Camera Labs review of Nikon NIKKOR Z 400mm f/2.8 TC VR S lens

[pwaring]

Here are some examples of the new 400 Z at 800mm using the 2x TC. I haven't had a lot of time to get out with it (my first good trips are next month) but I wanted to see how I felt about it as an 800mm with the 800mm PF coming along. Many of these have been cropped. I've done a few 100% examples too. Some were exposed better than others so I've had to bump a few in post. These aren't particularly good photos but they hopefully give you an idea of what the combo can do. I've done minor edits in lightroom but I haven't done anything fancy like topaz denoise or anything because I'm not intending to use them beyond this post.

1/1000s f5.6 ISO 800

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

at 100%

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

1/2000s f6.3 ISO 500

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

1/2000s f6.3 ISO 640

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

1/2000s f6.3 ISO 500

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

 

[pwaring]

A few more..

1/1000s f5.6 ISO 2200

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

a 100% crop of a similar shot that had focus on the body and not the eye. ISO was still around 2000:

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

1/2000s f5.6 ISO 800

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

1/1250s f6.3 ISO 800

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

1/1600s f6.3 ISO 800 (This bird was tiny!)

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

 

[gdecamp]

Very impressive with a 2x, thank you for posting these!

 

[pwaring]

Very impressive with a 2x, thank you for posting these!

Have you placed a pre-order for the 800mm PF? This lens is very servicable at 800mm but I expect the PF to be a little bit better. I expect it to be considerably lighter (the 350g of the 2x + 600g ish lens difference is nearly 1kg). If the PF was more expensive then it would be an absolute no-brainer to me that the 400Z would be my 800mm. They've actually gone and landed it at a price where I'm super tempted.

I put in a pre-order first thing so that I can think about it for a while. I'd ring-fenced some cash for a pool table and seating after I move house but I can buy that later without having to wait 1-2 years for it! It looks like Ricci plans to do a video comparing the 800mm PF and the 400Z + 2x but I bet the stupid lens will ship first

 

[gdecamp]

I did!! I'll decide what to do later but will most likely keep it!

 

[Activert]

Beautiful sharp photos! Very impressive!

 

[gdecamp]

I put in a pre-order first thing so that I can think about it for a while. I'd ring-fenced some cash for a pool table and seating after I move house but I can buy that later without having to wait 1-2 years for it! It looks like Ricci plans to do a video comparing the 800mm PF and the 400Z + 2x but I bet the stupid lens will ship first

My camera shop called before my 400 ships today so I'll have it Friday sometime!

 

[arbitrage]

Here are some examples of the new 400 Z at 800mm using the 2x TC. I haven't had a lot of time to get out with it (my first good trips are next month) but I wanted to see how I felt about it as an 800mm with the 800mm PF coming along. Many of these have been cropped. I've done a few 100% examples too. Some were exposed better than others so I've had to bump a few in post. These aren't particularly good photos but they hopefully give you an idea of what the combo can do. I've done minor edits in lightroom but I haven't done anything fancy like topaz denoise or anything because I'm not intending to use them beyond this post.

Have you tried it with external and internal 1.4s to get 784 f/5.6? If I was going to use the 400Z as my "800" I would much prefer to use it in that manner if the IQ was similar to using just the 2xTC. Having that versatility to go 560/4 to 784/5.6 with the built-in TC would be killer.

 

[Tom-Neth]

@arbitrage wonder what the quality will be at 784 mm.

 

[pwaring]

Have you tried it with external and internal 1.4s to get 784 f/5.6? If I was going to use the 400Z as my "800" I would much prefer to use it in that manner if the IQ was similar to using just the 2xTC. Having that versatility to go 560/4 to 784/5.6 with the built-in TC would be killer.

I did a little testing early on and I felt like it was a small win for detail with the 2x TC. I had a proper chance to shoot using the 2x at the weekend on things other than walls and was very happy with the results, moreso than I expected to be. This especially applies if you're filling the frame and in good light. I think I would be nearly just as happy in those circumstances with the 1.4x (internal+external), especially if it was giving me the versatility I wanted. Personally I expect to find myself in lots of situations where I want either 400 or 560 and then other situations where I want 800 or more.

Whilst I won't say he's my go to guy for rigorous tests, Matt Granger did look at all the combos in his 400mm Z video. He scored it as follows:

560mm (Internal) : 9.25/10
560mm (External) : 9/10
784mm (Internal+External) : 8.5/10
800mm (External 2x) : 9.5/10
1120mm (External 2x + Internal) : 7.5/10

For comparison he rated the 400 FL with 2x as a 7.25/10, the 600mm FL as 9/10 and the 800 FL as 9.25/10.

