I’ve used the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 180-400mm f/4E TC1.4 FL ED VR for nearly a year now. I shoot predominantly wildlife. Simply put, it is a fantastic lens. Attached to either my D850 or D500, the renderings it produces are amazing. So much so that it’s my go to lens 90% of the time. Yes, it is expensive, but if you can afford it you won’t go wrong in buying it. On a scale of 1-5, it rates a 5 !!
Marcelo Cinicola
December 1, 2021 4:30 am
Nasim, thanks for the detailed and as always, great review on this lens. I went recently from my 200-400 VRI that I used for years (great zoom!) to the 180-400 and I’m thrilled on almost every aspect of it. As you and others, I also find that the TC engaged is not really an improvement against the 200-400+TC14 EIII (I expected a bit better performance but I can’t really find any). In fact, it might even be a little worse in terms of sharpness @ 5.6. But I can live with it as much as I lived and enjoyed the older 200/400 What puzzles me is that when used on the D500 or the D5, there’s a noticeable over exposure, I have to compensate down to as much as -0.7EV to get the right exposure and not burn the whites or reflections on birds (using average center measuring). It’s like (wide open) it’s brighter (by a lot!) than the old 200/400…have you or anyone noticed anything of the like? This never happened before to me, regardless of using the 200-400 or the 500G or any other lens on either bodies. Any clues?
Yes it’s because the entrance pupil size and circle of projection is large, on a lens like this. I definitely think it’s possible to see up to 0.67 stop differences between models. For instance the 24-70mm f/2.8E VR FL is about 1/3rd of a stop brighter than the previous 24-70G. I also believe the 500mm f/4E VR FL is a 1/3rd to maybe even a half stop brighter than the 500mm f/4G VR. Which maybe why it’s NOT listed as a lens that reduces AF cross-type points on D5, D500, or D850 cameras. With the 500FL you get all 99-cross type points, whereas with the previous version you only get’s 63 or 45 depending on the lens/camera or TC combo’s. This was an important decision in my choice to sell my 400mm f/2.8E VR FL and get the 500mm f/4E VR FL. I needed/wanted weight reduction as I’m getting older and my lower back is getting bad. I’ve been carrying big heavy super-tele primes for over 20 years now. It adds up and down I absolutely love the 500FL. It’s hand holdable, fast and extremely sharp with possibly the best out of focus area bokeh I’ve ever seen. Basically you’re most likely correct. The transmission is likely better on the 180-400FL and it’s probably more true to it’s f/4 aperture, while the 200-400mm was probably more like an f/4.5-4.8? The main way Nikon was able to do this was the new electromagnetic aperture control. This allowed Nikon to put the aperture blades opening position further out, allowing for a larger entrance pupil and therefore better transmission. I’m no optical engineer, but it’s pretty simple, I think. If I’m at all wrong, please tell us more! Haha!
Embarrased to not replying before Patrick, somehow I never received an alert/comm about your kind, extensive and educational response. My wrong! As for the explanation itself, thank you so very much! It makes all the sense of the world. I learned to simply work with a different setting and all the pics now are correctly exposed. Thanks again! A pleasure to reading you! All the best. Marcelo
Ehud Kedar
December 5, 2020 4:34 pm
I own the Nikon 500mm f/5.6 PF and use it mostly with Nikon D6 and D850. I do a lot of birds photography in San Diego and I can walk with it for hours. The two limitations that this lens has are f/5.6 which could be a challenge early morning and late afternoon when birds are mostly active, and inability to use 1.4x teleconverter (useless for birds in flight) . My other lens of choice will be Nikon 500mm f/4e fl ed vr. It is lighter than the 180-440, 6.8 vs. 77 lb. and with birds you never have enough reach so I am not concered about shorter focal lens. F4 will work well in low light and from what I read this lens works very well with 1.4x and even 1.7x teleconverter, giving extra reach when needed. It is handholdable but not for long. My setup includes a Monopod with a MonoGimbal head which is light and mobile and should work well with this lens. It is also possible to fly with it in most airelines around the US and the world. Its even cheaper – only $10,296 vs. $12, 396 for teh 180-800 :)
Ditto! I did the same thing and I’m as happy as I’ve ever been. I’ve owned a lot of big primes and zooms, and I shot almost every autofocus “big lens” both Nikon and Canon make. As a photojournalist or newspaper photographer, I’ve been able to test or own a lot of lenses and cameras. The 500mm FL and the 800mm FL are the two best lenses I’ve ever used bar none, end of story. If you look at these two lens’ MTF charts and you’ll see they are both optical perfection. Completely flat lines! Plus like you said it works great with the 1.4x TC-14E III and fortunately you get all 99 cross-type AF points with this lens, whereas the previous version could only offer 63 cross-type AF points. The addition of the electromagnetic aperture diaphragm makes the entrance pupil size larger and thus offers better transmission.
