It’s impossible that 428 with internal 1.4x TC is LESS SHARP than with external 1.4x . I think you guys made a mistake. Did you put them reversed?
Alan
June 10, 2024 7:07 am
Dobrý den! I have a quick, very specific gear question that is unfortunately a bit rushed. Some of the photography I enjoy most is getting up early to capture birds wherever I go with the family on vacation. I am heading to Costa Rica with the family in two days and, having had a good experience with a well used Nikon 200-500mm (though not the best at the long end or in low light) recently took delivery of a new 180-600 z lens. However, I have been saving for some faster glass and noticed that a used 180-400mm w/built in TC selling for a third of the original price. I live in NYC and could head to the main photo retailer to exchange, but I don’t know anyone who has had personal experience with this lens. It was not included in your review of the 400mm 2.8 z or your recent article about used F mount glass and I would greatly appreciate your thoughts on the matter . For reference, I am shooting on a Z9 and D500 (less so, but I love it) and focus speed (with FTZ) is more of a concern than weight. Thank you very much for all your in-depth articles on the work you do and the beautiful images you share, and I greatly appreciate your advice on this matter
Cedric
April 19, 2024 3:59 am
Owner of a 400 E FL and 800 PF; and sometimes thinking about upgrading to the Z TC version to replace both. Just a word on sharpness comparisons. I find my 400 still incredible still with the 2x, even zooming to 400% it is virtually the same as my 800 PF (which I would give a 9/10 in terms of sharpness), both wide open and on a very strictly controlled test. In fact if I had to decide which one is better I would say the 400 E FL @800mm. I am very suprised that the 400 E FL gets so “bad” with the 2x in these measurements here. So sample variation is still a thing I guess.
Give me a 400 F4 Z TC under 2Kg and I’m forever happy with it.
Yes regarding sample variation, but not just of the lens, mainly of the TC. If you have a 2x TC that makes your 400mm E FL as sharp as the 800mm f/6.3, definitely hold onto it!
Cedric, like you, I have the 400 f2.8E FL VR and use all three TC’s with it. On the D810/D850/D500 it was a stellar performer with all the TC’s but on the Z8 and Z9 it is even better as there are no AF fine tune issues to contend with nor any other possible AF issues. I have found that on the Z8/Z9 the sharpness a step up especially with the TC’s.
The resolution figures shown for the 400 f2.8E FL VR are from what appears to be the DSLR days and not from testing on the current Z cameras. I am wondering if there is an advantage to have them re-tested using a Z camera to rule out possible AF anomalies especially when the TC’s are used.
I have also brilliant results using the 2x TCIII on the 400 f2.8E FL VR and the only reason I use my Z 800 P6.3 PF in preference is due to weight!
TPJ Verhoeven Photography
April 18, 2024 3:40 pm
I didn’t buy or rent it but I did try it out on the Photo Days Expo in Brussels last Autumn. And yes that TC is nice.
Then again. At this moment I use and own the 120-300/2.8E, the 180-400/4E TC1.4 and the 600/6.3. I have to say that all of those are pretty on par for sports and wildlife. Also the 100-400/4.5-5.6S is a good one that I do use for sports occasionally.
I’d say that my 180-400/4E comes closest to this new beast. In terms of almost everything (price, weight, built-in TC obviously, build and image quality…), except: aperture…
Would without a doubt love to own and shot with the 400/2.8S TC tho haha.
John
April 18, 2024 7:18 am
Very interesting review!!! I really hope Nikon is planning a 300mm f/2.8 (,or even faster!) lens. That should be even lighter than this relatively lightweight 400/2.8.
I haven’t heard about the new Z-mount version of the 300/2.8 yet. The question is whether Nikon will go the Canon route and do a fast zoom with 300mm and f/2.8 on the end or go the Sony route and do a super light 300/2.8. Both sound interesting.
I think you’ll see a 120-300mm f/2.8 S 1.4x TC. It wouldn’t be too hard to change the current and pretty recent 120-300mm into a Z-mount option. Whether or not they include a built in TC or not is the question. If they can make it fit and make it fit on the Z-mount without too much re-engineering…they’ll do that. Although we may not see any 300mm f/2.8 option for a awhile. The 120-300mm already is an incredible lens, it’s extremely sharp and well built, and it’s got all of the latest optical tech/goodness. Even the rare SR element and special coating ARNEO? If they were able to reduce the weight a little and or add a built in TC…I could see a 120 or 100-300mm f/2.8 S lens. I just can’t see one being produced or even announced anytime soon. If anything Nikon would probably most benefit right now by redoing the 500mm f/4 and adding a built in TC. They could reduce the weight to possibly 6.2lbs or so, while adding a built in 1.4x TC.
