That’s a fabulous review with valuable insights, Nasim. Thanks so much. I have a question. My passion is bird photography. At present I am using a Nikon D810 body with an AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/4E PF VR ED lens with an AF-S TC-14E III teleconverter. I am thinking of buying a bigger and better lens. Which would be a better choice for my usage – a 400mm f/2.8E FL ED VR, or a 500mm f/4G VR ( or /600mm f/4G VR). Thank You.
Burghclerebilly
October 22, 2018 3:14 pm
Now we are in 2018 and the 400/2.8 of course remains a superb lens. Every aspiring sports photographer should hire one for a day and they will realise that great imagery is within their grasp! This FL version reduced in weight from a massive 4.6kg to a merely hefty 3.8kg, which aroused desire for an updated 300/2.8 to also have fluorite front elements. As the current 300/2.8 weighs 2.9kg a fluorite version could be around 2.3kg, which Canon have demonstrated already. In fact, just recently Canon updated their 400/2.8 & 600/4 and somehow they now only weigh around 3kg too.
The 300/2.8 is the biggest seller of the prime super-teles, so surely Nikon are missing a massive amount of sales with not having updated it since 2009. Perhaps they are protecting the other models that are higher priced, since a hand-holdable 300/2.8 will be very tempting also with TCs, but I think they have to release a 300/2.8 FL soon.
david
June 13, 2018 6:48 pm
gorgeous review on nikon 400 2.8E。Could you make a review on new nikon 180-400 f4E？I am interested to buy one of them，but dont know which one to choose。
Kevin Murphy
May 8, 2018 8:00 pm
Nasim, once again your writing is intoxicating. Very well written review with terrific detail a a very good breakdown of this lens. You answered several questions before I could think to answer them. One question does come to mind. From images I saw from your Link, I don’t believe this lens to have an Arca Swiss foot? i may be wrong. I may have missed your comment from a past review, & I know you can simply buy a plate, but how do you feel about Nikon not incorporating an Arca Swiss fitting into their Lens feet? I am planning a Workshop & this is definitely the lens that fit my needs. I may have to get even more intoxicated to make the purchase:-/ Thanks.
david
March 3, 2018 7:17 pm
what about Nikon 400mm f/2.8E FL ED VR+1.4 tele vs Nikon 600mm f/4E FL ED VR
Michelle K
January 30, 2018 5:37 am
Hello Damian Great article. I am out of Boulder, so nice to read some local work. Reading the changes they made to the 400mm with FL….it seems it is more than just weight that improved. I am considering buying the 300mm (2009) version or waiting to buy the new 300mm FL when it finally comes out. I know it will cost more – maybe 25%…so I am wondering if weight is not an issue, do you think there is going to be enough reason to spend more money. Does the 300mm (2009) have same issue of front weight heavy as old 400mm? Will it be enough improved benefits to wait…and pay more. I mainly do wildlife (safaris) and looking for a better distance lens. I own the Nikons 70-200 FL 2.8 and Nikon 80-400 4-5.6….and I am looking to improve on the 80-400 distance shots…50-150 feet away. I’d buy the TC-20EIII with it. Appreciate your input.
The previous version of the 400/2.8 was a monster at 4.6kg, that was even tricky to use with a monopod. Conversely the current 3kg 300mm/2.8 has always been a nice handling lens because it is shorter so balances ok (assuming you are using a serious body). You will achieve far nicer pictures with the 300/2.8 than you thought possible, either on FX for your 50 foot shots, or with a TC 1.4 on a DX body for your 150 ft shots, if you are ok with a 3kg lens.
But, the more obvious choice for wildlife would be the 750g 300mm/4 PF or wait a few months for the new 500/5.6 PF that should weigh less than 1400g.
Robert Sommers
June 12, 2017 10:20 am
I have a pretty elementary question. I own a D810 and a D7200. I shoot landscapes with the former and try to shoot aperture priority, base iso, mirror up on my tripod wherever possible. For the last eight years or so I have been using one of two zooms on my crop sensor cameras, the Sigma 50-500mm and the Sigma 150-600mm C. The default setting for these two cameras is usually near ƒ8, 800th, iso 800, and occasionally a stop down. I shoot a lot of bif at 2000th, static objects in good light at 640 when I can. Never below that.
I just bought the Nikkor 400mm 2.8 fl and my question is this: Your illustrated images are usually around 400 to 500th of a second for this camera, with teleconverters the number naturally gets larger. I see some people shooting down to 200th or 250th of a second with the added four stops of VR and I have to ask myself not only why but wonder if I will have to relearn how to shoot with apertures near or at 2.8? Is there a purpose to shooting at these sorts of slow shutter speeds when shooting at wider apertures in normal lighting conditions?
I tend to shoot manual ss and aperture with auto iso when photographing birds.
Thank you so much for your help. You have a wonderful website.