I always felt the 500mm f/4G VR was more like an f/4.5-4.8 and NOT a true f/4! Whereas I immediately noticed the 500FL produces perfectly exposed images. The main benefits of this new technology are speed/high frames per second with proper exposure each and every frame and also placement. The new electromagnetic aperture allowed Nikon to design new lenses such as the 105mm f/1.4E or the 58mm f/0.95! Anyways the 500mm FL is my ultimate favorite Nikon and a close second is the 180-400FL. It’s just a shame so many copies have a weak/poorly implemented teleconverter. Losing 19% of sharpness is absolutely ridiculous. On my 500FL with TC-14E III you can’t notice any difference whatsoever, but if I had to guess it’s maybe 5% loss in acuity. You’d think a built in TC would be better not worse than one you add, but it’s still amazing to have one so quickly. I absolutely hate changing teleconverter’s in the field, it’s not fun at all and I’ve nearly dropped gear doing so in a hurry. Long story short, I think there is some sample variation with the built in Teleconverter on the 180-400FL. Just don’t have enough copies to prove it or not. But I’ve used a copy from NPS and it was quite good. Not as sharp as my 500FL, but close at 400mm. At 560mm the 180-400mm feels ever so slightly darker through the viewfinder with the TC engaged. Yet I’ve heard some who report they get excellent results with the built in TC, more like only losing 5-10%? I’ve even heard one person claim that the TC-14E III is better and that he didn’t even use his built in TC anymore. $12,400 you’d think Nikon would’ve done better with the sample variation and built in teleconverter. I know this is a zoom lens and at the end of the day, it’s one of the sharpest zooms ever made and a wonderful lens. It’s an epic and awesome lens that I hope to own one day. I could’ve bought one, but I prefer the 500FL, but boy would I ever love to have both. Though now I think I’d buy the 120-300mm and just use my TC-14E III.
Jacobus De Wet
December 1, 2020 5:49 am
Great review as always. My comment is more about the future buyers of these very expensive lenses and bodies. We the DSLR’s enthusiasts or “non full time photographers” could pick up used high end lenses at sometimes significant discounts. Even 2nd and 3rd generation professional bodies like the d4, D4s, D810 etc for good value prices. Looking at the performance difference having this group in mind, it really makes little sense to buy this lens given the price of the old 200-400 f4 vrii. The Z series and for that matter all the FF Mirrorless systems have become exceptionally expensive. I look at the current lenses on offer from Sony and Canon for the ML systems and we have 200-600 f6.3 or Canon 100-500 f7.1 lenses plastic build 40 % more expensive than the Tamron, Sigma 150-600 lenses. For the FF systems, buyers are paying very high prices. I still have some of my Nikon DSLR gear with 300 f2.8, But have bought a Fuji XT4 with 100-400 to test as a wildlife system and find it perfectly suited. It will not fit the needs of all the nature and wildlife photographers as the M43 systems but these systems are now becoming more popular at a big discount. The upside is that we are all spoiled for choice, our budgets might not all justify the top end gear, but our enthusiasm and passion for wildlife and nature remains and with that, the options are unlimited.
Jeff
November 25, 2020 12:29 pm
If only nikon was able to develop this lens in a version for the Z system. I wonder if it would push some photographers to the Z system.
FTZ II and Z9 offer even better performance than on F-mount. People have proven the new Z9 and adapted AF-S lenses via FTZ focuses ever so slightly faster than they did on DSLR’s! Why would Nikon make a Z-mount version? This lens is only a few years old and has modern technology such as electromagnetic aperture and ability to allow firmware updates. Plus super-telephoto lenses do not really have any benefit on mirrorless or with the shorter flange distances on mirrorless. These mirrorless mount advantages are mostly seen on the wide to normal viewing angle. Nikon could easily pull a Canon and glue an FTZ to the rear end and call it a new lens, but I highly doubt they would ever stoop so low.