Plus I’ve owned and or used all of the Nikon super-tele lenses. I personally own the 500mm f/4E FL and 180-400mm FL. I’ve also owned the 400mm f/2.8 FL and 800mm f/5.6E FL. So definitely the very best lenses image quality wise. Until recently I’d rate them from sharpest to still amazingly sharp starting with #1. Nikon 800mm f/5.6E #2. Nikon 500mm f/4E FL #3. 400mm f/2.8E tied with the 400mm f/2.8G VR. #5. 180-400FL or 120-300FL. However the new 600mm f/4 S 1.4x TC is now in 2nd. place and really pretty much tied with the 800mm FL. They’re both just a tad sharper than the others.
What I would personally love to see is a 200mm-500mm f/4 or f/4.5! That along with a built in teleconverter would be a dream come true. It would obviously weigh more than the 180-400mm or at least close to it. It would be a large lens and complex optical formula, but boy would be perfect for my uses. Canon is rumored to be testing or developing such a lens. They’re also supposedly creating a two or three in one option TC adapter. With a 1.4x TC and 2x TC, along with no TC, so 1x as well. Or bare lens without deployment of the two TC’s. That would honestly also be a game changer in my opinion and especially if it works well and is high quality optically. For now though I’m happy with my current gear and the only reason I’m not buying a 600mm f/4 S is due to the fact that it won’t fit on my D6’s! The D6 is my favorite camera of all time, and I prefer it to the Z9. So I’m happy with my equipment and I’m somewhat disappointed to see the slight quality losses.
For instance I too have seen or heard from friends and colleagues their new 400mm f/2.8S and 600mm f/4 S have bad/loose tripod knobs/collars. The collar rotates when locked down, if you twist it hard enough. The overall feel of them also feels just a tad less well built than the previous generation FL super-tele’s. These are very slight differences and honestly all of them are very well built.
However I also felt the Z9 was more of a cross between a D850/D6 and Z7 rolled into one. The build quality just ever so slightly not as good as the D6. Plus the Z9 lacks the port for the WT-6A wireless adapter that’s been on all flagships since 2012 with the Nikon D4! Myself and other newspaper/photojournalists use these daily and I’ve used my WT-5 and WT-6’a for over 10 years and never once had a failure to work. They have a 650ft range and are extremely useful for transferring files to editors or whatever. The built in wireless in the D6, Z9 and Z8 is nowhere near as good, reliable and the range stinks. Although Nikon has shown they can and have made some high quality cameras in Thailand, I’d still say the gear made in Japan is a little better.
For instance the Z-mount 100-400mm feels very well built, even slightly better than the 70-200mm or others made in Thailand. The 800pf, shows Nikon can make an amazing product and a high quality one in China as well. However one quick comparison to say a 500mm f/4E FL or similar previous super-tele and you’ll quickly feel and see differences. It’s just not made as well and the glass is not as high quality, nor is the manufacturing or parts. However for the costs savings, getting an 800mm f/6.3 for $5999 is incredible.
The only issue is the used values now in mint condition FL super-telex’s make me wonder why more people are not buying those. You can get a 400mm f/2.8 FL, 500mm FL and even the 600mm f/4E FL and 800mm f5.6E FL for around $5500 USD. Or even less in some cases. So we’re all super lucky or blessed to have so many great options. I love Nikon and I’ll happily use my D6’s for now and someday maybe I’ll get the next flagship. Which I hope is soon, maybe Z9H with 24mp-30mp at 120fps RAW. A port for the wireless adaptors I and other photojournalists use daily and maybe made in Japan. I’d happily pay $6000-$6500 for a slightly better build and options that would solve issues for people like myself.
Carl Milliken
March 3, 2024 3:49 pm
I am looking forward with some trepidation to your lens review for the Nikon 400mm f2.8 TC. I am hoping that it is not as much sharper than the 400mm f2.8 E as the 400mmf2.8 E is over the 400mmf2.8 G. The hit for trading the E to acquire the S is substantial.
It’s a little sharper but not enough to warrant spending the extra money on trading in if you already have the 400mm f/2.8E. Both are so good that they will not be the weak link in any photo’s sharpness.
I would say that all 400/2.8 are great lenses. The AF-I (6.3kg), the G VR (4.6kg), the E FL (3.8kg): great IQ, with strong weight savings in the series. Without the testing charts, in my own experience with the above mentioned 400s, it might be hard to distinguish them from the pictures taken, or IQ-wise.
The E FL lenses (400-500-600-800mm) not only shaved 800g/1200g, but started to re-balance the lens, with a significant inertia moment reduction: this changes the handling considerably. The 600mm E FL is much much more friendly in the field than the G version, and even the 800E is much easier to maneuver than the 400G.
Note that, actually, there are no low-light oriented Z bodies [buzz, buzz! where is the Z1/Zh/Z9h???]: while you can always mount the previous F-lenses (from AF-I to the E FL) to either Z9+ftz or D5/D6, you unfortunately CAN NOT mount native Z lenses to any DSLR.
If I were you, I’ll keep strongly your E FL lenses, and search for an FTZ2 to pair with Zs in good light and a D5/D6 for low-light needs, if you have them. With this suggestion, I convinced an American guy not to downgrade his 400E FL in selling it to me for low money: he bought the FTZ2 for his Z8 and was very happy.
