nikkor Z 400 f/2.8

[jmurthy]

Hello everyone,

I am contemplating to purchase 400 f/2.8- but I am not sure as yet. I would welcome opinions from the esteemed users and the collective intelligence as to what they would do from a work flow stand point if they were in my position.

My habits:- prefer to hand hold all my equipment; willing to do long day hikes to shoot
My current gear: Nikon Z9, nikkor Z 100-400, nikkor 800 pf, nikkor F 500pf + d500 - love the D500 combo for birds, but don't care much for the shutter noise- now that I have e shutter and 20fps on z9.
went to National Park with 100-400-> most images were at 400 and was looking for more reach- 600 ish is where I like to be

My argument- since 400 f/2.8 is also a 560 f/4- it is close to 600; will be able to shoot larger mammals at 400 and I have the 800pf if I need more reach; 400mm is about 1lb heavier than 800 pf which I can easily hand hold.
as opposed to 600 f/4 Z lens-> 2 # heavier ( a big issue) and creates a duplicate of 800pf

is it better to sell the 800pf and get 600 f/4 and struggle a bit with the weight or go with 400 2.8?

Sorry, this may sound too naïve to many, but I was curious to see how most people would approach this issue.

Thank in advance!
Jay

 

[Lance B]

I do not have the Z 400 f2.8 + TC but do have the 400 f2.8E FL VR and my reasoning for getting it over the 600 f4E FL Vr was similar to your reasoning. The 400 f2.8E FL VR in F mount is 4 lenses in one if you use all the TC'c - 1.4x TCIII, 1.7x TCII and 2x TCIII = 400 f2.8 bare, 560 f4 with 1.4x TCIII, 680 f5 with 1.7x TCII and 800 f5.6 with the 2x TCIII. If I were contemplating it all again, I would again get the Z mount 400 f2.8 + TC as you can use it all the way to 800mm f5.6 by either adding the Z 1.4x TC and using the internal 1.4x TC or using the Z 2x TC without the internal 1.4x TC. Thus, you do not need to take the 800 PF on your hikes and thus saving 2.4kg, less the weight of either the Z 1.4x TC or Z 2x TC.

The other advantage of using the shoprter lens and adding TC's is you keep the MFD of the 400, but get the extra magnification afforded by the TC. This can be very helpful at times!

I would dearly love the Z 400 f2.8 + TC but can't justify the cost. In Australia where I am, it retails for $22,000!! My 400 f2.8E FL VR cost me "only" $12,000 8 years ago! I am using the 500 pf and 800 pf as my long lenses and only using the 400 f2.8E FL VR sometimes because at just over 4kg including the hood, it is getting on the heavy side for me these days.

 

[NorthernFocus]

I'm contemplating the same thing. I've got the 800mm 6.3 and considering the Z 400TC. I've never seriously considered a 400 2.8 because I shoot a lot at 500-600mm range. But the built in TC is a game changer. I'm there in theory. Now trying to justify the cost in my mind.

 

[Dionigi Colombo]

the choice between 400 and 600 also depends on how you photograph. If you are very fond of portraits and close-ups of subjects, the 600 is obviously to be preferred. Another consideration to make is when you go to photograph what you are willing to carry in your backpack to have the range of outbreaks that we could need. For example 100-400 and 600 you are well or badly covered with all subjects, if instead you opt for the 400 you must always bring a zoom 70-200 or 100-400 and if you want a very long focal length even the 800. In this case there would be more weight but no more versatility

I apologize for my bad English but to write I have to trust Google translator

 

[agrumpyoldsod]

Hello everyone,

I am contemplating to purchase 400 f/2.8- but I am not sure as yet. I would welcome opinions from the esteemed users and the collective intelligence as to what they would do from a work flow stand point if they were in my position.