An equivalent Z lens incorporating a PF and or SR element could be made lighter. It could also benefit from a better and quieter VR system. Nikon seems content with their z 400 f2.8 TC and Z 600 f4 TC. Both awesome lenses but still can’t zoom.
Roger West
November 21, 2020 1:50 pm
Every time I try to read this a Microsoft ad puts a brown border around the artical chopping off the begining and end of every line making the artical unreadable.
Steve, we had some issues in the past with malicious advertising, but we reported them and they should not be showing up. If you see any issues with ads, please let me know and I will take care of them.
Unfortunately, ads are the only way to support this site. We don’t have any other options, and the number of people who actually support the site by becoming a member or by donating monthly wouldn’t be enough to even pay for the hosting costs…
Ralph La Forge
November 17, 2020 5:39 am
Superb review Nasim!! But too late (not really) already on budget and bought the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 500mm f/5.6E for my D850 & Z7. Would have loved to have the flexibility of the 180-400 and enhanced aperture but not at the price of selling my house, ha. Lawson’s photographs were oustanding!!
Ralph, I’ve just started shooting with the 500mm PF and I’m loving it. The portability is phenomenal. I have to keep reminding myself it’s really a 500mm lens.
Bill Slattery Jr
November 16, 2020 11:04 pm
Well done Nasim and very informative. Thank you for the MTFs. Any chance of getting a look at the other new 112mm pro lens the 120-300mm f2.8?
Mark R
November 16, 2020 5:09 pm
I used to own 180-400 f/4E.
On my copy bare lens is great. With internal TC engaged, I see a huge loss in contrast (not so much sharpness).
I tried using external TC-14EIII with internal TC turned off, and got much better results! Slightly sharper and with much better contrast too.
I got the lens for internal TC, and seeing ext TC performs better I eventually sold the lens.
Does your sample behave like that? I heard there are variations with this lens. Some people are saying internal TC is little sharper…
Mark, I concur regarding the internal TC. I see a significant drop in contrast, more so than sharpness. Lighting conditions seem to have a large impact on results. In contrasty light the TC gives good (even great) results. In low contrast light it can be challenging. Without the TC it’s pretty stunning no matter what light you’re shooting in.
Red
November 16, 2020 4:32 pm
As always greatly informative and well written review Nasim. Not that I read this one with any form of hope to be able to buy this anytime soon in my life but dreams are at least still free and pictures on PL are always welcome escape from gray and VERY short days here in Stockholm this time of year so thanks for that.
I’ve used the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 180-400mm f/4E TC1.4 FL ED VR for nearly a year now. I shoot predominantly wildlife. Simply put, it is a fantastic lens. Attached to either my D850 or D500, the renderings it produces are amazing. So much so that it’s my go to lens 90% of the time. Yes, it is expensive, but if you can afford it you won’t go wrong in buying it.
On a scale of 1-5, it rates a 5 !!
Nasim, thanks for the detailed and as always, great review on this lens.
I went recently from my 200-400 VRI that I used for years (great zoom!) to the 180-400 and I’m thrilled on almost every aspect of it. As you and others, I also find that the TC engaged is not really an improvement against the 200-400+TC14 EIII (I expected a bit better performance but I can’t really find any). In fact, it might even be a little worse in terms of sharpness @ 5.6. But I can live with it as much as I lived and enjoyed the older 200/400
What puzzles me is that when used on the D500 or the D5, there’s a noticeable over exposure, I have to compensate down to as much as -0.7EV to get the right exposure and not burn the whites or reflections on birds (using average center measuring).
It’s like (wide open) it’s brighter (by a lot!) than the old 200/400…have you or anyone noticed anything of the like? This never happened before to me, regardless of using the 200-400 or the 500G or any other lens on either bodies. Any clues?