The 400/2.8 G was a great lens, but it really required strong muscles and endurance. The results, however, were worth it. Compared to the previous series, the latest F-mount exotics are much lighter, better balanced and even a bit sharper (especially with teleconverters). Handheld photography is no longer a theoretical possibility for Herculean strength endowed individuals, but a common reality. I also recently couldn’t resist and got a pre-owned 500/f FL. Along with that, I had my D500 cleaned, so I also brought my backup body out of retirement. It came in very handy last week. It would certainly make a great pair with the D6, but the Z9 doesn’t do badly at high ISO either. I wonder if someone will find the courage to make a camera with a relatively low resolution sensor and owl ISO genes. I honestly don’t think so.
I was first reluctant to acquire E FL lenses against Gs, due to the electronic diaphragm not controlled by my film bodies. But they are great lenses in the field on DSLRs and Zs via FTZ, especially if you need to walk/move with them, thanks to the new inertia-related design. G-lenses can still work on my beloved F5, E-s not, except at fixed diaphragm with error messages. I like to keep bridges with eras.
About the Z9/Z8 at high ISO I had very bad experience, as all the 45MP cameras. It depends which is your high ISO ceiling: 6.4k? 12.8k? or something more relevant to speak about high-ISO: 32k? 81k? 102k? 204k? 409600? In the same extreme conditions of 409k, I tested the Z8/Z9 (2 stops underexposed at 102k max ISO) and the D5/D6 (easy Hi2 for them) against a fresco in a shadowed church, same 600mm f/8 lens and settings. The Z8/Z9 had issues starting from grabbing the right focusing, the file was simply trash, washed out colour, no sure focus, totally unusable, also with magic software. Instead, D6/D5 focused correctly and gave usable files, with the D6 ahead of the D5 for slightly better focusing and color retention in the file (even working on raw D5 files, I was not able to match the richness of D6’s ones). I did that extreme testing because usually in my urbanised area shy animals (roe deer, wild boars, wolfs) come out at sunset and stay far far away, and I have to use easily ISO 32k-102k and put down high-MP bodies. Once I shot running wild boars I was not able to distinguish by naked eyes, but my D5+1000/6.7 achieved surprisingly usable files (not perfect, but satisfactory): ISO were at 228’800, where no 45MP can even dream of. I need to trust my tools, therefore I gave up with Z8/Z9 for low light, they can work nicely in good light, but not of great usages for me up to now, when a D810/D850 is sufficient to me.
Therefore, even if for a niche usage, a Z1/Zh/Z9h with sure/usable Hi3=409k ISO might really be welcomed, just as a totally silent D5/D6. Indeed, R3 goes up to 204k, but can not drive brilliantly AF-S F-mount lenses… Bring in also high fps footage (e.g. 2K/960fps, 4K/240fps, 6K/120fps) and it would be perfect for speed needs.
Nikon gave us nice low light tools like the D# series, aka D3s-D4s-D5-D6: why stop it now? Until a D5/D6 real exceeding successor comes in Z, I prefer to totally stay F-mount based :-)
Everyone including the staff here forgot about the 500mm f/4E VR FL! You’re talking about weight savings and the 600FL, and all the 400mm f/2.8’s! Yet the IQ wasn’t really up there with modern lenses sharpness wise, especially at distance until the FL’s! The 500FL is what I sold my like new 6 month old 400FL for, for the weight savings. The 600FL is more well balanced but it’s not hand-holdable. The 400FL is but it’s not really. It’ll just cause back problems, ask me how I know! I’m a run and gun photojournalist.
I shoot wildfires and shootings/murders and everything else. From events to Graduations, MLB games, etc.! I’ve tried handholding the 400FL and 180-400FL. It’s doable but at the cost of a bad lower back for years-life! The 600FL is a decently sharp, great lens at 600mm in the right conditions. Yet add distance and atmosphere or god sakes a TC, it loses 20-30% of sharpness and contrast. While the 400FL and 500FL loose only 3-5% sharpness and AF, and contrast. The 500FL has the best image quality and MTF chart than all the lenses you mentioned and the new 400mm f/2.8 S 1.4x TC. You can look them up and see. The only lens that’s even close to the perfect MTF/WTF… is the 800mm f/5.6E FL.
So the 600mm f/4’s were always a step behind the 400mm f/2.8G/FL/AF-S II, etc.! It’s just easiest to make a great 400mm lens optical design speaking. The 500FL is just as sharp as the $16,000 USD new 600mm and it won’t work on my D6’s! So I sold my Z9 and Z7 and only shoot DSLR gear and I’m happy. Yet I’m also shocked, I’ve never seen another person with a 500FL, and I work in a major city for a major news/wire service. So I shoot a lot with colleagues and at air shows or events with other photographers. Which makes me shocked.
