the apparently long-postponed 200-600mm.

I hope this isn't considered camera boosting or bashing; I am just commenting on the current state of what's available from each company.
I can't see how this would be bashing. I'm coming from D500 and a bag full of Nikon lenses. I use the 200-500 a lot but, when compared to some of the current offerings out there, it is starting to be a little long in the tooth. Image quality is outstanding on my camera/lens combo. However, it's never been "snappy" to focus, it weighs as much as a compact automobile (ok exaggeration there but it is a heavy beast) and the zoom throw can't be made from 200 to 500 without repositioning the hands. I love this lens and camera combo but I think there are much better options out there today. That's not bashing or trashing. I'm sure Nikon will enter the fray sooner or later and there will be much to talk about and consider.

Jeff
 

DavidT

Well-known member
Supporting Member
I’d say over $4k. It will be less than an 800PF but it’s faster than a 500PF so I’d guess slightly more
 

eaj101

Well-known member
I'm a little surprised by the enthusiasm for the 200-600, given my own experience with the 200-500. I purchased and sold that lens *twice*, because it was too heavy and too clumsy for what it did, and spent 90%+ of its time at max anyway - 500mm. Which made the 500PF a far better choice for me. I understand the Sony enthusiasm for their 200-600 a little more, since the long lens choices in that ecosystem are relatively more limited (not bashing, just observing). The 200-600 may turn out be a stellar lens, but to me the preferred kit would be the 100-400 and the 500PF (with TC) (or 800PF, which I haven't tried). Especially given the remarkable results people are getting with the 100-400 +TC1.4. I'm not a candidate for the 400PF (unless there's something really remarkable about it like a built in TC) since I already have the 500PF, but it might be a great for someone who doesn't already have the 500.
 
Top