Yes it’s because the entrance pupil size and circle of projection is large, on a lens like this. I definitely think it’s possible to see up to 0.67 stop differences between models. For instance the 24-70mm f/2.8E VR FL is about 1/3rd of a stop brighter than the previous 24-70G. I also believe the 500mm f/4E VR FL is a 1/3rd to maybe even a half stop brighter than the 500mm f/4G VR. Which maybe why it’s NOT listed as a lens that reduces AF cross-type points on D5, D500, or D850 cameras. With the 500FL you get all 99-cross type points, whereas with the previous version you only get’s 63 or 45 depending on the lens/camera or TC combo’s. This was an important decision in my choice to sell my 400mm f/2.8E VR FL and get the 500mm f/4E VR FL. I needed/wanted weight reduction as I’m getting older and my lower back is getting bad. I’ve been carrying big heavy super-tele primes for over 20 years now. It adds up and down I absolutely love the 500FL. It’s hand holdable, fast and extremely sharp with possibly the best out of focus area bokeh I’ve ever seen. Basically you’re most likely correct. The transmission is likely better on the 180-400FL and it’s probably more true to it’s f/4 aperture, while the 200-400mm was probably more like an f/4.5-4.8? The main way Nikon was able to do this was the new electromagnetic aperture control. This allowed Nikon to put the aperture blades opening position further out, allowing for a larger entrance pupil and therefore better transmission. I’m no optical engineer, but it’s pretty simple, I think. If I’m at all wrong, please tell us more! Haha!
Embarrased to not replying before Patrick, somehow I never received an alert/comm about your kind, extensive and educational response. My wrong!
As for the explanation itself, thank you so very much! It makes all the sense of the world. I learned to simply work with a different setting and all the pics now are correctly exposed.
Thanks again! A pleasure to reading you!
All the best. Marcelo
I own the Nikon 500mm f/5.6 PF and use it mostly with Nikon D6 and D850. I do a lot of birds photography in San Diego and I can walk with it for hours. The two limitations that this lens has are f/5.6 which could be a challenge early morning and late afternoon when birds are mostly active, and inability to use 1.4x teleconverter (useless for birds in flight) .
My other lens of choice will be Nikon 500mm f/4e fl ed vr. It is lighter than the 180-440, 6.8 vs. 77 lb. and with birds you never have enough reach so I am not concered about shorter focal lens. F4 will work well in low light and from what I read this lens works very well with 1.4x and even 1.7x teleconverter, giving extra reach when needed. It is handholdable but not for long. My setup includes a Monopod with a MonoGimbal head which is light and mobile and should work well with this lens. It is also possible to fly with it in most airelines around the US and the world. Its even cheaper – only $10,296 vs. $12, 396 for teh 180-800 :)
Ditto! I did the same thing and I’m as happy as I’ve ever been. I’ve owned a lot of big primes and zooms, and I shot almost every autofocus “big lens” both Nikon and Canon make. As a photojournalist or newspaper photographer, I’ve been able to test or own a lot of lenses and cameras. The 500mm FL and the 800mm FL are the two best lenses I’ve ever used bar none, end of story. If you look at these two lens’ MTF charts and you’ll see they are both optical perfection. Completely flat lines! Plus like you said it works great with the 1.4x TC-14E III and fortunately you get all 99 cross-type AF points with this lens, whereas the previous version could only offer 63 cross-type AF points. The addition of the electromagnetic aperture diaphragm makes the entrance pupil size larger and thus offers better transmission.
I always felt the 500mm f/4G VR was more like an f/4.5-4.8 and NOT a true f/4! Whereas I immediately noticed the 500FL produces perfectly exposed images. The main benefits of this new technology are speed/high frames per second with proper exposure each and every frame and also placement. The new electromagnetic aperture allowed Nikon to design new lenses such as the 105mm f/1.4E or the 58mm f/0.95! Anyways the 500mm FL is my ultimate favorite Nikon and a close second is the 180-400FL. It’s just a shame so many copies have a weak/poorly implemented teleconverter. Losing 19% of sharpness is absolutely ridiculous. On my 500FL with TC-14E III you can’t notice any difference whatsoever, but if I had to guess it’s maybe 5% loss in acuity. You’d think a built in TC would be better not worse than one you add, but it’s still amazing to have one so quickly. I absolutely hate changing teleconverter’s in the field, it’s not fun at all and I’ve nearly dropped gear doing so in a hurry. Long story short, I think there is some sample variation with the built in Teleconverter on the 180-400FL. Just don’t have enough copies to prove it or not. But I’ve used a copy from NPS and it was quite good. Not as sharp as my 500FL, but close at 400mm. At 560mm the 180-400mm feels ever so slightly darker through the viewfinder with the TC engaged. Yet I’ve heard some who report they get excellent results with the built in TC, more like only losing 5-10%? I’ve even heard one person claim that the TC-14E III is better and that he didn’t even use his built in TC anymore. $12,400 you’d think Nikon would’ve done better with the sample variation and built in teleconverter. I know this is a zoom lens and at the end of the day, it’s one of the sharpest zooms ever made and a wonderful lens. It’s an epic and awesome lens that I hope to own one day. I could’ve bought one, but I prefer the 500FL, but boy would I ever love to have both. Though now I think I’d buy the 120-300mm and just use my TC-14E III.