The 500FL is so hand holdable at 6.68 pounds or whatever it is, it’s so well balanced it feels only ever so slightly better built than the 800pf. It’s that’s well balanced and long/narrow compared to the 600FL or 800FL. It has incredible sharpness, even better than the 400FL or new 400mm TC! So thankfully I don’t need or want either the 400 or 600mm S 1.4x TC’s. If they were attainable and I could use my D6, I might trade some things for that TC alone. Sure I want a built in TC, but not at the cost of using a Z9. The D6 has the best AF system I’ve ever used including the Z9 in the right experienced hands. I don’t miss with it and if I do it’s not enough shutter speed or I messed up a setting. It’s 99% accurate when used by the right people! With the pro-grade lenses like the 24-70mm f/2.8E VR, 70-200FL and FL super-teles. So I’m a planning on using and loving my DSLR gear until I can’t any longer.
Lastly the EVF sucks on a flagship Z9 and call me old-school but I don’t want to stare at a magnified crappy TV screen for all day. Changing batteries every 4/5 hours. While my D6’s have better High ISO, better build, a WT-6 wireless adapter that has 100% reliable transfer at up to 650ft range. In the 10-12 years I’ve used ShutterSnitch and WT-5/WT-6’s since the D4/D4s, they’ve never failed to connect or send a file(s) once! There is unfortunately NO port of a flagship Z9 for it? So the wireless range is maybe 15ft if you’re unlucky and up to 25ft if you are. It’s no where near as reliable or easy to setup either. It’s so frustrating that I sold my Z9 mostly over that alone! Thankfully I have a like brand new second camera D6 and it’ll last me a good 5-10 years until EVF’s and other aspects are improved.
It depends. I had 600/4e FL in the past I I find handholding it with D6 was a struggle and I can only do it for a short time and I was not very successful with tracking fast moving birds with the set up. D850 and 500/4e FL was much easier. I find 3kg for lens is just about the limit that I can handhold comfortably for reasonable amount of time and had much easier time tracking faster objects. 400/2.8S and Z9 came at the right weight for me. Throw in built in TC is another major plus. Last year I was in Botswana and I could use Z9 with 400/2.8S all during game drive wihtout needing bean bag or other method of support. Not something I can do comfortably with 3.7-3.8 kg lens. I was rather surprise that the weight difference was really quite significant in practice. Also may be because 400/2.8S is also better balance than the 600/4e FL as well. I imagine all my complain about 600/4e FL would apply to 400/2.8e FL.
Steve
February 19, 2024 5:36 pm
Hi I’m wondering if or why the lens needs to be refocused after engaging the teleconverter? Tonight, with the camera on a tripod I was focusing at 400 then switching to 560 thinking the shots would still be in focus but they are not? Any input is appreciated.
Full review of the 400mm f/2.8 is now out! And our sharpness tests of the 600mm f/4 are already on the Photography Life Member Page on Patreon, although it will be another month or so until the full review is published.
Marc Mol
December 20, 2022 4:51 pm
I was very relieved to have my Z400TC delivered after a long 9 mth wait just before my recent trip to the Serengeti, really love the versatility of the TC and the weight reduction over my now sold 400E FL, coupled with my Z9, the files are stunning! However what I did not like (right out of the box) was the tripod locking nut will not cinch down sufficiently to stop the collar from rotating, rendering it useless to use on a tripod. I was aware of the issue prior, and sadly my copy has also been affected. It’s now going back to Nikon Australia for immediate repair and “should” have it back in time before my return Serengeti trip in early FEB. Really poor QC from such an expensive lens made in Japan.
I paid over CAD20,000 for this lens. I received it two weeks ago, just to find out the locking nut of the lens collar cannot be tightened 100%. The whole setup was rotating when I was following a subject using a tripod. I switched to Nikon when the Z9 came out. ALWAYS check the knob before you pay for the lens. None of my much cheaper lenses have this problem. This is the most expensive piece of photographic equipment I paid in my entire life. What a disappointment !
Yes, it is unfortunately a bit of an Achilles heel of this otherwise great lens. The Nikon representative explained to me that the mechanism requires the use of less force than has been common to date. Otherwise, there is a risk of damaging the mechanism. Unfortunately, for some photographers (myself included), using a lot of force to tighten the tripod collar was quite common. I always tighten with my Nikon 200-500 with almost maximum force. But the new technique requires more gentleness.
Jason Polak
December 18, 2022 1:23 pm
Because of this lens, the 400 f/2.8 will appeal much more to bird photographers now. Having a built in TC that works very well and the f/2.8 aperture makes it very alluring. Nice shots also.
Exactly, Jason. Back when I was shooting mostly on the D500, the 400/2.8 was great. Now on the Z9, I find it rather short for birds. And suddenly Nikon comes out with a built in teleconverter and everything is different. Although, if I were choosing between 400mm and 600mm, the longer focal length would probably be the winner. The missing shorter focal lengths I’d probably patch up with 400/4.5 or 100-400mm.