My habits:- prefer to hand hold all my equipment; willing to do long day hikes to shoot
My current gear: Nikon Z9, nikkor Z 100-400, nikkor 800 pf, nikkor F 500pf + d500 - love the D500 combo for birds, but don't care much for the shutter noise- now that I have e shutter and 20fps on z9.
went to National Park with 100-400-> most images were at 400 and was looking for more reach- 600 ish is where I like to be

My argument- since 400 f/2.8 is also a 560 f/4- it is close to 600; will be able to shoot larger mammals at 400 and I have the 800pf if I need more reach; 400mm is about 1lb heavier than 800 pf which I can easily hand hold.
as opposed to 600 f/4 Z lens-> 2 # heavier ( a big issue) and creates a duplicate of 800pf

is it better to sell the 800pf and get 600 f/4 and struggle a bit with the weight or go with 400 2.8?

Sorry, this may sound too naïve to many, but I was curious to see how most people would approach this issue.

Thank in advance!
Jay

Jay - I am currently in the Maasai Mara, Kenya, with both the Z400/2.8TC and Z600/2.8TC on a pair of Z9s. I also have a 100-400 with me and a 24-120; AND I used to own the 800pf

In your question you did not mention what subjects you are seeking to shoot, in what environments, from what distance etc.... This would help us providing you with advice.

Sure the 800 pf is cheaper, shorter and lighter -- but it is less flexible and slower.

Both the 400TC and 600TC are almost exactly the same technically -- except the obvious difference -- my guess is your decision should be based on what you shoot and what focal lengths fit your "use case" the best.

Have no doubt that the 100-400 is great -- but it is much slower (both in aperture and performance).

So far in the Mara I have taken about 10,000 images over the last 10 days - about 7,000 of which are with the 400mm and 4,600 of these at 400mm. The rest at 560mm. BUT then I am primarily shooting big cats and other large subjects often either very early or late in the day - rather than small birds or similar in bright light..

KEY LEARNING POINT FOR ME -- disable the lens function ring and control ring when shooting handheld - I am used to shooting with f-mount versions of these lenses and the "new" controls are exactly when I support the lens when handholding.

I am nearly 62, not remotely thin, and have no issues hand holding either the 400 or 600 "while I am shooting" all day long. BUT I also take opportunities to find support -- be it knee, a log or beanbag+panning plate etc.. AND yes tripod+ gimbal or monopod. AND obviously I use slings and backpacks when hiking.

The first shot was taken by my driver/guide. The rest with the 400/2.8TC.

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

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

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

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

 

[John_DE]

I own the 800mm PF and the 400mm TC. Like the OP, I tend to hike and hand-hold my lenses. I’m in my mid 70’s and can hand-hold both the 800 and 400. I bought my 400mm TC before the 600mm was announced and have no intention to trade in for the 600.

As an aside, the shorter length of the 400 makes it relatively easy to pack for carry-on air travel.

 

[jmurthy]

Jay - I am currently in the Maasai Mara, Kenya, with both the Z400/2.8TC and Z600/2.8TC on a pair of Z9s. I also have a 100-400 with me and a 24-120; AND I used to own the 800pf

In your question you did not mention what subjects you are seeking to shoot, in what environments, from what distance etc.... This would help us providing you with advice.

Sure the 800 pf is cheaper, shorter and lighter -- but it is less flexible and slower.

Both the 400TC and 600TC are almost exactly the same technically -- except the obvious difference -- my guess is your decision should be based on what you shoot and what focal lengths fit your "use case" the best.

Have no doubt that the 100-400 is great -- but it is much slower (both in aperture and performance).

So far in the Mara I have taken about 10,000 images over the last 10 days - about 7,000 of which are with the 400mm and 4,600 of these at 400mm. The rest at 560mm. BUT then I am primarily shooting big cats and other large subjects often either very early or late in the day - rather than small birds or similar in bright light..

KEY LEARNING POINT FOR ME -- disable the lens function ring and control ring when shooting handheld - I am used to shooting with f-mount versions of these lenses and the "new" controls are exactly when I support the lens when handholding.

I am nearly 62, not remotely thin, and have no issues hand holding either the 400 or 600 "while I am shooting" all day long. BUT I also take opportunities to find support -- be it knee, a log or beanbag+panning plate etc.. AND yes tripod+ gimbal or monopod. AND obviously I use slings and backpacks when hiking.

