The 400mm f 2.8 S lens

[JoPoV]

Review of a pre production copy

Nikon Z 400mm f/2.8 TC VR S Review: A Glimpse of Greatness

One lens that can do it all?

petapixel.com

Does the final lens react differently from the pre-production lens for the following points raised in the review above ?

- There is no way to toggle Vibration Reduction (VR) to off, or Normal or Sport modes through the lens itself. ... even the four function buttons near the front of the lens and the L-Fn button near the rear can’t be customized to control VR modes .
- they did not add the grooves for perfect click-stop alignment every 90 degrees.
- There is a big issue I have with the stabilization ... with the “normal” stabilization mode ... when the shutter is released, the viewfinder image jumps a great distance ... the framing hop way out of where it’s intended to be, but the focus points move completely off the subject as well. This is absolute chaos when trying to use the camera.
- Backing off further away and dropping down the 1.4x teleconverter, the results were less impressive. There was almost always a general softness to my images ... The shots with the teleconverter from further back, where it will most often be of use, were largely disappointing. Those of us who thought this was going to be a one-lens-does-all may have to lower these expectations ...
- Sweeping focus across the range is fairly quick, so that’s a plus, although it’s not quite as fast as I would have expected it to be or that I’ve seen with other flagship cameras and long lens combos.

 

[Steve]

Does the final lens react differently from the pre-production lens for the following points raised in the review above ?

- There is no way to toggle Vibration Reduction (VR) to off, or Normal or Sport modes through the lens itself. ... even the four function buttons near the front of the lens and the L-Fn button near the rear can’t be customized to control VR modes .
- they did not add the grooves for perfect click-stop alignment every 90 degrees.
- There is a big issue I have with the stabilization ... with the “normal” stabilization mode ... when the shutter is released, the viewfinder image jumps a great distance ... the framing hop way out of where it’s intended to be, but the focus points move completely off the subject as well. This is absolute chaos when trying to use the camera.
- Backing off further away and dropping down the 1.4x teleconverter, the results were less impressive. There was almost always a general softness to my images ... The shots with the teleconverter from further back, where it will most often be of use, were largely disappointing. Those of us who thought this was going to be a one-lens-does-all may have to lower these expectations ...
- Sweeping focus across the range is fairly quick, so that’s a plus, although it’s not quite as fast as I would have expected it to be or that I’ve seen with other flagship cameras and long lens combos.

That review, along with some of the other things I've been reading, was enough to make me cancel my pre-order. I think I'm going to rent this one first, One of my major complaints with the 180-400 was the TC and I'm not going there again. In addition, although I like the Z9, I don't see it becoming my primary camera - the a1 is just better for my needs. So, it's tough to justify the price of this lens.

 

[dupcak]

Does the final lens react differently from the pre-production lens for the following points raised in the review above ?

- There is no way to toggle Vibration Reduction (VR) to off, or Normal or Sport modes through the lens itself. ... even the four function buttons near the front of the lens and the L-Fn button near the rear can’t be customized to control VR modes .
- they did not add the grooves for perfect click-stop alignment every 90 degrees.
- There is a big issue I have with the stabilization ... with the “normal” stabilization mode ... when the shutter is released, the viewfinder image jumps a great distance ... the framing hop way out of where it’s intended to be, but the focus points move completely off the subject as well. This is absolute chaos when trying to use the camera.
- Backing off further away and dropping down the 1.4x teleconverter, the results were less impressive. There was almost always a general softness to my images ... The shots with the teleconverter from further back, where it will most often be of use, were largely disappointing. Those of us who thought this was going to be a one-lens-does-all may have to lower these expectations ...
- Sweeping focus across the range is fairly quick, so that’s a plus, although it’s not quite as fast as I would have expected it to be or that I’ve seen with other flagship cameras and long lens combos.

Some of the things brought up in the Peta Pixel review are more than likely true, but here is a quote from the article that should not be forgotten:

"this is the only lens I’ve ever used with the Z9 I’m not sure which is to blame"

1) Some of the things that are mentioned are Z9 related and not necessarily lens related (eg. jumpy VR)
2) Since this is the first time the reviewer was using a Z9, one has to wonder how many of the things are due to the computer 4 inches behind the viewfinder?