In my view he's a bit skewed towards the 2x but this could be because the Z-mount lenses with 2x are that much better than the F-mount lenses with a 2x. Compared to those I do find it very impressive. Still, from his scoring you can see that he's still very happy with the 784mm combo but that it is a little worse than the other combos.

 

[arbitrage]

I did a little testing early on and I felt like it was a small win for detail with the 2x TC. I had a proper chance to shoot using the 2x at the weekend on things other than walls and was very happy with the results, moreso than I expected to be. This especially applies if you're filling the frame and in good light. I think I would be nearly just as happy in those circumstances with the 1.4x (internal+external), especially if it was giving me the versatility I wanted. Personally I expect to find myself in lots of situations where I want either 400 or 560 and then other situations where I want 800 or more.

Whilst I won't say he's my go to guy for rigorous tests, Matt Granger did look at all the combos in his 400mm Z video. He scored it as follows:

560mm (Internal) : 9.25/10
560mm (External) : 9/10
784mm (Internal+External) : 8.5/10
800mm (External 2x) : 9.5/10
1120mm (External 2x + Internal) : 7.5/10

For comparison he rated the 400 FL with 2x as a 7.25/10, the 600mm FL as 9/10 and the 800 FL as 9.25/10.

In my view he's a bit skewed towards the 2x but this could be because the Z-mount lenses with 2x are that much better than the F-mount lenses with a 2x. Compared to those I do find it very impressive. Still, from his scoring you can see that he's still very happy with the 784mm combo but that it is a little worse than the other combos.

Interesting...I just don't see how a 2x is giving a higher score compared to a single 1.4x (be it internal or external). Makes no sense and knowing Granger is probably just another flawed test in a countless line of flawed tests he has done over the years.

 

[pwaring]

Interesting...I just don't see how a 2x is giving a higher score compared to a single 1.4x (be it internal or external). Makes no sense and knowing Granger is probably just another flawed test in a countless line of flawed tests he has done over the years.

My feeling so far with the lens is that if you swap around the 1.4x and 2x score then he's probably not far wrong. Something like this, with the less confident ones marked with a *:

400mm : 10/10
560mm (Internal) : 9.5/10
560mm (External) : 9.25/10*
784mm (Internal+External) : 8.5/10*
800mm (External 2x) : 9/10
1120mm (External 2x + Internal) : 7.5/10

It's all super subjective and I don't have enough experience with it yet to say all these with 100% confidence. I do feel very happy using it with the 2x and I know that at 1120mm it's taking more of a hit than I'd like and I think I'd rather just crop from 800mm.

Some tests I've done make me feel like I'm almost being a little hard on the 2x myself. I did some test photos of the back of a watch at 800mm, 1/25th of a second and the serial number is pin sharp. I tried this again yesterday, just checking on the back of the camera and I was getting something like 50% sharp photos even down at that point, hand-held.

I know this isn't at wildlife distance as it's right down at the MFD (I guess that is wildlife distance for you!) but it one of the best objects with fine detail I have. It does have glass covering the back which doesn't do it any favours yet it still looks really good.

Uncropped image, 800mm (400Z + 2x TC) - 1/25s f5.6 ISO 500:

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

100%:

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

 

[pwaring]

Here's a direct comparison between 800mm (first shot) and 784mm (second shot). It's windy as hell today so this is all shot indoors. Same lighting and exposure. Both at 500 ISO on a tripod. I'm at 1/40s and the image when magnified is pretty steady. I manually focussed both shots separately to try and get them about as sharp as I could. Mostly I was using the text under the cogs where it says GLASHUTTE. The light is quite different compared to my previous post.

These are actually very close. I'll give the nod to the 2x with a bit more edge detail and contrast. The little + - symbols towards the bottom are more defined. Some of this will be fractional differences in the focal plane too. They're very comparable and this makes me think I should really have a proper go outside using it as a 560/784mm. Even if I don't see this being a combo I'd use a lot, if I was somewhere open on safari that required 600mm and very rarely 400mm then I'd definitely want to use it like this.

400mm Z at 800m (using 2x TC). 1/40s f5.6 ISO500 100%

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

400mm Z at 784mm (using 1.4x external + 1.4x internal). 1/40s f5.6 ISO500 100%

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

 

[arbitrage]

Here's a direct comparison between 800mm (first shot) and 784mm (second shot). It's windy as hell today so this is all shot indoors. Same lighting and exposure. Both at 500 ISO on a tripod. I'm at 1/40s and the image when magnified is pretty steady. I manually focussed both shots separately to try and get them about as sharp as I could. Mostly I was using the text under the cogs where it says GLASHUTTE. The light is quite different compared to my previous post.