The first shot was taken by my driver/guide. The rest with the 400/2.8TC.

View attachment 57205View attachment 57206
View attachment 57207View attachment 57208

Andy, Lovely captures and thank u for sharing the pics and your wisdom. I land up shooting at 400 on a 100-400 and wanting more reach based on prior experience- it could also be the viewing distance in the parks i was visiting in India as well as yellowstone. I do like the idea of shooting wider when the animal or bird is closer, like your shots in Africa.

 

[MatthewK]

KEY LEARNING POINT FOR ME -- disable the lens function ring and control ring when shooting handheld - I am used to shooting with f-mount versions of these lenses and the "new" controls are exactly when I support the lens when handholding.

Frustratingly agree with Andy, as good as the control/function rings sound, in practice they end up accidentally getting activated during hand holding.

Another thing I’ve found, is turning on focus peaking during manual focus (ie peaking turns on when the focus ring is turned), and seeing just how often the focus ring gets bumped during use. Because of this, I’m having to learn how to be a lot more aware of where I’m placing my support hand.

 

[Anjin San]

Jay…I also have neither the 400/2.8 or the 600 or 800. However…assuming I was willing to spend the 14K the 400 costs and was willing to carry the weight…the former is high unlikely and the latter only unlikely…then I would think the 400 along with either of the external TCs would be a great option giving you 400, 560, and 800 at the lightest weight possible and even 1.5x those if you switched to DX. It all depends on whether the IQ loss at 800 is acceptable for you given the weight savings. In my case…I’m almost exclusively screen output…so they’re all going to be exported at lower resolution anyway…so the IQ loss for my purposes would be not a consideration since if you can’t see the difference there is t a difference…pixel peeping is way different than display size at output. I’ve done testing with the 100-400 with and without the TCs and my 500PF with same size in the viewfinder subjects and while there is a difference at 1:1 at display output size it’s just not there outside of differing bokeh due to aperture so I discount that for my needs. For myself…this combo of 400 and a TC (and I wonder whether the dual 1.4 TCs or the single 2.0 gives better results at 80p)provides flexibility…I would be highly, highly unlikely to go on an outing with only an 800…so it plus whatever else I took exacerbates the weight issue. And depending on where I was going…the 400/560/800 selection might be all I needed.

If I was going on safari to Africa or perhaps Costa Rica…renting either the 400 or 800 is a small expense compared to the trip…but the former is simply more than I’m willing to spend so far…and it’s a bang for the buck decision vs a can’t afford it decision. I would be willing to spend what the 800 costs…but haven’t yet decided whether I would use it enough that the better IQ is worth it over the 100-400 and TC or the 400/4.5 and TC…both of which are cheaper and provide IMO more flexibility. So far…I’ve been plenty happy with the 100-400 and TC that I have that the 400/4.5 hasn’t really tempted me because I think the flexibility is worth more than 1/3 of a stop and a little better IQ based on my screen output…and because if I did have the 400/4.5 I would still need more than it on an outing for flexibility in shooting since I don’t go out with the goal of “I’m only shooting elk at distance today. “.

 

[Anjin San]

I'm contemplating the same thing. I've got the 800mm 6.3 and considering the Z 400TC. I've never seriously considered a 400 2.8 because I shoot a lot at 500-600mm range. But the built in TC is a game changer. I'm there in theory. Now trying to justify the cost in my mind.

Dan…unless we are making money with it…none of us are ever going to really be able to justify the cost from a $$ perspective…all we can do is ask ourselves if we can afford it…and then do the bang for the buck vs shooting style and needs vs how much will it get used comparison. One can buy a lot of other toys for the money the 400/2.8 costs and for most of us not making money with it it’s hard to justify it over the other combos one could get. As I said in my other reply…for my use renting it for the bucket list trip makes much more sense.

 

[ssheipel]

As I continue to wait for my 600 tc I continue wonder if I should buy the 400 2.8 tc instead. Or in other words, I'll be of no help in your decision making, whatsoever

 

[jmurthy]

Thank you all for the very thoughtful and thought provoking responses.

