It appears to have a control ring. I assume it has Nikon’s usual options for use of a control ring: MF, ISO, Aperture.
Nikkor 28-400mm Announced
- Thread starter fcotterill
- Start date
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).
So still preserves full time manual focus?
Yes, if using BBAF and it is not pressed while focusing.
Might be useful for video.
No interest here.
My only hope is with all these recent firmware announcements and this lens announcement Nikon is getting moving and maybe new camera announcements are imminent.
Remember, Nikon, the Olympics are fast approaching and you need to get stuff out there asap.
My only hope is with all these recent firmware announcements and this lens announcement Nikon is getting moving and maybe new camera announcements are imminent.
Remember, Nikon, the Olympics are fast approaching and you need to get stuff out there asap.
John Navitsky
Well-known member
i still think support for the Content Authenticity Initiative would be a good thing (and semi likely) to drop prior to the Olympics
gets great write ups, but then they've been given a pre-production,,, I have the z24-200 . Got it for an island hopping trip 2 years ago. I worked very well....but I haven't used it since...so while I live the appeal of this new zoom, it's not for me either. GAS attack! NOoooo
I was waiting for Nikon to provide a Z mount version of the 28-300mm lens that I have been using several years, mostly for iNaturalist obervations that don't require professional level photos and for a one-lens carry on my motorcycle trips. The size, weight and range of the. 28-400mm is great. At first I was put off by the F8 maximum opening from 200mm and beyond (max 5.6 on the 28-300mm) but the new sensors can go to very high ISOs without noticeable noise for moderate-sized photos. The 28-300 lens takes surprising good photos in low light with the help of Photoshop. I hope the new lens is as good.
Ado Wolf
Well-known member
This lens may be the very reason why Nikon decided to discontinue the P 1000 series of bridge cameras.
If the lens is sharp enough for the price, I think people will accept the F8 limitation. It is the Jack of all trades, but master of none. It will surely create good income for Nikon and attract new users to the Nikon system. It may also hint on an new and improved DX camera body coming our way.
If the lens is sharp enough for the price, I think people will accept the F8 limitation. It is the Jack of all trades, but master of none. It will surely create good income for Nikon and attract new users to the Nikon system. It may also hint on an new and improved DX camera body coming our way.
GregT943
Active member
This is disappointing. I have no use for a lens at F8, especially starting at 200 mm. I guess I'll be holding onto my 70-300 AFP a while longer until Nikon can offer a suitable replacement.
Nope, there is nothing video about it. The requirement for cine, if anything, are greater than those for stills, with things like parfocality and breathing (which Nikon says it compensates for, which means cropping, not correcting).
The lens will do great for its users and for Nikon, as an entry-level decent zoom in a usefully range. The photos and videos shot through it will not win awards for anything and won't be used professionally, but who cares, that's not the audience.
Doubt it. If it's mediocre for stills, you can assume it's worse for video. It won't be parfocal, it won't be sharp at 400, and while Nikon says they are "compensating" for breathing, it's probably through cropping like Sony and Tamron.
SCoombs
Well-known member
Whether or not it's good for high end video, the announcement sure makes it sound like Nikon is trying to sell this lens to this allegedly emerging market of people who want to do more amateur video stuff.
Key word: amateur. This is an amateur lens.
SCoombs
Well-known member
No disagreement.
And watching your amazingly-sharp and nuanced bird postings, this one ain't for you...
fcotterill
Well-known member
Exactly Bruce. Very well said.
The super zoom is not for pixel peepers, but it is an ideal instrument for amateurs primarily, as it is for outdoor photographers in the mold of the late Galen Rowell, who seek the light do-it-all optic which captures opportunities..taking the Soccer Mum's swiss army knife into the wilds.
This 28-400 is Nikon's latest kit lens, perpetuating their tradition of quality in this niche ....think 18-55 DX, 18-200, 28-300 to mention 3 of these successful zooms. Pro photographers such a Jay Maisel did not hesitate to use these zooms in the appropriate contexts.
"....f8 and be There... "
Growing Up Geographic
This post was originally published in March 2015. We’re resurfacing it as part of our #ThrowbackThursday effort to give some love to our favorite posts. —The Proof Team Imagine this: You’re 11 years old, clambering up a steep passage on an Alaskan gold rush trail, accompanied by your big...
www.nationalgeographic.com
Last edited:
SCoombs
Well-known member
Mulling this over a bit more, I'm not so sure what I think about what the target market is here.
