Nikkor 28-400mm Announced

[Len Shepherd]

I wish we had MTF-like charts that showed us what corners would look like beyond simple lp/mm, because it’s not until someone sticks a tree in the extreme corner that we can see if we’re talking just a bit of resolution decrease, or a smeared, mushy mess of purple.

Canon said in the Lens Work III book anything above .8 was excellent and anything about above .6 was satisfactory as in no problems.

Unlike Canon, Nikon seem not to have moved to an MTF system that takes account of diffraction.
There is bound to be some diffraction at 400 mm F8. This implies the Nikon 400 mm MTF is likely to be a little optimistic

 

[Vincent_VdB]

Nikon and I had talked about maybe doing a preview of this one, but I came to the same conclusion as many here - although I think it will be handy for some, F/8 really hurts it, at least for my core audience.

Those last 2 words are the most important ones for all of us in here. A lens is made for a certain audience in mind and this one is, the way I see it, targeting:
* those on a budget
* those in need of a wide range of mm's
* use it as an all-in-one (that will most likely not shine like other fellow nieces & nephews in the Z family)

And totally understand your decision Steve.

 

[Nimi]

Canon said in the Lens Work III book anything above .8 was excellent and anything about above .6 was satisfactory as in no problems.

Unlike Canon, Nikon seem not to have moved to an MTF system that takes account of diffraction.
There is bound to be some diffraction at 400 mm F8. This implies the Nikon 400 mm MTF is likely to be a little optimistic

If it's the same book I have, it's 15 years old. Back then the we didn't have the resolution we have now, and I am finding that the 30 l/mm is relevant where it wasn't relevant on my D6.

 

[Steve]

This forum is packed with photo-enthusiasts, hobbyists, and pros... but it looks as if there are not a lot of business focused people here. The Nikon 28-400mm Z @ $1300 is probably one of the boldest business moves Nikon could make. A typical person who likes to travel on cruise ships and organized tours, or has a family with young to high school-aged kids can now buy one lens and one camera and do it all.
Think about the marketing... Buy a full frame Z5 + 28-400 for $2500 (total) and photograph your kids little league game or go on vacation.
Backpackers and mountain climbers want to document their travels, but the bulk of a long lens prevents them from buying or carrying one. With a 28-400, ZF, and 40 f2SE, a photo enthusiast could take a 6 week trip with a backpack of clothes and do a lot of documentary work...
For those disappointed with f/8... get over it! Push the ISO to 6400 and shoot the thing. Canon made their $2800 100-500L lens f/7.1 @ 500mm and everybody who uses that lens seems to love it. For less that half the price Nikon has produced something different that will help them to capture the "family" photographer's needs.

bruce

I agree - I think they'll sell a ton of these. Just not so much to the folks here

 

[Len Shepherd]

If it's the same book I have, it's 15 years old. Back then the we didn't have the resolution we have now, and I am finding that the 30 l/mm is relevant where it wasn't relevant on my D6.

Canon updated their MTF system in 2018

Reading and Understanding Lens MTF Charts | Canon U.S.A., Inc.

Reading and understanding lens MTF charts. Dive into the world of photography and explore Canon's collection of educational articles to inspire your creativity.

www.usa.canon.com

The new Canon system seems to me to take account of diffraction.
Either way all we have from Nikon is MTF which seems similar to that used by Canon prior to 2018.

 

[GrandNagus50]

I am undecided. There are definitely occasions where I want to take some photos (let's call them 'snapshots') and I don't want to carry a big camera bag or even change lenses. At present, I use a combination of my iphone (which increasingly I realize is capable of taking very good photos) and my now venerable Sony RX10IV, which has a Zeiss 24-600 equivalent lens with a one-inch sensor. But a decent 28-400 full frame lens would have some appeal for these occasions, even with a slow maximum aperture and no "manual focus" switch.

 

[MrFotoFool]

If I read it right it is 5.6” in length. The only reason I may buy it someday is that the NY horse racetracks like Saratoga have a new rule and don’t allow lenses longer than 6” into the track. I’ve always enjoyed shooting down at the railing but my 100-400S would have to stay in the car nowadays...

I talked with a Canon pro services rep who told me this was exactly the reason they made their R 70-200 f2.8 a telescoping zoom instead of internal zoom like their previous EF version (and like the current Nikon and Sony mirrorless). There was a new rule in California that prohibits long lenses in the stands at sports venues so they made this design for the lens to be used by sports enthusiasts.

