From the comments here, the question that remains is which lens performs best at 300mm+ equivalent, handheld, on a DX body, in most conditions. I’m glad the article mentioned the P1000, imagine that with Expeed7 and a few more mp’s for cropping.
With a focus on value, weight, size, and how they perform without VR (70-300) or IBIS (DX bodies.) Then adding the 50-250DXVR to the mix. I also already own the 70-180f2.8, 1.4TCz, and 24-120F4S. I really liked going from the 70-300E-VR lens to the 50-250DXVR. Even though the f-mounts generally have nicer bokeh (IMO.)
Elle
November 16, 2024 1:33 pm
I bought this lens recently in large part because of this review and took in a trip to Washington DC/Virginia to photograph some NA birds. On previous trips I only took binoculars and left my camera at home, mostly because of weight. I have to say this has been a complete game changer for me! I used to have a D500, but have switched to a Nikon zfc, mostly for the weight. I can’t believe how much focal lens I can get for so little weight! It’s not my favourite lens in terms of the images it produces, but I actually take this one on trips so a compromised image is much better than no image!
It’s made me re fall in love with digital photography, I had switched almost entirely to film, but now I’m back. (And side note, having exposure preview in the viewfinder is also amazing for photographing birds against the sky, especially when they’re in trees)
Thanks a lot for the incredibly comprehensive review!
Rob Featonby
October 12, 2024 5:22 pm
I have the z24-200 which interestingly in your comparisons was very evenly matched with more highly regarded lenses . I also have the z trinity and 500pf to compare to . The z24-200 is pretty close to the z70-200 in the centre but loses out at the edges . It is slower aperture . It is cheaper and lighter than the pro lenses though . . The new z lens are excellent and all of them are more than adequate for social media , your size of 16×24 “ for printing is probably bigger than 90% of users will print . At 8×12 they will all look good even cropped . For travel the 24-200 and now this 28-400 are such good choices . Especially paired with a 14-30 . Too many people get caught up on specs and gear snobbery rather than if a tool is adequate for the task . If photography is not the main or only focus for travel these versatile zooms are ideal . They are also very good for casual users . My 14-30 and 24-200 stay in my car in an z 7 all the time for shooting on the go in daily life . It wasn’t long ago that the f mount 24-120 was the kit lens supplied on a d850 and people were happy . That lens would struggle against the basic offerings now that people look down their noses at .
Raymond MEISTER
July 9, 2024 8:10 am
I currently own the Z8 + Z24-120 S. I am very happy about it. I would like to complete my equipment with a zoom TV. I like the Z100-400 S very much. I tried it and I get the quality of my 24-120. It would also be an excellent complement. My hesitation comes from the weight and the clutter especially for travel. I’m afraid I won’t take it often. I do reportage photography, landscape photography and sometimes animal photography and a bit of sport. I recently tried the new Z28-400. It is practical and versatile but does not have the quality of 24-120 and 100-400. Especially from 165 where it opens only at f8. In addition it is a bit redundant with my 24-120, which can become in DX a 36-180. I am rather an amateur photographer a little experienced. Thanks for your advice.
One option that splits the two would be to get the Tamron 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3. Although it doesn’t reach 400mm, it reaches 300mm with good image quality, and that’s enough for a lot of photographers. It’s also relatively lightweight, much smaller than the 100-400mm.
But those really are the three options at the moment for what you’re after. The 28-400mm, the 100-400mm, and the Tamron.
Merci Spencer pour votre avis pertinent. Je prendrai la décision après réflexion en fonction de l’usage que je compte en faire. Soit privilégier la portabilité et la commodité de ne pas changer d’objectif au cours de la journée si la luminosité le permet en particulier pour les voyages ou alors privilégier une utilisation plus qualitative et ciblée : paysage, animalier , sport entre autres, et accepter le surplus de poids et d’encombrement. Et utiliser mon 24-120 au quotidien. Cela me motiverait aussi de progresser en photographie. Dans ce cas mon choix se portera sur le Z100-400 qui est unanimement reconnu pour sa qualité. J’attends la prochaine promotion de Nikon pour cet achat. Je vous tiendrai au courant le moment venu. Raymond
CVancouver
June 27, 2024 4:41 pm
I recently returned from Africa. I used my Nikon AF 70-300MM lens on my Nikon Z50. It worked great for the most part, but missed a few shots while manually focussing. I’ve been looking for zoom lens and this seems like the perfect lens, as I don’t always have the space to carry more than a standard and zoom lens.
Still struggle after buying the lens based on the first posted review of this site, with my z9. I do not have other full frame sold my z7. Trying on my zfc is hard as the 400mm is hard to focus and the viewfinder you do not know whether you are in focus. Hence the struggle to bring this and z9 to my upcoming trip to Malta. Plus a 360 for wild angle. Just a little heavy.