I’ll make a guess at what Nasim’s answer may be. In sports and wildlife photography, you typically choose your settings in the following 3-steps: First, determine the minimum shutter speed acceptable to freeze your subject [be it 1/2000th for BiF or 1/250 for still subjects given the inevitable camera shake of a long telephoto]. There is no way to correct a blurry photo. Second, you typically set the aperture at the level which will allow your whole subject to be in focus, but nothing else, because background objects typically detract from the story and reduce perceived sharpness. Sometimes you may need to stop down to F4 or F5.6 to get the whole subject in focus, but very rarely is it useful to shoot sports and wildlife above the f2.8-5.6 range. Thirdly, minimise your ISO where possible because as ISOs increase, resolution, dynamic range, colour fidelity, contrast (i.e. all elements of visual acuity) fall. Although sensors have improved greatly in the last 10 years, and shooting up to ISO 12,800 is now technically possible, great looking results are most easily achieved in the <1,600 ISO area. Many sports and wildlife photographers will deliberately underexpose the picture by up to a stop to maintain a low ISO a preserve the original image quality. Some commentators suggest you should always Expose to the Right (ETTR) as that is best for noise control, but they ignore colour fidelity and contrast, and assume complex post-processing will be applied, which is often not the case in professional sports and wildlife work. You can note in the article that the majority of shots are in the 100-640 ISO range. Finally, note that the AF systems work better when continuous shooting at wide apertures, as all points operate fine at F2.8 and not so well at F8.
The ability to use fast shutter speeds, whilst maintaining low ISOs and giving good subject separation, is what F2.8 lenses are designed for; it would be a serious waste to use your 400/2.8 at F8!
Sanjeev
February 13, 2016 11:15 am
Hi Nasim, I think this is the 10th or the 11th time I am reading this review. I don’t think I would need to thank and congratulate you more for this stunning review – more particularly because I found very few reviewers talking about the Teleconverters on this (and beyond) lens.
So, my question for you (since I am planning to get this lens).
Should I opt for a 1.4 TC iii mounted on a D750 or mount this lens on a D7200 ? Would that full frame sensor on D750 provide better IQ when coupled with 1.4TC iii or should I pair the lens with D7200 (And alternate the lens between D7200 & D750 bodies, when the need arises)
Matt
August 5, 2015 7:03 pm
If I’m not mistaken, your graph representing sharpness for the 200-400 f/4 is different from the 200-400 f/4 sharpness in the 80-400mm vs. 200-400mm comparison test. Did you update the sharpness graph for the 200-400 f/4 VR?
Hi Nasim, Great Review of Nikon’s 400mm lens!!!! With the New 500 mm coming out also, would you expect the same logic when you compared the 400mm/500mm with TC’s? MTF for New 500mm Is the sharpest lens of the 3 new super tele! Thanks again, Bob
That’s a fabulous review with valuable insights, Nasim. Thanks so much.
I have a question. My passion is bird photography. At present I am using a Nikon D810 body with an AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/4E PF VR ED lens with an AF-S TC-14E III teleconverter. I am thinking of buying a bigger and better lens. Which would be a better choice for my usage – a 400mm f/2.8E FL ED VR, or a 500mm f/4G VR ( or /600mm f/4G VR).
Thank You.
Now we are in 2018 and the 400/2.8 of course remains a superb lens. Every aspiring sports photographer should hire one for a day and they will realise that great imagery is within their grasp! This FL version reduced in weight from a massive 4.6kg to a merely hefty 3.8kg, which aroused desire for an updated 300/2.8 to also have fluorite front elements. As the current 300/2.8 weighs 2.9kg a fluorite version could be around 2.3kg, which Canon have demonstrated already. In fact, just recently Canon updated their 400/2.8 & 600/4 and somehow they now only weigh around 3kg too.
The 300/2.8 is the biggest seller of the prime super-teles, so surely Nikon are missing a massive amount of sales with not having updated it since 2009. Perhaps they are protecting the other models that are higher priced, since a hand-holdable 300/2.8 will be very tempting also with TCs, but I think they have to release a 300/2.8 FL soon.
gorgeous review on nikon 400 2.8E。Could you make a review on new nikon 180-400 f4E？I am interested to buy one of them，but dont know which one to choose。
Nasim, once again your writing is intoxicating. Very well written review with terrific detail a a very good breakdown of this lens. You answered several questions before I could think to answer them. One question does come to mind. From images I saw from your Link, I don’t believe this lens to have an Arca Swiss foot? i may be wrong. I may have missed your comment from a past review, & I know you can simply buy a plate, but how do you feel about Nikon not incorporating an Arca Swiss fitting into their Lens feet?