A lot of people are saying this lens is a good fit for the "soccer moms" and other more casual users who aren't pixel peepers and aren't demanding perfection and maybe that's so, but... if it is so, that F8 seems to me to hurt even more.
A lot of the users of a site like this very much prefer wider apertures but are also used to shooting at f8 when it's necessary, as it often winds up being for many of us. We know what that higher aperture means for our shooting and how to deal with it. We know when it just means to wait for better light. We know how to mitigate it by applying strategies to make lower shutter speeds work, taking bursts and insurance shots and all that. We know how to process high ISO images "make ISO 12,800 look like ISO 400."
But the average casual user, soccer mom, etc.,? They're used to point and shoots or cell phones that have apertures of F2 Or whatever. They often don't understand what aperture is or what it means. They don't really know a lot about shutter speed and definitely don't know how to manage it to make a photo work that ordinarily wouldn't, or even when you'd need to. They shoot in jpeg and don't have and don't know about LRC or Topaz or other modern denoising technologies.
I wonder if whether, if we assume these people ARE the target market, a lot of them are going to wind up with a lot of terribly blurry shots from their cameras choosing very low shutter speeds, very badly noisy shots that they don't know cam be improved, etc. In other words, isn't there for Nikon a risk here of a bunch of people spending $1300 on a lens and then being very unhappy about the quality they're getting out of that $1300?
A lot of people are saying this lens is a good fit for the "soccer moms" and other more casual users who aren't pixel peepers and aren't demanding perfection and maybe that's so, but... if it is so, that F8 seems to me to hurt even more.
A lot of the users of a site like this very much prefer wider apertures but are also used to shooting at f8 when it's necessary, as it often winds up being for many of us. We know what that higher aperture means for our shooting and how to deal with it. We know when it just means to wait for better light. We know how to mitigate it by applying strategies to make lower shutter speeds work, taking bursts and insurance shots and all that. We know how to process high ISO images "make ISO 12,800 look like ISO 400."
But the average casual user, soccer mom, etc.,? They're used to point and shoots or cell phones that have apertures of F2 Or whatever. They often don't understand what aperture is or what it means. They don't really know a lot about shutter speed and definitely don't know how to manage it to make a photo work that ordinarily wouldn't, or even when you'd need to. They shoot in jpeg and don't have and don't know about LRC or Topaz or other modern denoising technologies.
I wonder if whether, if we assume these people ARE the target market, a lot of them are going to wind up with a lot of terribly blurry shots from their cameras choosing very low shutter speeds, very badly noisy shots that they don't know cam be improved, etc. In other words, isn't there for Nikon a risk here of a bunch of people spending $1300 on a lens and then being very unhappy about the quality they're getting out of that $1300?
The target is Nikon's greatest growth markets: China and India. Lower income, rapidly-growing middle class, keen interest in photography, and where Nikon is still a top, maybe the top in brand recognition.
Well said!
I was drinking coffee as I read this, spewed coffee all over my keyboard..i’m just happy nikon has released a few lenses i don’t feel compelled to buy
Hell, I'm still laughing
Hi Bruce! First Thanks for sharing this beautiful and at the same time sad story. it showed a lot of love to Tamy and to photography.
I love the way you present your argument. Maybe, I will use your argument to initiate my husband into photography.
Chris K
Well-known member
A professional who cannot produce a salable photograph with this lens is not a professional in any sense of the word.
There's no such thing as an amateur lens, and much worse lenses have been used for professional purposes.*
* (I'm assuming, of course. Until we see photos from the lens, we're all talking out of our butts.)
SCoombs
Well-known member
I belong to a Facebook group for beginning photographers. It's full of people who bought their first camera a month ago and are asking for critique of photos of from their second paid wedding shoot or asking for help saving somebody's toddler portraits that they underexposed by 4 stops or proudly posting photos that their client raved about that look like they were taken with a Kodak 110 film camera.
I don't say this to insult or to criticize any of these people (though I do seriously criticize their prudence and the ethics of taking jobs like this when they don't know what they're doing). Rather, all of this is to say that I think "salable" is different from "high quality" or even maybe just "good."
This is how I see it as well.
I’m not a Professional photographer and have much to learn to merely catch up to the novices here.
For an upcoming trip with my wife (who has tolerated me for 42 years) and elderly parents, I had planned on taking my Z f, 40SE and 24-200 (rather than Z8 and S lenses).
I’ll take a 28-400 instead of the 24-200 if it arrives in time because I may never again have an opportunity with them.
The extra reach may give me a good photo I’d otherwise not have at all.