Sure, combined with the Z9, it’s definitely on the heavy side. A lot of that is the Z9’s fault, but not all of it – the 24-200mm f/4-6.3 is meaningfully lighter and smaller than this lens side-by-side.
Moira
June 16, 2024 11:23 pm
Thank you for your excellent, in depth review. I use an Z50 and see few comments in any reviews for this lens with the cropped sensor. What are your thoughts please?
If you need the very long zoom range, go for it – it’s got vibration reduction, so it would be a totally reasonable choice on DX when a 600mm focal length equivalent is needed. There isn’t a lighter Nikon Z lens that reaches so far.
That said, the 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR and the 18-140mm f/3.5-6.3 VR pair better with Nikon DX cameras in general. They’re lighter and brighter, and I would get one of those if you don’t need the 600mm equivalent focal length.
Darren
June 15, 2024 2:42 pm
Had the lens for a few weeks and have to say I like it. Light to carry and whilst its not the sharpest fully extended im still happy with the results it gets!
Below is a link to a photo of Bamburgh Castle taken 2,8 miles away in Seahouses: 1drv.ms/i/s!A…g?e=WugGc2
That’s awesome! Glad you’re enjoying it. The versatility is really unprecedented.
SSM
June 15, 2024 2:08 pm
Spencer, a great review and wonderful pictures. I used the Z 28-400mm and the Z 24-200mm side-by-side at 200mm. The Z 28-400mm was clearly sharper. It could be that my Z 24-200 mm was a bad copy. I have to mention that I was photographing paintings 25ft away. Perhaps the distance is a factor that could explain why my results were so different from yours.
Complex superzooms like these are the most liable to have sample variation. I doubt that any two samples of them will have identical results, and that doesn’t mean one copy is bad — just has different strong and weak areas. I think that’s the culprit here.
For what it’s worth, at 200mm, we’re about 30 feet away from the test chart.
Filip
June 15, 2024 7:46 am
I’ve seen this sentence “Although the lens does have vibration reduction, just like all of Nikon’s Z-series lenses” and I got stuck. My 24-70 or 14-24 don’t have VR so you couldn’t have meant VR in lens, and APS-C Nikon Z cameras have no IBIS, so you couldn’t have meant vibration reduction in combination with body wither. Unless you meant with full frame body. What did I miss?
From the comments here, the question that remains is which lens performs best at 300mm+ equivalent, handheld, on a DX body, in most conditions. I’m glad the article mentioned the P1000, imagine that with Expeed7 and a few more mp’s for cropping.
With a focus on value, weight, size, and how they perform without VR (70-300) or IBIS (DX bodies.) Then adding the 50-250DXVR to the mix. I also already own the 70-180f2.8, 1.4TCz, and 24-120F4S. I really liked going from the 70-300E-VR lens to the 50-250DXVR. Even though the f-mounts generally have nicer bokeh (IMO.)
I bought this lens recently in large part because of this review and took in a trip to Washington DC/Virginia to photograph some NA birds. On previous trips I only took binoculars and left my camera at home, mostly because of weight. I have to say this has been a complete game changer for me! I used to have a D500, but have switched to a Nikon zfc, mostly for the weight. I can’t believe how much focal lens I can get for so little weight!
It’s not my favourite lens in terms of the images it produces, but I actually take this one on trips so a compromised image is much better than no image!
It’s made me re fall in love with digital photography, I had switched almost entirely to film, but now I’m back. (And side note, having exposure preview in the viewfinder is also amazing for photographing birds against the sky, especially when they’re in trees)
Thanks a lot for the incredibly comprehensive review!
I have the z24-200 which interestingly in your comparisons was very evenly matched with more highly regarded lenses . I also have the z trinity and 500pf to compare to . The z24-200 is pretty close to the z70-200 in the centre but loses out at the edges . It is slower aperture . It is cheaper and lighter than the pro lenses though . . The new z lens are excellent and all of them are more than adequate for social media , your size of 16×24 “ for printing is probably bigger than 90% of users will print . At 8×12 they will all look good even cropped . For travel the 24-200 and now this 28-400 are such good choices . Especially paired with a 14-30 . Too many people get caught up on specs and gear snobbery rather than if a tool is adequate for the task . If photography is not the main or only focus for travel these versatile zooms are ideal . They are also very good for casual users . My 14-30 and 24-200 stay in my car in an z 7 all the time for shooting on the go in daily life .
It wasn’t long ago that the f mount 24-120 was the kit lens supplied on a d850 and people were happy . That lens would struggle against the basic offerings now that people look down their noses at .