 

[mslmdr]

This forum is packed with photo-enthusiasts, hobbyists, and pros... but it looks as if there are not a lot of business focused people here. The Nikon 28-400mm Z @ $1300 is probably one of the boldest business moves Nikon could make. A typical person who likes to travel on cruise ships and organized tours, or has a family with young to high school-aged kids can now buy one lens and one camera and do it all.
Think about the marketing... Buy a full frame Z5 + 28-400 for $2500 (total) and photograph your kids little league game or go on vacation.
Backpackers and mountain climbers want to document their travels, but the bulk of a long lens prevents them from buying or carrying one. With a 28-400, ZF, and 40 f2SE, a photo enthusiast could take a 6 week trip with a backpack of clothes and do a lot of documentary work...
For those disappointed with f/8... get over it! Push the ISO to 6400 and shoot the thing. Canon made their $2800 100-500L lens f/7.1 @ 500mm and everybody who uses that lens seems to love it. For less that half the price Nikon has produced something different that will help them to capture the "family" photographer's needs.

bruce

Perhaps the best observation:
Canon made their $2800 100-500L lens f/7.1 @ 500mm and everybody who uses that lens seems to love it.
The Canon R5 with the 100-500L lens was a fantastic combo and I loved. Not until the Nikkor 800pf was available (and auto focus update with FW 4.0 for the Z9) was I satisfied with the return to Nikon.
I will get this lens for a travel lens to pair with the Z8 after reading the review by dpreview.….light weight, close focus, good IQ, wide range.

 

[Doug A.]

I see this as the ultimate soccer-mom lens. I mean that literally, not despairingly. Parents of kids who play sports will probably love this lens. I expect this will end up being an excellent seller for Nikon.

 

[John Navitsky]

i’m just happy nikon has released a few lenses i don’t feel compelled to buy

 

[SCoombs]

Those last 2 words are the most important ones for all of us in here. A lens is made for a certain audience in mind and this one is, the way I see it, targeting:
* those on a budget
* those in need of a wide range of mm's
* use it as an all-in-one (that will most likely not shine like other fellow nieces & nephews in the Z family)

And totally understand your decision Steve.

I'm surprised not to have seen it already discussed not just here but  anywhere, at least that I've seen so far, but this strikes me very much ad an appeal to the sort of amateur videography crowd that had for some reason that I still don't understand been the subject of so much discussion of late.

There are a number of things in the specs and especially in what they chose to highlight for the announcement that strikes me as trying to appeal to this contingent.

 

[John Navitsky]

28-400mm Z @ $1300 is probably one of the

while this lens doesn’t speak to me, this alone suggests to me this is probably a pretty decent lens. if this was a $600 lens, that would be one thing. but it being $1.3k suggests it’s probably a pretty good lens, necessary compromises aside. nikon seems like they have lately delivered a lot of value for whatever budget the lens comes in at.

 

[SCoombs]

while this lens doesn’t speak to me, this alone suggests to me this is probably a pretty decent lens. if this was a $600 lens, that would be one thing. but it being $1.3k suggests it’s probably a pretty good lens, necessary compromises aside. nikon seems like they have lately delivered a lot of value for whatever budget the lens comes in at.

I don't know, that MTF is pretty rough looking to me for $1300. Now the average consumer this is aimed at had never heard of an MTF chart, but my point isn't about whether it will sell, but about the objective value for $1300.

Another way I might think of this is to think of my 70-180, which was a similar price. Is this lens going to produce photos of comparable quality? Seems improbable. Of course, it's got a much wider focal range, but still.

 

[John Navitsky]

I don't know, that MTF is pretty rough looking to me for $1300. Now the average consumer this is aimed at had never heard of an MTF chart, but my point isn't about whether it will sell, but about the objective value for $1300.

Another way I might think of this is to think of my 70-180, which was a similar price. Is this lens going to produce photos of comparable quality? Seems improbable. Of course, it's got a much wider focal range, but still.

i think the 24-200 is this lens' philosophical soul mate. and if you double the range of the 24-200, you basically get this lens. for less than double the cost of the 24-200

 

[splatbass]

I can see where this lens would be a good 'emergency backup' lens for travel. It can take the place of my long telephoto if something happens to it and can also take the place of my wide angle telephoto for landscapes if something happens to my 24-70 or 24-200. I like to have backup lenses (sadly, this comes from experience), but also like to travel light, so this would fit the bill nicely.

 

[freddd]

Wouldn’t this lense work well for someone on a safari and taking only one camera. Sure the 100-400 will be better but light is usual sufficient most of the day to manage F8. I have zero interest but could well imagine this would work well for someone wanting a light set-up.

