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

[Kadaver81]

I compared the AF-S 400/2.8 E FL side by side with the Z 400/2.8 TC VR S. In really every matter the new Z version is better. Sometimes just a little bit and sometimes the differences is hugh.

I although did some converter test. I hade the chance to test 2 Z 1.4 and 2 Z 2.0 converters. They delivered totaly the some result in each typ. But it seems that I'm the only person how finds the results with 2x 1.4 better than just with the 2.0 TC. In the center there isn't really a difference but the fx corners are much better wiht 2x 1.4. And although the difference between the build in TC and an external 1.4 TC is marginal.

In short my result of the comparion.

Pros:
- Lighter
- More flexible because of the build-in TC
- Better backlight behavior
- 1-1 1/3 stop better VR
- faster and more accurate AF
- A little bit better image quality with TCs
- More or less completely silent

Neg:
- Price
- Delivery time
- Not compatible with DSLRs

Some example shots.

Hi there,

i have a question. i just recieved my 400 2.8 two days ago. i also bought the 2 times converter because i thought it was the best choice when i watched the review from Matt Granger. But i understand you say that the 1.4 is better?
Can you plz clarify this for me.
Thnx in advance, greetings Kadaver

 

[NaturRosi]

Well, during my testings I found the 2 times TC not as good as the 2x 1.4 TC in the corners. In the center of the frame it was more or less identical. But for my styl of shooting there is another big advantage of using 2x 1.4 TC. You have a 560/4 and a 784/5.6 with just a finger switch. The real focal length between 2x 1.4 and the 2 times is absolutely identical.

560 mm

560 mm

400 mm

400 mm

400 mm

784 mm

784 mm

560 mm

560 mm

 

[dupcak]

Hi there,

i have a question. i just recieved my 400 2.8 two days ago. i also bought the 2 times converter because i thought it was the best choice when i watched the review from Matt Granger. But i understand you say that the 1.4 is better?
Can you plz clarify this for me.
Thnx in advance, greetings Kadaver

My personal feelings on this:

1) If your goal is to get to ~800mm then I don't think you can go wrong with either the TC 2.0X or the TC 1.4X + internal 1.4X. From what I'm seeing, differences might be attributed to individual samples. One setup is not considerably worse than another setup in terms of image quality in all cases/samples.
2) Once again if your goal is to get to ~800mm and no further then you might consider going with the TC 1.4X. That way you can easily swap between a ~600mm and a ~800mm. If you go with a 2.0X then you can easily swap between an 800mm/f5.6 and an 1120mm/f8 which might not be as useful to you.

I went with the TC 2.0X approach, but now I'm thinking that the TC 1.4X would have been a better setup for ease of use.

Either way, I don't think you can go wrong.

- Rob

[Edit: OK I took too long to write up my response - @NaturRosi hits my second point perfectly]

 

[Activert]

You are lucky to receive yours. I ordered mine in February and I am still the only one at my dealer who ordered. No word yet on when I am going to receive it. Enjoy it and I happy for you and happy to hear positif critics about this lens

 

[Kadaver81]

Ok thnx for the replys @NaturRosi @dupcak @Activert . you got a good point to go from 560 to 784 with a finger switch. i think I dont will ever make use of 1120 f8 i guess... I am going to return the 2x for the 1.4

And now i found this on a review:
Speaking of teleconverters, the 400mm f/2.8 S can use external teleconverters, too. The full set of possibilities is:

• 400mm f/2.8 (no TC)
• 560mm f/4 (internal TC, or external 1.4x; external not recommended)
• 784mm f/5.6 (internal TC plus external 1.4x; not recommended)
• 800mm f/5.6 (no internal TC plus external 2x)
• 1120mm f/8 (internal TC plus external 2x)

If you didn't catch that: the only external teleconverter I would tend to use with this lens is the 2x. That gives you 400mm, 560mm, 800mm, and 1120mm options.

 

[Roy]

Hi there,

i have a question. i just recieved my 400 2.8 two days ago. i also bought the 2 times converter because i thought it was the best choice when i watched the review from Matt Granger. But i understand you say that the 1.4 is better?
Can you plz clarify this for me.
Thnx in advance, greetings Kadaver

All teleconverters are a compromise giving more reach but soften the image slightly.
This is more evident on a zoom lens than on a sharp prime like the 400mm f2.8.
Because the 400mm built in TC fits amongst the other elements of the 400mm and is superior to one added on between the camera.
Matt granger is a better photographer than he is a tech expert.
I have both of the Z TCs but rarely use them - the 1.4x is shaper and only loses one stop instead of two stops of light.
Use the built in teleconverter first and maybe the 2x instead when really needed...