I currently own the Z8 + Z24-120 S. I am very happy about it. I would like to complete my equipment with a zoom TV. I like the Z100-400 S very much. I tried it and I get the quality of my 24-120. It would also be an excellent complement. My hesitation comes from the weight and the clutter especially for travel. I’m afraid I won’t take it often. I do reportage photography, landscape photography and sometimes animal photography and a bit of sport. I recently tried the new Z28-400. It is practical and versatile but does not have the quality of 24-120 and 100-400. Especially from 165 where it opens only at f8. In addition it is a bit redundant with my 24-120, which can become in DX a 36-180. I am rather an amateur photographer a little experienced.
Thanks for your advice.
One option that splits the two would be to get the Tamron 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3. Although it doesn’t reach 400mm, it reaches 300mm with good image quality, and that’s enough for a lot of photographers. It’s also relatively lightweight, much smaller than the 100-400mm.
But those really are the three options at the moment for what you’re after. The 28-400mm, the 100-400mm, and the Tamron.
Merci Spencer pour votre avis pertinent.
Je prendrai la décision après réflexion en fonction de l’usage que je compte en faire. Soit privilégier la portabilité et la commodité de ne pas changer d’objectif au cours de la journée si la luminosité le permet en particulier pour les voyages ou alors privilégier une utilisation plus qualitative et ciblée : paysage,
animalier , sport entre autres, et accepter le surplus de poids et d’encombrement.
Et utiliser mon 24-120 au quotidien.
Cela me motiverait aussi de progresser en photographie. Dans ce cas mon choix se portera sur le Z100-400 qui est unanimement reconnu pour sa qualité.
J’attends la prochaine promotion de Nikon pour cet achat. Je vous tiendrai au courant le moment venu.
Raymond
I recently returned from Africa. I used my Nikon AF 70-300MM lens on my Nikon Z50. It worked great for the most part, but missed a few shots while manually focussing. I’ve been looking for zoom lens and this seems like the perfect lens, as I don’t always have the space to carry more than a standard and zoom lens.
Nice, I hope you enjoy it!
Still struggle after buying the lens based on the first posted review of this site, with my z9. I do not have other full frame sold my z7. Trying on my zfc is hard as the 400mm is hard to focus and the viewfinder you do not know whether you are in focus. Hence the struggle to bring this and z9 to my upcoming trip to Malta. Plus a 360 for wild angle. Just a little heavy.
Sure, combined with the Z9, it’s definitely on the heavy side. A lot of that is the Z9’s fault, but not all of it – the 24-200mm f/4-6.3 is meaningfully lighter and smaller than this lens side-by-side.
Thank you for your excellent, in depth review. I use an Z50 and see few comments in any reviews for this lens with the cropped sensor. What are your thoughts please?
If you need the very long zoom range, go for it – it’s got vibration reduction, so it would be a totally reasonable choice on DX when a 600mm focal length equivalent is needed. There isn’t a lighter Nikon Z lens that reaches so far.
That said, the 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR and the 18-140mm f/3.5-6.3 VR pair better with Nikon DX cameras in general. They’re lighter and brighter, and I would get one of those if you don’t need the 600mm equivalent focal length.
Had the lens for a few weeks and have to say I like it. Light to carry and whilst its not the sharpest fully extended im still happy with the results it gets!
Below is a link to a photo of Bamburgh Castle taken 2,8 miles away in Seahouses:
1drv.ms/i/s!A…g?e=WugGc2
The next link is a photo of a swan I took at about 80mm:
1drv.ms/i/s!A…Q?e=8dZQ1T
That’s awesome! Glad you’re enjoying it. The versatility is really unprecedented.
Spencer, a great review and wonderful pictures. I used the Z 28-400mm and the Z 24-200mm side-by-side at 200mm. The Z 28-400mm was clearly sharper. It could be that my Z 24-200 mm was a bad copy. I have to mention that I was photographing paintings 25ft away. Perhaps the distance is a factor that could explain why my results were so different from yours.
Complex superzooms like these are the most liable to have sample variation. I doubt that any two samples of them will have identical results, and that doesn’t mean one copy is bad — just has different strong and weak areas. I think that’s the culprit here.
For what it’s worth, at 200mm, we’re about 30 feet away from the test chart.
I’ve seen this sentence “Although the lens does have vibration reduction, just like all of Nikon’s Z-series lenses” and I got stuck. My 24-70 or 14-24 don’t have VR so you couldn’t have meant VR in lens, and APS-C Nikon Z cameras have no IBIS, so you couldn’t have meant vibration reduction in combination with body wither. Unless you meant with full frame body. What did I miss?
It’s not a well-worded sentence and I did just change it, but you didn’t quote the full sentence, which was –
“Although the lens does have vibration reduction, just like all of Nikon’s Z-series lenses, there is no physical VR switch on the lens itself.”
My intention was to say that, like all of Nikon’s Z-series lenses, there is no physical VR switch on the lens.
Oh, sorry, that wasn’t intention. The full sentence does make sense.
All good!