These are actually very close. I'll give the nod to the 2x with a bit more edge detail and contrast. The little + - symbols towards the bottom are more defined. Some of this will be fractional differences in the focal plane too. They're very comparable and this makes me think I should really have a proper go outside using it as a 560/784mm. Even if I don't see this being a combo I'd use a lot, if I was somewhere open on safari that required 600mm and very rarely 400mm then I'd definitely want to use it like this.

Thanks for sharing those. They seem so close that unless I was wanting to swap over to 1120, I'd run the 1.4 and have the 560 to 784 flexibility.

 

[pwaring]

@arbitrage

I went out and exclusively used the 400mm Z with the external 1.4x at the weekend (mostly at 784mm) with the goal of figuring out how happy I was using the combo. Nothing stunning but I got a few nice shots and a bit of variety. All handheld. My conclusion was that I was very happy with the combo and the level of detail it gave me. I'm entirely happy now with every combo. I will generally avoid 1120mm because I can keep the stop of light and crop from 800mm for an equivalent level of detail but I'd still use it if it made eye AF work more reliably on a small bird.

Z9 with 400mm f2.8 Z at 784mm (1.4x + 1.4x) - f5.6, 1/1250s, ISO 800. Great crested grebe.

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

Z9 with 400mm f2.8 Z at 784mm (1.4x + 1.4x) - f5.6, 1/1250s, ISO 800. Dunnock in a tree with branches everywhere. Was surprised to get even this level of subject separation.

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

Z9 with 400mm f2.8 Z at 784mm (1.4x + 1.4x) - f6.3, 1/1600s, ISO 500. Ruff.

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

Z9 with 400mm f2.8 Z at 784mm (1.4x + 1.4x) - f5.6, 1/2000s, ISO 500. Glossy Ibis. These are rare in the UK so this was a real treat. This is a pretty hefty crop and AF was a mixed bag on my results which didn't surprise me given that it was a distant and entirely black bird which was also pretty agile.

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

Z9 with 400mm f2.8 Z at 784mm (1.4x + 1.4x) - f5.6, 1/1250s, ISO 800. Robin. This is only a slight crop. This is the one species where the MFD comes in handy because you can get so close. The background was a very close and horrendous bush but the lighting and depth of field created separation that again surprised me.

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

 

[arbitrage]

@arbitrage

I went out and exclusively used the 400mm Z with the external 1.4x at the weekend (mostly at 784mm) with the goal of figuring out how happy I was using the combo. Nothing stunning but I got a few nice shots and a bit of variety. All handheld. My conclusion was that I was very happy with the combo and the level of detail it gave me. I'm entirely happy now with every combo. I will generally avoid 1120mm because I can keep the stop of light and crop from 800mm for an equivalent level of detail but I'd still use it if it made eye AF work more reliably on a small bird.

Z9 with 400mm f2.8 Z at 784mm (1.4x + 1.4x) - f5.6, 1/1250s, ISO 800. Great crested grebe.

View attachment 36184

Z9 with 400mm f2.8 Z at 784mm (1.4x + 1.4x) - f5.6, 1/1250s, ISO 800. Dunnock in a tree with branches everywhere. Was surprised to get even this level of subject separation.

View attachment 36185

Z9 with 400mm f2.8 Z at 784mm (1.4x + 1.4x) - f6.3, 1/1600s, ISO 500. Ruff.

View attachment 36186

Z9 with 400mm f2.8 Z at 784mm (1.4x + 1.4x) - f5.6, 1/2000s, ISO 500. Glossy Ibis. These are rare in the UK so this was a real treat. This is a pretty hefty crop and AF was a mixed bag on my results which didn't surprise me given that it was a distant and entirely black bird which was also pretty agile.

View attachment 36187

Z9 with 400mm f2.8 Z at 784mm (1.4x + 1.4x) - f5.6, 1/1250s, ISO 800. Robin. This is only a slight crop. This is the one species where the MFD comes in handy because you can get so close. The background was a very close and horrendous bush but the lighting and depth of field created separation that again surprised me.

View attachment 36188

Thanks for the detailed write up. I would certainly opt to use the lens like this a lot of the time. For me it would be a 400/560 or a 560/784 depending on where I am on a given day and what I'm after. I wouldn't even bother with the 2x.