- Rob

 

[John Navitsky]

The jumpy VR with the lens and Z9 isn't a "bug". It's the syncro mode where the Z9 uses the lens and IBIS together providing more VR than folks are normally used to. This is a positive FEATURE/benefit.

 

[fcotterill]

Typical of early reviews rushed out by a writer rather than taking several weeks.

In this age of instant gratification, some realities remain that cannot be rushed. It took me many many months to decide on "Which Telephoto" for F-mount - concluded early 2018, as this is no trite decision given the cost (and besides the time consumed saving). It is in fact the 400 f2.8E FL for several reasons. Incidentally the feedback up and into 2018 by @Lance B was an important factor in this decision

Some of the things brought up in the Peta Pixel review are more than likely true, but here is a quote from the article that should not be forgotten:

"this is the only lens I’ve ever used with the Z9 I’m not sure which is to blame"

1) Some of the things that are mentioned are Z9 related and not necessarily lens related (eg. jumpy VR)
2) Since this is the first time the reviewer was using a Z9, one has to wonder how many of the things are due to the computer 4 inches behind the viewfinder?

- Rob

 

[pwaring]

Does the final lens react differently from the pre-production lens for the following points raised in the review above ?

- There is no way to toggle Vibration Reduction (VR) to off, or Normal or Sport modes through the lens itself. ... even the four function buttons near the front of the lens and the L-Fn button near the rear can’t be customized to control VR modes .
- they did not add the grooves for perfect click-stop alignment every 90 degrees.
- There is a big issue I have with the stabilization ... with the “normal” stabilization mode ... when the shutter is released, the viewfinder image jumps a great distance ... the framing hop way out of where it’s intended to be, but the focus points move completely off the subject as well. This is absolute chaos when trying to use the camera.
- Backing off further away and dropping down the 1.4x teleconverter, the results were less impressive. There was almost always a general softness to my images ... The shots with the teleconverter from further back, where it will most often be of use, were largely disappointing. Those of us who thought this was going to be a one-lens-does-all may have to lower these expectations ...
- Sweeping focus across the range is fairly quick, so that’s a plus, although it’s not quite as fast as I would have expected it to be or that I’ve seen with other flagship cameras and long lens combos.

So each point in turn:

• No VR toggle - True. This is done in camera on pretty much all (probably all) Nikon Z lenses. To be honest I find this an improvement because I can see it quickly on the i-menu and don't need to look away from the viewfinder if I want to check it.
• No grooves - True. This is the same as other Nikon lenses I'm used to.
• Stabilization using "normal" - Partially true. As stated above this is more of a Z9 thing. I also find the initial displacement a little offputting on "normal" but it's only 1 frame and I tend to use "sport" anyway.
• 1.4x TC results - Nobody has done rigorous tests yet. I was very happy with the 1.4x with my results from Saturday. One of the FM members has also posted images using the 1.4x and seems very happy. I might go throw it on a tripod and do some static comparisons taking photos of some detail on a building at much more distance than I used it on Saturday just to see how 400 and 560 compare then.
• Focus speed from end-to-end - I did not find it "fairly quick". I found it very fast. I have no used other brands so I'm only comparing to lenses like the 500 FL or the 180-400 FL.

 

[pwaring]

The jumpy VR with the lens and Z9 isn't a "bug". It's the syncro mode where the Z9 uses the lens and IBIS together providing more VR than folks are normally used to. This is a positive FEATURE/benefit.

Does synchro-mode not apply when "sport" is enabled? I don't like the jump when the first frame is shot. I would much rather I had the momentary jump when I initially hit focus so that I could do that and then there was no effect when depressing the shutter. As it stands with the Z9 you focus but the jump only happens on the very first frame. This does not feel like a well implemented "feature".

 

[John Navitsky]

sport mode works differently and either it behaves differently or isn’t noticeable in sport mode.

that said, i shot action for a number of hours this weekend with the 70-200 and the 100-400, both of which have syncro mode and i never noticed it people just need faster subjects so their brains have less time to find “problems”

 

[pwaring]

I just did a few more tests. I kept the camera in position and did some 40m tests of some window edging and pebbledash wall. With 1.4x TC there is clearly more detail rendered in the scene when 400mm is cropped to 100% and the 560mm is cropped to match it. There's a lot of detail too.