It’s impossible that 428 with internal 1.4x TC is LESS SHARP than with external 1.4x .
I think you guys made a mistake.
Did you put them reversed?
Dobrý den! I have a quick, very specific gear question that is unfortunately a bit rushed. Some of the photography I enjoy most is getting up early to capture birds wherever I go with the family on vacation. I am heading to Costa Rica with the family in two days and, having had a good experience with a well used Nikon 200-500mm (though not the best at the long end or in low light) recently took delivery of a new 180-600 z lens. However, I have been saving for some faster glass and noticed that a used 180-400mm w/built in TC selling for a third of the original price. I live in NYC and could head to the main photo retailer to exchange, but I don’t know anyone who has had personal experience with this lens. It was not included in your review of the 400mm 2.8 z or your recent article about used F mount glass and I would greatly appreciate your thoughts on the matter . For reference, I am shooting on a Z9 and D500 (less so, but I love it) and focus speed (with FTZ) is more of a concern than weight. Thank you very much for all your in-depth articles on the work you do and the beautiful images you share, and I greatly appreciate your advice on this matter
Owner of a 400 E FL and 800 PF; and sometimes thinking about upgrading to the Z TC version to replace both.
Just a word on sharpness comparisons. I find my 400 still incredible still with the 2x, even zooming to 400% it is virtually the same as my 800 PF (which I would give a 9/10 in terms of sharpness), both wide open and on a very strictly controlled test. In fact if I had to decide which one is better I would say the 400 E FL @800mm.
I am very suprised that the 400 E FL gets so “bad” with the 2x in these measurements here. So sample variation is still a thing I guess.
Give me a 400 F4 Z TC under 2Kg and I’m forever happy with it.
Yes regarding sample variation, but not just of the lens, mainly of the TC. If you have a 2x TC that makes your 400mm E FL as sharp as the 800mm f/6.3, definitely hold onto it!
Cedric, like you, I have the 400 f2.8E FL VR and use all three TC’s with it. On the D810/D850/D500 it was a stellar performer with all the TC’s but on the Z8 and Z9 it is even better as there are no AF fine tune issues to contend with nor any other possible AF issues. I have found that on the Z8/Z9 the sharpness a step up especially with the TC’s.
The resolution figures shown for the 400 f2.8E FL VR are from what appears to be the DSLR days and not from testing on the current Z cameras. I am wondering if there is an advantage to have them re-tested using a Z camera to rule out possible AF anomalies especially when the TC’s are used.
I have also brilliant results using the 2x TCIII on the 400 f2.8E FL VR and the only reason I use my Z 800 P6.3 PF in preference is due to weight!
I didn’t buy or rent it but I did try it out on the Photo Days Expo in Brussels last Autumn. And yes that TC is nice.
Then again. At this moment I use and own the 120-300/2.8E, the 180-400/4E TC1.4 and the 600/6.3. I have to say that all of those are pretty on par for sports and wildlife. Also the 100-400/4.5-5.6S is a good one that I do use for sports occasionally.
I’d say that my 180-400/4E comes closest to this new beast. In terms of almost everything (price, weight, built-in TC obviously, build and image quality…), except: aperture…
Would without a doubt love to own and shot with the 400/2.8S TC tho haha.
Very interesting review!!! I really hope Nikon is planning a 300mm f/2.8 (,or even faster!) lens. That should be even lighter than this relatively lightweight 400/2.8.
I haven’t heard about the new Z-mount version of the 300/2.8 yet. The question is whether Nikon will go the Canon route and do a fast zoom with 300mm and f/2.8 on the end or go the Sony route and do a super light 300/2.8. Both sound interesting.
I would like to see a 200mm f/2.0 with a built-in TC – not that I would buy it, but it would be epic. ;)
I would buy both a 200 2.0TC and a 300 2.8TC if Nikon released them.
I think you’ll see a 120-300mm f/2.8 S 1.4x TC. It wouldn’t be too hard to change the current and pretty recent 120-300mm into a Z-mount option. Whether or not they include a built in TC or not is the question. If they can make it fit and make it fit on the Z-mount without too much re-engineering…they’ll do that. Although we may not see any 300mm f/2.8 option for a awhile. The 120-300mm already is an incredible lens, it’s extremely sharp and well built, and it’s got all of the latest optical tech/goodness. Even the rare SR element and special coating ARNEO? If they were able to reduce the weight a little and or add a built in TC…I could see a 120 or 100-300mm f/2.8 S lens. I just can’t see one being produced or even announced anytime soon. If anything Nikon would probably most benefit right now by redoing the 500mm f/4 and adding a built in TC. They could reduce the weight to possibly 6.2lbs or so, while adding a built in 1.4x TC.