 

[John Navitsky]

Wouldn’t this lense work well for someone on a safari and taking only one camera. Sure the 100-400 will be better but light is usual sufficient most of the day to manage F8. I have zero interest but could well imagine this would work well for someone wanting a light set-up.

i think it’s mostly a budget consideration. i think the 100-400 is by far a better choice if you can afford it. and the 180-600 is probably a better choice if you can carry it. but for some neither of those are true and this lens may be a good choice for those people

 

[Calson]

I see the 28-400mm as a great lens for video. The 28-300mm f-mount lens was a favorite of professional wildlife videographers who could not afford to spend $72,000 on the Canon 50-1000mm zoom cine lens. At only $1300 it is an excellent addition for anyone shooting video.

My BH order and my NPS request went in today.

 

[ajrmd]

Nikon and I had talked about maybe doing a preview of this one, but I came to the same conclusion as many here - although I think it will be handy for some, F/8 really hurts it, at least for my core audience.

Interesting take. Agree that most users here will be put off by the f/8 though for me the MTF is a bigger disappointment. I know similar sentiments were advanced when Canon released the RF 100-500 f/7.1 and it turned out to be a fantastic, lightweight, sharp replacement for the EF 100-400 II. For its purpose, the f/7.1 didn't prove to be much of a drawback and that was offset by the utility and optical quality. In spite of this, I have to hand it to Nikon for delivering a lens which has a place for entry level enthusiasts and travelers. As another user observed, I wish that they had built on the specs of the 70-180 and produced a lens with similar sharpness in mind. Perhaps that would have been too expensive or complex to deliver though I would have been interested in one for around $2k.

 

[ajrmd]

i think it’s mostly a budget consideration. i think the 100-400 is by far a better choice if you can afford it. and the 180-600 is probably a better choice if you can carry it. but for some neither of those are true and this lens may be a good choice for those people

Agree completely that if one were on safari, I would much prefer a 24-120 (or something wider) and a 100-400/186 over the 24-400.

 

[BLev65]

I agree - I think they'll sell a ton of these. Just not so much to the folks here

In my opinion, this lens becomes a gateway lens for the spouses of serious photographers. Back in the day when I was the one photographer in the family, I was looking for an easy way to entice Tamy to join me on photo travel trips. My strategy was to "shower" her with cool gadget/tech that would be easy to use but produce results. In 1990, there were not a lot of affordable paths for a 25 year old grad student to make this happen. I bought Tamy an 70-200 f4.5 Tamron lens and a Contax 137MD camera and took her canoing in the Everglades. She successfully photographed alligators, crocodiles, herons, and anhingas. After reviewing her prints (I shot slides but knew prints would be tolerant to poor exposures), she was hooked.
Tamy and I then spent the next 33 years chasing wildlife and landscapes around the world with the camera. In fact, she and I made our last trip to photograph Fall Colors in November 2022. She lived her life as an adventure/nature photographer and did the best she could behind a camera until she couldn't any longer.

Not to make this another sad story about losing my wife, I just want to point out that this lens is the perfect solution to hook a partner into the thing we love to do. Without the need to carry heavy gear, you could slap the 28-400 on a Z5/Z50/Z fc/.... set the camera to program and entice your partner to spend time with you in nature. Small successes will create and interest in love of photography, and will allow for you to spend time with your partner doing the thing you love to do.
Photography was the greatest gift to our marriage, as we planned every vacation around the pursuit of new images.

regards,
Bruce

 

[dupcak]

This lens has its purpose and its audience but there will be those who just don't understand the basics. I can just imagine the comments in the various sports FB groups in a couple of months - "The lens is awful! I put the camera into Professional Mode (the one with the "P") and took a picture of my kid 3/4 of the way across the field during a night game and the pictures are blurry."

I don't claim to know much (anything) about video, but could this be an interesting lens for videos? Seems like it could offer some interesting zooms with the ability to go from 28 to 400 (and maybe more with power zoom). [EDIT - I see that @Calson already answered this]

 

[bleirer]

I also just noticed (from linked video) that it does not have an AF/MF switch, which would make it a deal breaker for me even if I was interested. Nikon did the same thing with their inexpensive (Tamron based) trinity of f2.8 lenses and I did not buy any of those for same reason. I cannot for the life of me understand how any company can make an autofocus lens without a switch on the barrel to go from autofocus to manual focus.

The way Canon does their cheap lenses is a switch for either control ring or manual focus. Anything like that here?

 

[jerrylwatson]

The way Canon does their cheap lenses is a switch for either control ring or manual focus. Anything like that here?

Control ring can be set to manual focus.

 

[bleirer]

Canon said in the Lens Work III book anything above .8 was excellent and anything about above .6 was satisfactory as in no problems.

Unlike Canon, Nikon seem not to have moved to an MTF system that takes account of diffraction.
There is bound to be some diffraction at 400 mm F8. This implies the Nikon 400 mm MTF is likely to be a little optimistic

I think Canon mtf is not measured, just calculated.