I did a further test (examples below) where I used a relatively close target (some face cream sat on a bbq) and I moved the tripod back for the 560mm shot to keep the framing the same at 100%. The point of this one was to see how much we lose by using the TC (because we know we'll lose some). The 400mm shot is clearly sharper, but I consider the sharpness of the 560mm shot at 100% to be very good too. This is not the scenario that it's for though.

I'm going to be using the TC when I want to get closer but can't do so physically (where I'd just use 400mm and move) and to that end I think it's a phenomenal lens.

I'll caveat all of this with the fact that I'd like to do this on a sunny day where I could keep the shutter speed much higher and the ISO equivalent. The light dropped a touch after the 400mm shot so it had better ISO and shutter speed. The current examples favour the 400mm shot. This is also just one test.

The scene:

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

100% 400mm (ISO 125, 1/100s):

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

100% 560mm (ISO 400, 1/50s):

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

 

[Steve]

I just did a few more tests. I kept the camera in position and did some 40m tests of some window edging and pebbledash wall. With 1.4x TC there is clearly more detail rendered in the scene when 400mm is cropped to 100% and the 560mm is cropped to match it. There's a lot of detail too.

I did a further test (examples below) where I used a relatively close target (some face cream sat on a bbq) and I moved the tripod back for the 560mm shot to keep the framing the same at 100%. The point of this one was to see how much we lose by using the TC (because we know we'll lose some). The 400mm shot is clearly sharper, but I consider the sharpness of the 560mm shot at 100% to be very good too. This is not the scenario that it's for though.

I'm going to be using the TC when I want to get closer but can't do so physically (where I'd just use 400mm and move) and to that end I think it's a phenomenal lens.

I'll caveat all of this with the fact that I'd like to do this on a sunny day where I could keep the shutter speed much higher and the ISO equivalent. The light dropped a touch after the 400mm shot so it had better ISO and shutter speed. The current examples favour the 400mm shot. This is also just one test.

The scene:

View attachment 33629

100% 400mm (ISO 125, 1/100s):

View attachment 33630

100% 560mm (ISO 400, 1/50s):

View attachment 33632

The petapixel review mentioned that the 1.4 internal TC was good at close range, but farther out was where the reviewer noticed significant softness. Do you have any way to shoot a pair of targets (larger ones of course) at maybe 30 ~ 40 yards? It would also be interesting to test the 1.4Z TC against the internal one. When I did a similar test with the 180-400, I found the external TC was superior to the internal one (very surprising).

 

[pwaring]

The petapixel review mentioned that the 1.4 internal TC was good at close range, but farther out was where the reviewer noticed significant softness. Do you have any way to shoot a pair of targets (larger ones of course) at maybe 30 ~ 40 yards? It would also be interesting to test the 1.4Z TC against the internal one. When I did a similar test with the 180-400, I found the external TC was superior to the internal one (very surprising).

Here's the best example I can do from the shots I took earlier as it's dark now. Same subject distance, so the 560mm image is larger. This was approx 30-40m (which are close enough to yards anyway). Lets pretend it was of a window on my house and I have a really big garden (neither of which is true).

Note that the wall is angled compared to the plane of the camera so don't worry about the sharpness dropping off away from the middle. I've compared in lightroom at 200% and it's a definite detail win for the 560mm. Certainly I see nothing here to make me nervous about engaging the TC.

400mm (100%):

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

560mm (100%):

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

 

[gdecamp]

Note that the wall is angled compared to the plane of the camera so don't worry about the sharpness dropping off away from the middle. I've compared in lightroom at 200% and it's a definite detail win for the 560mm. Certainly I see nothing here to make me nervous about engaging the TC.

Looks good to me! I am still looking forward to getting mine, I don't see Nikon screwing up their flagship (at the moment anyway) lens! My guess is the reviewer messed up something since he was using a camera he never used before to review a lens he never used before. Doesn't sound like something I would put too much trust in, at least at the moment. I've seen several really nice images from it both on FM and the Z9 forum on Facebook.