Plus I’ve owned and or used all of the Nikon super-tele lenses. I personally own the 500mm f/4E FL and 180-400mm FL. I’ve also owned the 400mm f/2.8 FL and 800mm f/5.6E FL. So definitely the very best lenses image quality wise. Until recently I’d rate them from sharpest to still amazingly sharp starting with #1. Nikon 800mm f/5.6E #2. Nikon 500mm f/4E FL #3. 400mm f/2.8E tied with the 400mm f/2.8G VR. #5. 180-400FL or 120-300FL. However the new 600mm f/4 S 1.4x TC is now in 2nd. place and really pretty much tied with the 800mm FL. They’re both just a tad sharper than the others.
What I would personally love to see is a 200mm-500mm f/4 or f/4.5! That along with a built in teleconverter would be a dream come true. It would obviously weigh more than the 180-400mm or at least close to it. It would be a large lens and complex optical formula, but boy would be perfect for my uses. Canon is rumored to be testing or developing such a lens. They’re also supposedly creating a two or three in one option TC adapter. With a 1.4x TC and 2x TC, along with no TC, so 1x as well. Or bare lens without deployment of the two TC’s. That would honestly also be a game changer in my opinion and especially if it works well and is high quality optically. For now though I’m happy with my current gear and the only reason I’m not buying a 600mm f/4 S is due to the fact that it won’t fit on my D6’s! The D6 is my favorite camera of all time, and I prefer it to the Z9. So I’m happy with my equipment and I’m somewhat disappointed to see the slight quality losses.
For instance I too have seen or heard from friends and colleagues their new 400mm f/2.8S and 600mm f/4 S have bad/loose tripod knobs/collars. The collar rotates when locked down, if you twist it hard enough. The overall feel of them also feels just a tad less well built than the previous generation FL super-tele’s. These are very slight differences and honestly all of them are very well built.
However I also felt the Z9 was more of a cross between a D850/D6 and Z7 rolled into one. The build quality just ever so slightly not as good as the D6. Plus the Z9 lacks the port for the WT-6A wireless adapter that’s been on all flagships since 2012 with the Nikon D4! Myself and other newspaper/photojournalists use these daily and I’ve used my WT-5 and WT-6’a for over 10 years and never once had a failure to work. They have a 650ft range and are extremely useful for transferring files to editors or whatever. The built in wireless in the D6, Z9 and Z8 is nowhere near as good, reliable and the range stinks. Although Nikon has shown they can and have made some high quality cameras in Thailand, I’d still say the gear made in Japan is a little better.
For instance the Z-mount 100-400mm feels very well built, even slightly better than the 70-200mm or others made in Thailand. The 800pf, shows Nikon can make an amazing product and a high quality one in China as well. However one quick comparison to say a 500mm f/4E FL or similar previous super-tele and you’ll quickly feel and see differences. It’s just not made as well and the glass is not as high quality, nor is the manufacturing or parts. However for the costs savings, getting an 800mm f/6.3 for $5999 is incredible.
The only issue is the used values now in mint condition FL super-telex’s make me wonder why more people are not buying those. You can get a 400mm f/2.8 FL, 500mm FL and even the 600mm f/4E FL and 800mm f5.6E FL for around $5500 USD. Or even less in some cases. So we’re all super lucky or blessed to have so many great options. I love Nikon and I’ll happily use my D6’s for now and someday maybe I’ll get the next flagship. Which I hope is soon, maybe Z9H with 24mp-30mp at 120fps RAW. A port for the wireless adaptors I and other photojournalists use daily and maybe made in Japan. I’d happily pay $6000-$6500 for a slightly better build and options that would solve issues for people like myself.
I am looking forward with some trepidation to your lens review for the Nikon 400mm f2.8 TC. I am hoping that it is not as much sharper than the 400mm f2.8 E as the 400mmf2.8 E is over the 400mmf2.8 G. The hit for trading the E to acquire the S is substantial.
It’s a little sharper but not enough to warrant spending the extra money on trading in if you already have the 400mm f/2.8E. Both are so good that they will not be the weak link in any photo’s sharpness.
I would say that all 400/2.8 are great lenses. The AF-I (6.3kg), the G VR (4.6kg), the E FL (3.8kg): great IQ, with strong weight savings in the series. Without the testing charts, in my own experience with the above mentioned 400s, it might be hard to distinguish them from the pictures taken, or IQ-wise.
The E FL lenses (400-500-600-800mm) not only shaved 800g/1200g, but started to re-balance the lens, with a significant inertia moment reduction: this changes the handling considerably. The 600mm E FL is much much more friendly in the field than the G version, and even the 800E is much easier to maneuver than the 400G.
Note that, actually, there are no low-light oriented Z bodies [buzz, buzz! where is the Z1/Zh/Z9h???]: while you can always mount the previous F-lenses (from AF-I to the E FL) to either Z9+ftz or D5/D6, you unfortunately CAN NOT mount native Z lenses to any DSLR.
If I were you, I’ll keep strongly your E FL lenses, and search for an FTZ2 to pair with Zs in good light and a D5/D6 for low-light needs, if you have them. With this suggestion, I convinced an American guy not to downgrade his 400E FL in selling it to me for low money: he bought the FTZ2 for his Z8 and was very happy.
