Camera Labs review of Nikon NIKKOR Z 400mm f/2.8 TC VR 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).

Member's gallery
The sample photos are detrimental IMO. I could imagine same pictures with almost any lens.
The rest of the article is OK, trying to provide information for would-be-buyers.
 
Member's gallery
Steve said:
And they do so without actually comparing it too. I have a feeling this lens will be the sharpest 400 2.8 they have ever made - maybe the sharpest lens they have ever made in any focal length.
Click to expand...

that's kinda my guess as well. i've not heard of a single s-line z-mount lens that has a direct f-mount equivalent that's not sharper than it's predecessor. i can't imagine they'd break that tradition for a showcase lens
 
Member's gallery
Steve said:
And they do so without actually comparing it too. I have a feeling this lens will be the sharpest 400 2.8 they have ever made - maybe the sharpest lens they have ever made in any focal length.
Click to expand...
I ordered this lens waiting to arrive (I don't know when). When I checked the Camera Lab review, it kind made me think me whether I made a good choice. I am glad that you are so positive about this lens! I trust your judgement more than I do with the Camera Lab. Thank you
 
Member's gallery
Activert said:
I ordered this lens waiting to arrive (I don't know when). When I checked the Camera Lab review, it kind made me think me whether I made a good choice. I am glad that you are so positive about this lens! I trust your judgement more than I do with the Camera Lab. Thank you
Click to expand...
I have one on order and if I had any doubts at all, there's no way I'd drop $14K on it :)
 
Member's gallery
Steve said:
And they do so without actually comparing it too. I have a feeling this lens will be the sharpest 400 2.8 they have ever made - maybe the sharpest lens they have ever made in any focal length.
Click to expand...

Au contraire, mon frere. A friend of mine is bringing my new (to me) 400mm 2.8 FL south in a couple of weeks. He received his 400mm Z mount about ten days ago. He likes the lens, but he said it's not as sharp, or as contrasty as the FL version. He wanted it for the weight, and the built in teleconverter. It focuses faster on the Z9 than the FL for bursts.

What he's told me is consistent with the MTF charts from Nikon that I saw.

I'll have a chance to use it in about two weeks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Roy
Member's gallery
tickle_my_nikon said:
Au contraire, mon frere. A friend of mine is bringing my new (to me) 400mm 2.8 FL south in a couple of weeks. He received his 400mm Z mount about ten days ago. He likes the lens, but he said it's not as sharp, or as contrasty as the FL version. He wanted it for the weight, and the built in teleconverter. It focuses faster on the Z9 than the FL for bursts.

What he's told me is consistent with the MTF charts from Nikon that I saw.

I'll have a chance to use it in about two weeks.
Click to expand...
That's not good news. Did he do any side-by-side tests?
 
Member's gallery
Steve said:
That's not good news. Did he do any side-by-side tests?
Click to expand...

Just as another data point, there's a french video from a week ago that has some side by side tests against a 400mm FL. If I remember correctly the shots show a tiny win for the 400 Z in the middle of the frame and a little bit more of a win at the edges. Contrast was fractionally better on the 400 Z in their tests too. They were very close though. For me the built-in TC and the better weight and AF should make way more difference to my photography than a fractional difference in sharpness/contrast in either direction. I'm very happy with my initial impressions compared to the FL lenses I've used, but I have not used a 400 FL.
 
Member's gallery
Steve said:
That's not good news. Did he do any side-by-side tests?
Click to expand...

He did, but he didn't send them to me. I can take a few direct comparisons.

His impression was that it was mostly a utility upgrade. He's selling his 600mm F/4, and 400mm F/2.8 to pay for it, and now only has to drag around one six pound lens instead of two monsters which he thought was the greatest upgrade of all time.

He said side by side you wouldn't know which image was which, but his impression is the FL is slightly sharper in the center, and the corners, with a bit more pop and the bokeh is a little cleaner wide open.

Roy said:
Both lenses are really sharp beyond most peoples uses - but the FL is a fraction of the price and more than twice the weight (3800g vs 1435g)..🦘
Click to expand...

8.3 lbs vs 6.5 lbs, roughly speaking in terms of weight difference. Not remotely twice the weight. The Z is 2950g there buddy.
 
Member's gallery
tickle_my_nikon said:
He did, but he didn't send them to me. I can take a few direct comparisons.

His impression was that it was mostly a utility upgrade. He's selling his 600mm F/4, and 400mm F/2.8 to pay for it, and now only has to drag around one six pound lens instead of two monsters which he thought was the greatest upgrade of all time.

He said side by side you wouldn't know which image was which, but his impression is the FL is slightly sharper in the center, and the corners, with a bit more pop and the bokeh is a little cleaner wide open.



8.3 lbs vs 6.5 lbs, roughly speaking in terms of weight difference. Not remotely twice the weight. The Z is 2950g there buddy.
Click to expand...
Yep - I got the weight wrong.
But i agree the FL seems slightly sharper...🦘
 
Member's gallery
I think when the 400 E FL was announced, there was a similar comparison against the 400 G version that was reported to be slightly better than the E version based on the testing by DXO mark. Maybe its something similar with the E vs Z versions too. I do not own the 400 E anymore but it is the best lens i have ever used (Have used Nikon 300 2.8G VRII, 500 F4G, 500 F4E, 600 F4E).
 
Member's gallery
There are minor differences in the optical designs, which are presumably significant to optimize IQ of the 400 S with /without its TC engaged. I think this is the only Nikkor which combines FL, ED, Super ED and SR.

400 2.8E FL

1646043646995.png


400 f2.8S TC

400 f2.8S TC14_nikkor-z_TC_no TC.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Roy
Member's gallery
Roy said:
Yep - I got the weight wrong.
But i agree the FL seems slightly sharper...🦘
Click to expand...

Honestly, we're talking about severe diminishing returns here. Is it 3% sharper at 100%? Does that mean only if you print 30" prints? What about for web publication at 1920 x 1080? Is that any sharper at all?

I was letting Steve know that there isn't a huge leap forward in optics. It's mostly utility.

In fact I would say that there hasn't been a huge leap forward in any of the Nikon super telephoto lenses since the first VR versions came out in ... 2004?

Which really doesn't matter because they're all ridiculously sharp even at 45 megapixels.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top