 

[arbitrage]

The petapixel review mentioned that the 1.4 internal TC was good at close range, but farther out was where the reviewer noticed significant softness. Do you have any way to shoot a pair of targets (larger ones of course) at maybe 30 ~ 40 yards? It would also be interesting to test the 1.4Z TC against the internal one. When I did a similar test with the 180-400, I found the external TC was superior to the internal one (very surprising).

Same thing I found with my Canon 200-400....my external 1.4TCIII was slightly better than the internal. Go figure ...I'm sure different samples of lens or TC could make things swing the other way.

 

[Steve]

Here's the best example I can do from the shots I took earlier as it's dark now. Same subject distance, so the 560mm image is larger. This was approx 30-40m (which are close enough to yards anyway). Lets pretend it was of a window on my house and I have a really big garden (neither of which is true).

Note that the wall is angled compared to the plane of the camera so don't worry about the sharpness dropping off away from the middle. I've compared in lightroom at 200% and it's a definite detail win for the 560mm. Certainly I see nothing here to make me nervous about engaging the TC.

400mm (100%):

View attachment 33634

560mm (100%):

View attachment 33635

Thanks, they do look really close in sharpness. I appreciate you taking the time to do them.

 

[fcotterill]

I rate this petapixel piece as no more than first impressions, if that.

The author fails to discuss bokeh, which also shows he's badly out of his depth. This Cameralabs article and the images by owners shared to date suggest the bokeh of the 400 f2.8S is close to the the superb rendering of the 400 f2.8E, perhaps better. Albeit judging bokeh is an affair of judging art.

 

[Roy]

I rate this petapixel piece as no more than first impressions, if that.

The author fails to discuss bokeh, which also shows he's badly out of his depth. This Cameralabs article and the images by owener shared to date suggest the bokeh of the 400 f2.8S is close to the the superb rendering of the 400 f2.8E, perhaps better. Albeit judging bokeh is an affair of judging art.

I dont expect a PF lens to have reasonable Bokeh - Its just a small compromise for the much more compact lens...

 

[fcotterill]

This discussion is comparing the 400 f2.8 primes, not PF primes. Personally I think complaints about the bokeh in latter are exaggerated

I dont expect a PF lens to have reasonable Bokeh - Its just a small compromise for the much more compact lens...

 

[CoyoteCreationsNW]

This is the biggest single photography purchase I have ever made but I am trying to keep my expectations reasonable. I replaced my D850 with a Z9. I am currently limited to 280 mm at f/4 (70-200 2.8 S plus TC1.4) or 500 mm at f/5.6 with FTZ. The sharpness, acuity and color meet my expectations with either kit. What I hope for or expect is 400 mm at f/2.8 and 560 mm at f/4 allowing lower ISO and matching the IQ I get now. I don't expect it to improve my technique or make hiking any easier. I just want more shooting days in the winter and more time at sunrise and sunset.

 

[Lance B]

I dont expect a PF lens to have reasonable Bokeh - Its just a small compromise for the much more compact lens...

I have found the bokeh of the 500 pf to be very good, excellent in fact.
Look over the approx 200 images here and let me know of any where the bokeh is not good. If the images are small, you can click on either "original" or "auto" under the image to see at decent size:

Nikon AF-S 500 f5.6E PF ED VR by Lance B

pbase.com

 

[fcotterill]

Absolutely And there is a consensus on its quality
appended example, and using TC14 III

I have found the bokeh of the 500 pf to be very good, excellent in fact.
Look over the approx 200 images here and let me know of any where the bokeh is not good. If the images are small, you can click on either "original" or "auto" under the image to see at decent size:

Nikon AF-S 500 f5.6E PF ED VR by Lance B

pbase.com

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.

 

[Lance B]

Great work, Fenton!

 

[zule11]

Nikon Z 400mm f/2.8 VR TC unboxing and first impressions

 

[gdecamp]

Nikon Z 400mm f/2.8 VR TC unboxing and first impressions

That sure looks nice!!

 

[zule11]

not exactly wildlife, but some real life usage of Nikon Z 400 2.8, Matt Irwin new video

Nikon 400mm 2.8 TC VR S + Z 9 For Portraits - Possible? What ...? | Let's Have Some Fun | Matt Irwin

 

[zule11]

And some wildlife

Filming wildlife with the Z9 and 400 2.8 S TC handheld