The 400/2.8 G was a great lens, but it really required strong muscles and endurance. The results, however, were worth it. Compared to the previous series, the latest F-mount exotics are much lighter, better balanced and even a bit sharper (especially with teleconverters). Handheld photography is no longer a theoretical possibility for Herculean strength endowed individuals, but a common reality. I also recently couldn’t resist and got a pre-owned 500/f FL. Along with that, I had my D500 cleaned, so I also brought my backup body out of retirement. It came in very handy last week. It would certainly make a great pair with the D6, but the Z9 doesn’t do badly at high ISO either. I wonder if someone will find the courage to make a camera with a relatively low resolution sensor and owl ISO genes. I honestly don’t think so.
I was first reluctant to acquire E FL lenses against Gs, due to the electronic diaphragm not controlled by my film bodies. But they are great lenses in the field on DSLRs and Zs via FTZ, especially if you need to walk/move with them, thanks to the new inertia-related design. G-lenses can still work on my beloved F5, E-s not, except at fixed diaphragm with error messages. I like to keep bridges with eras.
About the Z9/Z8 at high ISO I had very bad experience, as all the 45MP cameras. It depends which is your high ISO ceiling: 6.4k? 12.8k? or something more relevant to speak about high-ISO: 32k? 81k? 102k? 204k? 409600?
In the same extreme conditions of 409k, I tested the Z8/Z9 (2 stops underexposed at 102k max ISO) and the D5/D6 (easy Hi2 for them) against a fresco in a shadowed church, same 600mm f/8 lens and settings. The Z8/Z9 had issues starting from grabbing the right focusing, the file was simply trash, washed out colour, no sure focus, totally unusable, also with magic software.
Instead, D6/D5 focused correctly and gave usable files, with the D6 ahead of the D5 for slightly better focusing and color retention in the file (even working on raw D5 files, I was not able to match the richness of D6’s ones).
I did that extreme testing because usually in my urbanised area shy animals (roe deer, wild boars, wolfs) come out at sunset and stay far far away, and I have to use easily ISO 32k-102k and put down high-MP bodies. Once I shot running wild boars I was not able to distinguish by naked eyes, but my D5+1000/6.7 achieved surprisingly usable files (not perfect, but satisfactory): ISO were at 228’800, where no 45MP can even dream of. I need to trust my tools, therefore I gave up with Z8/Z9 for low light, they can work nicely in good light, but not of great usages for me up to now, when a D810/D850 is sufficient to me.
Therefore, even if for a niche usage, a Z1/Zh/Z9h with sure/usable Hi3=409k ISO might really be welcomed, just as a totally silent D5/D6. Indeed, R3 goes up to 204k, but can not drive brilliantly AF-S F-mount lenses… Bring in also high fps footage (e.g. 2K/960fps, 4K/240fps, 6K/120fps) and it would be perfect for speed needs.
Nikon gave us nice low light tools like the D# series, aka D3s-D4s-D5-D6: why stop it now?
Until a D5/D6 real exceeding successor comes in Z, I prefer to totally stay F-mount based :-)
Everyone including the staff here forgot about the 500mm f/4E VR FL! You’re talking about weight savings and the 600FL, and all the 400mm f/2.8’s! Yet the IQ wasn’t really up there with modern lenses sharpness wise, especially at distance until the FL’s! The 500FL is what I sold my like new 6 month old 400FL for, for the weight savings. The 600FL is more well balanced but it’s not hand-holdable. The 400FL is but it’s not really. It’ll just cause back problems, ask me how I know! I’m a run and gun photojournalist.
I shoot wildfires and shootings/murders and everything else. From events to Graduations, MLB games, etc.! I’ve tried handholding the 400FL and 180-400FL. It’s doable but at the cost of a bad lower back for years-life! The 600FL is a decently sharp, great lens at 600mm in the right conditions. Yet add distance and atmosphere or god sakes a TC, it loses 20-30% of sharpness and contrast. While the 400FL and 500FL loose only 3-5% sharpness and AF, and contrast. The 500FL has the best image quality and MTF chart than all the lenses you mentioned and the new 400mm f/2.8 S 1.4x TC. You can look them up and see. The only lens that’s even close to the perfect MTF/WTF… is the 800mm f/5.6E FL.
So the 600mm f/4’s were always a step behind the 400mm f/2.8G/FL/AF-S II, etc.! It’s just easiest to make a great 400mm lens optical design speaking. The 500FL is just as sharp as the $16,000 USD new 600mm and it won’t work on my D6’s! So I sold my Z9 and Z7 and only shoot DSLR gear and I’m happy. Yet I’m also shocked, I’ve never seen another person with a 500FL, and I work in a major city for a major news/wire service. So I shoot a lot with colleagues and at air shows or events with other photographers. Which makes me shocked.