I am planning a Workshop & this is definitely the lens that fit my needs. I may have to get even more intoxicated to make the purchase:-/
Thanks.
what about Nikon 400mm f/2.8E FL ED VR+1.4 tele vs Nikon 600mm f/4E FL ED VR
Hello Damian
Great article. I am out of Boulder, so nice to read some local work. Reading the changes they made to the 400mm with FL….it seems it is more than just weight that improved. I am considering buying the 300mm (2009) version or waiting to buy the new 300mm FL when it finally comes out. I know it will cost more – maybe 25%…so I am wondering if weight is not an issue, do you think there is going to be enough reason to spend more money. Does the 300mm (2009) have same issue of front weight heavy as old 400mm? Will it be enough improved benefits to wait…and pay more. I mainly do wildlife (safaris) and looking for a better distance lens. I own the Nikons 70-200 FL 2.8 and Nikon 80-400 4-5.6….and I am looking to improve on the 80-400 distance shots…50-150 feet away. I’d buy the TC-20EIII with it. Appreciate your input.
Michelle,
The previous version of the 400/2.8 was a monster at 4.6kg, that was even tricky to use with a monopod. Conversely the current 3kg 300mm/2.8 has always been a nice handling lens because it is shorter so balances ok (assuming you are using a serious body). You will achieve far nicer pictures with the 300/2.8 than you thought possible, either on FX for your 50 foot shots, or with a TC 1.4 on a DX body for your 150 ft shots, if you are ok with a 3kg lens.
But, the more obvious choice for wildlife would be the 750g 300mm/4 PF or wait a few months for the new 500/5.6 PF that should weigh less than 1400g.
I have a pretty elementary question. I own a D810 and a D7200. I shoot landscapes with the former and try to shoot aperture priority, base iso, mirror up on my tripod wherever possible. For the last eight years or so I have been using one of two zooms on my crop sensor cameras, the Sigma 50-500mm and the Sigma 150-600mm C. The default setting for these two cameras is usually near ƒ8, 800th, iso 800, and occasionally a stop down. I shoot a lot of bif at 2000th, static objects in good light at 640 when I can. Never below that.
I just bought the Nikkor 400mm 2.8 fl and my question is this: Your illustrated images are usually around 400 to 500th of a second for this camera, with teleconverters the number naturally gets larger. I see some people shooting down to 200th or 250th of a second with the added four stops of VR and I have to ask myself not only why but wonder if I will have to relearn how to shoot with apertures near or at 2.8? Is there a purpose to shooting at these sorts of slow shutter speeds when shooting at wider apertures in normal lighting conditions?
I tend to shoot manual ss and aperture with auto iso when photographing birds.
Thank you so much for your help. You have a wonderful website.
Robert,
I’ll make a guess at what Nasim’s answer may be. In sports and wildlife photography, you typically choose your settings in the following 3-steps: First, determine the minimum shutter speed acceptable to freeze your subject [be it 1/2000th for BiF or 1/250 for still subjects given the inevitable camera shake of a long telephoto]. There is no way to correct a blurry photo. Second, you typically set the aperture at the level which will allow your whole subject to be in focus, but nothing else, because background objects typically detract from the story and reduce perceived sharpness. Sometimes you may need to stop down to F4 or F5.6 to get the whole subject in focus, but very rarely is it useful to shoot sports and wildlife above the f2.8-5.6 range. Thirdly, minimise your ISO where possible because as ISOs increase, resolution, dynamic range, colour fidelity, contrast (i.e. all elements of visual acuity) fall. Although sensors have improved greatly in the last 10 years, and shooting up to ISO 12,800 is now technically possible, great looking results are most easily achieved in the <1,600 ISO area. Many sports and wildlife photographers will deliberately underexpose the picture by up to a stop to maintain a low ISO a preserve the original image quality. Some commentators suggest you should always Expose to the Right (ETTR) as that is best for noise control, but they ignore colour fidelity and contrast, and assume complex post-processing will be applied, which is often not the case in professional sports and wildlife work. You can note in the article that the majority of shots are in the 100-640 ISO range. Finally, note that the AF systems work better when continuous shooting at wide apertures, as all points operate fine at F2.8 and not so well at F8.
The ability to use fast shutter speeds, whilst maintaining low ISOs and giving good subject separation, is what F2.8 lenses are designed for; it would be a serious waste to use your 400/2.8 at F8!
Hi Nasim,
I think this is the 10th or the 11th time I am reading this review. I don’t think I would need to thank and congratulate you more for this stunning review – more particularly because I found very few reviewers talking about the Teleconverters on this (and beyond) lens.
So, my question for you (since I am planning to get this lens).
Should I opt for a 1.4 TC iii mounted on a D750 or mount this lens on a D7200 ? Would that full frame sensor on D750 provide better IQ when coupled with 1.4TC iii or should I pair the lens with D7200 (And alternate the lens between D7200 & D750 bodies, when the need arises)
If I’m not mistaken, your graph representing sharpness for the 200-400 f/4 is different from the 200-400 f/4 sharpness in the 80-400mm vs. 200-400mm comparison test. Did you update the sharpness graph for the 200-400 f/4 VR?
photographylife.com/revie…400mm-vr/5
thanks,
Matt
Hi Nasim,
Great Review of Nikon’s 400mm lens!!!! With the New 500 mm coming out also, would you expect the same logic when you compared
the 400mm/500mm with TC’s? MTF for New 500mm Is the sharpest lens of the 3 new super tele!
Thanks again,
Bob