Great review as always. My comment is more about the future buyers of these very expensive lenses and bodies. We the DSLR’s enthusiasts or “non full time photographers” could pick up used high end lenses at sometimes significant discounts. Even 2nd and 3rd generation professional bodies like the d4, D4s, D810 etc for good value prices. Looking at the performance difference having this group in mind, it really makes little sense to buy this lens given the price of the old 200-400 f4 vrii. The Z series and for that matter all the FF Mirrorless systems have become exceptionally expensive. I look at the current lenses on offer from Sony and Canon for the ML systems and we have 200-600 f6.3 or Canon 100-500 f7.1 lenses plastic build 40 % more expensive than the Tamron, Sigma 150-600 lenses. For the FF systems, buyers are paying very high prices. I still have some of my Nikon DSLR gear with 300 f2.8, But have bought a Fuji XT4 with 100-400 to test as a wildlife system and find it perfectly suited. It will not fit the needs of all the nature and wildlife photographers as the M43 systems but these systems are now becoming more popular at a big discount. The upside is that we are all spoiled for choice, our budgets might not all justify the top end gear, but our enthusiasm and passion for wildlife and nature remains and with that, the options are unlimited.
If only nikon was able to develop this lens in a version for the Z system. I wonder if it would push some photographers to the Z system.
FTZ II and Z9 offer even better performance than on F-mount. People have proven the new Z9 and adapted AF-S lenses via FTZ focuses ever so slightly faster than they did on DSLR’s! Why would Nikon make a Z-mount version? This lens is only a few years old and has modern technology such as electromagnetic aperture and ability to allow firmware updates. Plus super-telephoto lenses do not really have any benefit on mirrorless or with the shorter flange distances on mirrorless. These mirrorless mount advantages are mostly seen on the wide to normal viewing angle. Nikon could easily pull a Canon and glue an FTZ to the rear end and call it a new lens, but I highly doubt they would ever stoop so low.
An equivalent Z lens incorporating a PF and or SR element could be made lighter. It could also benefit from a better and quieter VR system. Nikon seems content with their z 400 f2.8 TC and Z 600 f4 TC. Both awesome lenses but still can’t zoom.
Every time I try to read this a Microsoft ad puts a brown border around the artical chopping off the begining and end of every line making the artical unreadable.
Yup. Been kind of giving up on this site and going elsewhere because of all the junk advertising that is now showing up. Very annoying.
Steve, we had some issues in the past with malicious advertising, but we reported them and they should not be showing up. If you see any issues with ads, please let me know and I will take care of them.
Unfortunately, ads are the only way to support this site. We don’t have any other options, and the number of people who actually support the site by becoming a member or by donating monthly wouldn’t be enough to even pay for the hosting costs…
Superb review Nasim!! But too late (not really) already on budget and bought the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 500mm f/5.6E for my D850 & Z7. Would have loved to have the flexibility of the 180-400 and enhanced aperture but not at the price of selling my house, ha. Lawson’s photographs were oustanding!!
Ralph, I’ve just started shooting with the 500mm PF and I’m loving it. The portability is phenomenal. I have to keep reminding myself it’s really a 500mm lens.
Well done Nasim and very informative. Thank you for the MTFs.
Any chance of getting a look at the other new 112mm pro lens the 120-300mm f2.8?
I used to own 180-400 f/4E.
On my copy bare lens is great. With internal TC engaged, I see a huge loss in contrast (not so much sharpness).
I tried using external TC-14EIII with internal TC turned off, and got much better results! Slightly sharper and with much better contrast too.
I got the lens for internal TC, and seeing ext TC performs better I eventually sold the lens.
Does your sample behave like that? I heard there are variations with this lens. Some people are saying internal TC is little sharper…
Mark, I concur regarding the internal TC. I see a significant drop in contrast, more so than sharpness. Lighting conditions seem to have a large impact on results. In contrasty light the TC gives good (even great) results. In low contrast light it can be challenging. Without the TC it’s pretty stunning no matter what light you’re shooting in.
As always greatly informative and well written review Nasim. Not that I read this one with any form of hope to be able to buy this anytime soon in my life but dreams are at least still free and pictures on PL are always welcome escape from gray and VERY short days here in Stockholm this time of year so thanks for that.