I agree, the $$$ will def give me a pause to move forward and this time will be a luxury item, not something I need. while I was contemplating this, I was also looking at OM solutions 150-400 f/4.5 TC 1.25 lens. That costs 7500 USD and I have a OM-1 I use as a second body with Z9. That is one heck of a lens on the OM-1per reviews but I can't seem to find that anywhere. I also worry about the viability of OM digital solutions especially faced with the fact that they are unable to produce a lens that a lot of people a ready to pay a pretty penny for.

If anyone is shooting with the Old gear and 150-400, please chime in. Any regrets? positives? or would you have stuck to Nikon lenses for birding and fast action wildlife?.

 

[JoelKlein]

@Andy Miller Photo UK
I love your shots!
The cat is big and fast but the shutter isn’t even 1/500 and its sharp. How did you pull it off?
The bokeh is beautiful.
The aperture is f/5. I’m curious to learn the reason for choosing the f/5.

(You could have used the 400/4.5 lens for the same shot…)

 

[Lance B]

@Andy Miller Photo UK
I love your shots!
The cat is big and fast but the shutter isn’t even 1/500 and its sharp. How did you pull it off?
The bokeh is beautiful.
The aperture is f/5. I’m curious to learn the reason for choosing the f/5.

(You could have used the 400/4.5 lens for the same shot…)

I'm seeing 1/1250 sec, not 1/500 sec.

 

[JoelKlein]

Correct. I missed the 1. Also kind of low. I was expecting at least 1/1600

 

[Craig R]

As I continue to wait for my 600 tc I continue wonder if I should buy the 400 2.8 tc instead. Or in other words, I'll be of no help in your decision making, whatsoever

I've been waiting for my 400 2.8 TC since January 2022... of course I'm not an NPS member

 

[ssheipel]

I've been waiting for my 400 2.8 TC since January 2022... of course I'm not an NPS member

Yah, it's pretty clear the 400 and 600 lenses are simply not (or haven't been) in any way in general production.

 

[Craig R]

Yah, it's pretty clear the 400 and 600 lenses are simply not (or haven't been) in any way in general production.

I agree... hoping it soon gets here ..... I have pictures to take darn it lol

 

[ssheipel]

I agree... hoping it soon gets here ..... I have pictures to take darn it lol

Yah, I'm literally at the 'whenever...' stage LOL

 

[RC49]

A little hope for fellow non-NPS. Mine is hanging out in Louisville, KY right now awaiting its journey north to me tomorrow. Put a deposit down on the 400mm f/2.8 over 14 months ago which made me first on the dealers list. Got a call from my dealer late Tuesday that they had my lens and shipped UPS yesterday. Said Nikon sent them 2 for their non-NPS customers even though they have pending NPS customers.

Anybody know what the starting serial number for this lens was?

 

[CoyoteCreationsNW]

As always my response starts with "it depends". My travel kit when I won't be hiking long distances is 2 bodies, 3 lenses and both Z TCs.
- Z9 + 400 mm 2.8 (400 @ 2.8, 560 @ 4.0 and 800 @ 5.6)
- Z7ii + 100-400 mm f/4.5-5.6
- 24-70 mm 2.8 (or the f/4 version if weight has to be limited or take a 20 mm or 50 mm prime for landscapes)

My decision was based on finding the 100-400 best up to 300-330 mm. From there on the corners and mid-frame start to soften. Going to a 600 mm would leave a gap between say 350 and 600 mm. I shoot a lot of larger mammals between these focal lengths. The 400 mm TC fills this gap pretty well. I have used the TC20 to get 800 mm with acceptable results, but I rarely shoot at focal lengths this long. The 400 mm 4.5 with teleconverters would also cover this range nicely but with less flexibility and a litte more closed aperture. Your mileage may vary.