The 500FL is so hand holdable at 6.68 pounds or whatever it is, it’s so well balanced it feels only ever so slightly better built than the 800pf. It’s that’s well balanced and long/narrow compared to the 600FL or 800FL. It has incredible sharpness, even better than the 400FL or new 400mm TC! So thankfully I don’t need or want either the 400 or 600mm S 1.4x TC’s. If they were attainable and I could use my D6, I might trade some things for that TC alone. Sure I want a built in TC, but not at the cost of using a Z9. The D6 has the best AF system I’ve ever used including the Z9 in the right experienced hands. I don’t miss with it and if I do it’s not enough shutter speed or I messed up a setting. It’s 99% accurate when used by the right people! With the pro-grade lenses like the 24-70mm f/2.8E VR, 70-200FL and FL super-teles. So I’m a planning on using and loving my DSLR gear until I can’t any longer.
Lastly the EVF sucks on a flagship Z9 and call me old-school but I don’t want to stare at a magnified crappy TV screen for all day. Changing batteries every 4/5 hours. While my D6’s have better High ISO, better build, a WT-6 wireless adapter that has 100% reliable transfer at up to 650ft range. In the 10-12 years I’ve used ShutterSnitch and WT-5/WT-6’s since the D4/D4s, they’ve never failed to connect or send a file(s) once! There is unfortunately NO port of a flagship Z9 for it? So the wireless range is maybe 15ft if you’re unlucky and up to 25ft if you are. It’s no where near as reliable or easy to setup either. It’s so frustrating that I sold my Z9 mostly over that alone! Thankfully I have a like brand new second camera D6 and it’ll last me a good 5-10 years until EVF’s and other aspects are improved.
It depends. I had 600/4e FL in the past I I find handholding it with D6 was a struggle and I can only do it for a short time and I was not very successful with tracking fast moving birds with the set up. D850 and 500/4e FL was much easier. I find 3kg for lens is just about the limit that I can handhold comfortably for reasonable amount of time and had much easier time tracking faster objects. 400/2.8S and Z9 came at the right weight for me. Throw in built in TC is another major plus. Last year I was in Botswana and I could use Z9 with 400/2.8S all during game drive wihtout needing bean bag or other method of support. Not something I can do comfortably with 3.7-3.8 kg lens. I was rather surprise that the weight difference was really quite significant in practice. Also may be because 400/2.8S is also better balance than the 600/4e FL as well. I imagine all my complain about 600/4e FL would apply to 400/2.8e FL.
Hi
I’m wondering if or why the lens needs to be refocused after engaging the teleconverter?
Tonight, with the camera on a tripod I was focusing at 400 then switching to 560 thinking the shots would still be in focus but they are not?
Any input is appreciated.
Yes, you’ll want to refocus after engaging the TC.
When is PL going to do full reviews of the Z400 2.8 and the Z600mm f4? I’d love to see the comparisons with the TC’s?
Full review of the 400mm f/2.8 is now out! And our sharpness tests of the 600mm f/4 are already on the Photography Life Member Page on Patreon, although it will be another month or so until the full review is published.
I was very relieved to have my Z400TC delivered after a long 9 mth wait just before my recent trip to the Serengeti, really love the versatility of the TC and the weight reduction over my now sold 400E FL, coupled with my Z9, the files are stunning! However what I did not like (right out of the box) was the tripod locking nut will not cinch down sufficiently to stop the collar from rotating, rendering it useless to use on a tripod. I was aware of the issue prior, and sadly my copy has also been affected. It’s now going back to Nikon Australia for immediate repair and “should” have it back in time before my return Serengeti trip in early FEB. Really poor QC from such an expensive lens made in Japan.
I paid over CAD20,000 for this lens. I received it two weeks ago, just to find out the locking nut of the lens collar cannot be tightened 100%. The whole setup was rotating when I was following a subject using a tripod. I switched to Nikon when the Z9 came out.
ALWAYS check the knob before you pay for the lens. None of my much cheaper lenses have this problem. This is the most expensive piece of photographic equipment I paid in my entire life.
What a disappointment !
Yes, it is unfortunately a bit of an Achilles heel of this otherwise great lens. The Nikon representative explained to me that the mechanism requires the use of less force than has been common to date. Otherwise, there is a risk of damaging the mechanism. Unfortunately, for some photographers (myself included), using a lot of force to tighten the tripod collar was quite common. I always tighten with my Nikon 200-500 with almost maximum force. But the new technique requires more gentleness.
Because of this lens, the 400 f/2.8 will appeal much more to bird photographers now. Having a built in TC that works very well and the f/2.8 aperture makes it very alluring. Nice shots also.
Exactly, Jason. Back when I was shooting mostly on the D500, the 400/2.8 was great. Now on the Z9, I find it rather short for birds. And suddenly Nikon comes out with a built in teleconverter and everything is different. Although, if I were choosing between 400mm and 600mm, the longer focal length would probably be the winner. The missing shorter focal lengths I’d probably patch up with 400/4.5 or 100-400mm.