As far as being surprised about how well it knocked out backgrounds, remember that when shot from the same distance you will have narrower DOF with a 784/5.6 than a 560/4 and a 560/4 will have narrower DOF than a 400/2.8. So it shouldn't be a surprise to get good background blurs with the 784/5.6. I would think the only downsides could be if the messy background is just too close and the abraction's from the TCs creates a bit more wonky double lined bokeh than you would get moving closer with the bare lens.

 

[pwaring]

Thanks for the detailed write up. I would certainly opt to use the lens like this a lot of the time. For me it would be a 400/560 or a 560/784 depending on where I am on a given day and what I'm after. I wouldn't even bother with the 2x.

As far as being surprised about how well it knocked out backgrounds, remember that when shot from the same distance you will have narrower DOF with a 784/5.6 than a 560/4 and a 560/4 will have narrower DOF than a 400/2.8. So it shouldn't be a surprise to get good background blurs with the 784/5.6. I would think the only downsides could be if the messy background is just too close and the abraction's from the TCs creates a bit more wonky double lined bokeh than you would get moving closer with the bare lens.

Yeah, it's not that I think the lens is doing anything unusual, it's just that it surprised me because until this I was using the 180-400 f4 TC or the 500 PF. I did have a 500mm f4 about 4 years ago but rarely used it with a TC back then and the MFD is longer too. So having 800mm and being able to use it at such close distances is a very new thing for me. Just fun stuff to get used to with the new gear.

 

[Activert]

Beautiful and very sharp photos!

 

[gdecamp]

Here's a couple using the 400/2.8tc

1. Z9, 400/2.8TC plus internal and external TC1.4 = 584mm (Green Heron)

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

2. Z9, 400/2.8TC using internal TC = 560mm (Mourning Dove)

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

3. Z9, 400/2.8TC , using Internal TC plus external TC1.4x = 784mmm (American Goldfinch)

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

 

[Roy]

Thanks for the detailed write up. I would certainly opt to use the lens like this a lot of the time. For me it would be a 400/560 or a 560/784 depending on where I am on a given day and what I'm after. I wouldn't even bother with the 2x.

As far as being surprised about how well it knocked out backgrounds, remember that when shot from the same distance you will have narrower DOF with a 784/5.6 than a 560/4 and a 560/4 will have narrower DOF than a 400/2.8. So it shouldn't be a surprise to get good background blurs with the 784/5.6. I would think the only downsides could be if the messy background is just too close and the abraction's from the TCs creates a bit more wonky double lined bokeh than you would get moving closer with the bare lens.

Focal length does not effect DOF - only aperture and distance and to a lesser extent COC effect DOF...

 

[arbitrage]

Focal length does not effect DOF - only aperture and distance and to a lesser extent COC effect DOF...

So you are saying that with the same distance to subject that a 400 f/4 will have the same DOF as a 600 f/4? News to me.

Look up a DOF table for the focal length/apertures I quoted (measured from a typical bird shooting distance) and you will see that what I said is 100% correct.

 

[fcotterill]

Brad Hill - first words....

The Nikkor Z 400mm f/2.8 TC VR S - Just a Few First Words​

 

[Roy]

So you are saying that with the same distance to subject that a 400 f/4 will have the same DOF as a 600 f/4? News to me.

Look up a DOF table for the focal length/apertures I quoted (measured from a typical bird shooting distance) and you will see that what I said is 100% correct.

Depth of field DOF is controlled by distance and aperture and to a less extent COC.
If you take the same image at the same distance and aperture and crop the wider one to match the the DOF will be the same.
The confusion comes because most people will move closer for the wider lens to get the same framing...

 

[arbitrage]

Depth of field DOF is controlled by distance and aperture and to a less extent COC.
If you take the same image at the same distance and aperture and crop the wider one to match the the DOF will be the same.
The confusion comes because most people will move closer for the wider lens to get the same framing...

I'm still not seeing that from the DOF calculators.

If I plug in 400 f/4 to a DX body and I plug in 600 f/4 on a FX body (which should both be the same FOV...just as if you cropped the 600mm shot to DX to match the 400 shot) at 13 meters then I get a DOF of 0.11m for the 600 and a DOF of 0.16m for the 400.

What am I missing here?

 

[CoyoteCreationsNW]

I am not an optics expert but did take a few physics courses in my far off college days. The same FOV does not imply the same focal length. A 600 mm lens remains a 600 mm lens placed on either a crop or full frame camera body. You are using only a portion of the image circle when using a crop body or Dx mode on a full frame body. This looks like a more narrow FOV but it is not a change in what the lens sees, merely a change in what the sensor records, a "cropped" portion of the image. A teleconverter actually changes the lens characteristics so a 400 mm lens with a 1.4 TC acts like a 586 mm lens for DOF purposes.