 

[arbitrage]

A little hope for fellow non-NPS. Mine is hanging out in Louisville, KY right now awaiting its journey north to me tomorrow. Put a deposit down on the 400mm f/2.8 over 14 months ago which made me first on the dealers list. Got a call from my dealer late Tuesday that they had my lens and shipped UPS yesterday. Said Nikon sent them 2 for their non-NPS customers even though they have pending NPS customers.

Anybody know what the starting serial number for this lens was?

That is nice to know Nikon is getting some lenses to early non-NPS orders instead of more recent NPS orders. I think they need to do that more often.

 

[Activert]

Hello everyone,

I am contemplating to purchase 400 f/2.8- but I am not sure as yet. I would welcome opinions from the esteemed users and the collective intelligence as to what they would do from a work flow stand point if they were in my position.

My habits:- prefer to hand hold all my equipment; willing to do long day hikes to shoot
My current gear: Nikon Z9, nikkor Z 100-400, nikkor 800 pf, nikkor F 500pf + d500 - love the D500 combo for birds, but don't care much for the shutter noise- now that I have e shutter and 20fps on z9.
went to National Park with 100-400-> most images were at 400 and was looking for more reach- 600 ish is where I like to be

My argument- since 400 f/2.8 is also a 560 f/4- it is close to 600; will be able to shoot larger mammals at 400 and I have the 800pf if I need more reach; 400mm is about 1lb heavier than 800 pf which I can easily hand hold.
as opposed to 600 f/4 Z lens-> 2 # heavier ( a big issue) and creates a duplicate of 800pf

is it better to sell the 800pf and get 600 f/4 and struggle a bit with the weight or go with 400 2.8?

Sorry, this may sound too naïve to many, but I was curious to see how most people would approach this issue.

Thank in advance!
Jay

When Nikon announced the 400 mm f2.8 Tc, I put an order on it and waited around 8 months for delivery. Meanwhile I had an order on the 800 PF. While waiting, Nikon announced the 600 mm TC and I was like you, did not know whether to cancel the 400 and buy the 600. And I had to act quikly. So I took one night to think. Since I like my subject to fill the frame and I love to photograph all size of bird and sometimes I complaint that I don’t have enough reach, I decided to cancel my two order, the z400 tc and the 800, and go for the 600 mm TC. The next day I ordered the 600 and I got it quickly, end of novembre. Since then, I have been using it a lot and I don’t regret my move.
In your situation, you have already the 800 and weight seems an issue for you while hiking. Maybe the 400 is the best choice for you. Everybody who owned this lens is amazed by its sharpness and how fast it is. In low light, it has an advantage over the 600. Definitely, one day, I will add it to my gear.
Whatever you decide you won’t go wrong with any of these two lenses. Good luck

 

[Ken Miracle]

I saw some above mention having issues with accidental actuation with the control ring and manual focus and all are using the lens with the hand on the barrel.

If you have never tried it consider trying a target rifle hold.

Using a good long replacement tripod foot like the Hejnar's rest the foot in the palm of your hand, do not grip it. This is the same way I and others hold target rifles in target rifle stance with left elbow underneath in a straight line and usually with my elbow tucked in to my ribs.

Target rifle shooters use this method because it is very stable.

This method keeps the lens controls accessible but far less likely to be activated by accident.

I have used this method for years on lenses of all sizes, if it has a lens foot, the largest was the 600 f/4E yes I hand held it. The Z800 is a logisitics dream.
The Z400 f/2.8 TC is between the 600 f/4E and between that and my Z800pf in weight and seems like it would be quite manageable for me.

I have not it because of price and I was expecting the Z200-600 on the road map to be out much sooner. And now you can not even ad it to your cart on the Nikon USA page. It is still on the NPS priority delivery list but you have to give NPS an order number to go along with it.

So I am still in hurry up and wait mode.

 

[hrv]

I use the rifle method mostly, but still have issues.

I think the focus ring is just too sensitive, any minor nudge is enough to get it to switch to manual focus.
Also, when walking, the lens rubs against my jacket and that changes whatever setting you have applied to any of the control ring functions.

Thinking about creating two different banks for this. One for walks in the woods without any active control rings and one for static work like hides with the control functions enabled.