 

[gdecamp]

Hi there,

i have a question. i just recieved my 400 2.8 two days ago. i also bought the 2 times converter because i thought it was the best choice when i watched the review from Matt Granger. But i understand you say that the 1.4 is better?
Can you plz clarify this for me.
Thnx in advance, greetings Kadaver

I got the 400/2.8TC in April and it's my go to lens, I also got the 800pf a few weeks later. Both are awesome and Nikon knocked it out of the park with both of them. I had both converters so I tried both on the 400TC. Both worked extremally well but I use the TC1.4 almost always when I need an additional converter (when I need 800mm). It's just easier to stick in my pocket, it gives me 560mm and 800mm when its on my 400. It seems as fast as the bare lens and just as sharp, actually the TC 2x is close as well but for convenience I stick with the TC1.4 and besides I shoot 560 mostly. Oh and congratulations you got one hell of a lens!

 

[NaturRosi]

All teleconverters are a compromise giving more reach but soften the image slightly.

That's true but with the Z 400/2.8 TC VR S you will note see a difference between 400 mm and 560 in terms of image quality. If you attache another 1.4 TC than there is a slight drop but the image quality is still on a very high level. I know 2 person who shoot the Z 400/2.8 against the 800 PF and both said that the image quality is nearly the same. The 800 PF is a tick sharper, but the bokeh of the Z 400 at 800 mm is smoother. I have no concerns of using 2x 1.4 TC when I need it.

784 mm

784 mm

784 mm

784 mm

784 mm and cropped to 20 MP

 

[pwaring]

Ok thnx for the replys @NaturRosi @dupcak @Activert . you got a good point to go from 560 to 784 with a finger switch. i think I dont will ever make use of 1120 f8 i guess... I am going to return the 2x for the 1.4

And now i found this on a review:
Speaking of teleconverters, the 400mm f/2.8 S can use external teleconverters, too. The full set of possibilities is:

• 400mm f/2.8 (no TC)
• 560mm f/4 (internal TC, or external 1.4x; external not recommended)
• 784mm f/5.6 (internal TC plus external 1.4x; not recommended)
• 800mm f/5.6 (no internal TC plus external 2x)
• 1120mm f/8 (internal TC plus external 2x)

If you didn't catch that: the only external teleconverter I would tend to use with this lens is the 2x. That gives you 400mm, 560mm, 800mm, and 1120mm options.

Just to add another opinion as I own the 400 Z and I've used it with both 1.4x and 2x. I totally agree with everyone on here in that it's really flexible to use it with a 1.4x attached. I agree that edge sharpness is a little better at 800 with 2 x 1.4 converters and central sharpness is a bit better with 1 x 2.0 converter. The image quality holds up very nicely either way though. 1120mm f8 is less usable and does suffer more from the TC stacking.

I bought the 2x converter to go with this lens but I've pretty much given up on using it and carry around the 1.4x instead because it just makes the combo way more useful.

 

[Nedfr]

Hi,

Giving a try of my 400 Z f/2.8 with a brand new TC 2X.
800mm at f/5.6, in fact not bad at all. Done other testing in more cloudy conditions with less quality results ...

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

 

[Roy]

Hi there,

i have a question. i just recieved my 400 2.8 two days ago. i also bought the 2 times converter because i thought it was the best choice when i watched the review from Matt Granger. But i understand you say that the 1.4 is better?
Can you plz clarify this for me.
Thnx in advance, greetings Kadaver

I have both the TCs for Z mount.
They are better than the AFS F mount TCs but they are still TCs.
The 2x is softer than the 1.4x because its a 2x.
The inbuilt TC will out-perform any added TC because its dedicated to fit within the elements of the lens.
I'm no fan of TCs but I carry them just in case there is no other way of grabbing the image.
BTW - great choice of lens...

 

[Nedfr]

Hi,
Testing again the Z 400 2.8 with the TC. Here with the internal 1.4 plus external 2.0 plus DX mode (1680mm).
Afterall a nice emergency combo . Would the Z 600 handled this scenario better ? ...

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

 

[gdecamp]

Here's an interesting tidbit posted by Brad Hill on the 400/2.8TC with TC engaged VS the 600/4.0TC. Nice to see the 400TC holds it's own!

http://www.naturalart.ca/galleries/latest/index.html

Click on "In the field"

"This is one of my favourite swimming grizzly shots captured in 2022. And...nope...this image was NOT shot with the Nikkor Z 600mm f4S. It was shot with the Z 400mm f2.8S TC VR S - WITH its built-in TC engaged. So at 560mm. And it was shot wide open at f4. I'm including it here - and labelled it with the "Z 600mm f4S Testing" watermark - because it provides insight to a key question I wanted answered when I field-tested the Z 600mm f4S against the Z 400mm f2.8S with its TC-engaged. That question? Does the image quality of the Z 400mm f2.8S compare favourably against that of the Z 600mm f4S when it is shot with its built-in TC engaged (so at 560mm)?

The short answer (as I found when I did head-to-head testing of the Z 600mm f4S against the Z 400mm f2.8S with its TC engaged): Yes, absolutely.

When I publish my review of the Z 600mm f4S I'll get far more into the nuances of how these two 600mm-ish options compare optically, but the bottom line is this: EXCEPT between f4 and f4.5 (where the Z 600mm f4S is very slightly sharper) the two lenses produce virtually identical images - both in sharpness and in the quality of the out-of-focus zones (or bokeh). So you are giving away almost nothing to the Z 600mm f5S if you shoot your Z 400mm f2.8S with its TC engaged.

Eagle-eyed readers will have noticed that just above I said "EXCEPT between f4 and f4.5 (where the Z 600mm f4S is very slightly sharper)". Does that mean the Z 400mm f2.8S is "soft" at f4 and f4.5? Nope...not at ALL. And that's where this image comes in - I invite you to check out the high resolution version of this shot (4800 pixels) linked to below to see what I mean. This image was shot wide open (@ f4) and I doubt anyone would consider it even remotely "soft". After what I learned in 2022 from systematically testing the Z 400mm f2.8S with its TC (and with the Z TC-2.0X) - and when shooting these lens/TC combinations in the field - I don't hesitate at all to shoot it wide open with TC's attached.

Finally, note that I am in no way trying to take away from how strong the Z 600mm f4S is optically - it's an absolutely great lens. But if you already own a Z 400mm f2.8S and don't regularly need focal lengths longer than 600mm...then you have little reason to add a Z 600mm f4S to your kit. So as one who needs the 400-600mm focal range more often than the 600-800mm focal range, it makes more sense for me to own the Z 400mm f2.8S rather than the Z 600mm f4S. I know the exact opposite would be true of many other wildlife photographers, especially those who work more with small birds than I do."

 

[Roy]

Hi there,

i have a question. i just recieved my 400 2.8 two days ago. i also bought the 2 times converter because i thought it was the best choice when i watched the review from Matt Granger. But i understand you say that the 1.4 is better?
Can you plz clarify this for me.
Thnx in advance, greetings Kadaver

All Teleconverters except the built in ones are a compromise and lose some image quality.
They also lose 1 to 2 stops of light which can upset AF on some cameras.
I have probably a dozren TCs from years of use.
The Z TCs are amongst the best i've seen but I dislike using them except when there is no other choice.
The TCs buit into the 400 & 600 TC are less objectuionable, they are designed for the lens and fit within the other lens elements instead of just being tacked onto the end of the lens...

 

[mholdef]

Very interesting thread as I was seriously contemplating getting the 2.0 TC to get to 800 if needed.

As already own the 1.4, this should be good enough

 

[CoyoteCreationsNW]

Very interesting thread as I was seriously contemplating getting the 2.0 TC to get to 800 if needed.

As already own the 1.4, this should be good enough

I have the 400 TC 2.8 and both TCs. I generally mount the lens with no external TC and have 400 and 560 mm available. When I know I need the focal length, I use the TC20 and get 800 mm @f/5.6. The IQ is still quite good although shooting through more air often reduces contrast a little. I don't think this is any worse than any 800 mm lens. I tried the combination of internal TC and external TC14 to get 784 mm @ f/5.6. The results were not bad but visibly not as sharp as the TC20 alone. You do get the flexibility of 560 ot 784 mm with the internal TC switch. I do not recall a situation where the flexibility and focal length of stacked TCs was preferred.