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 would buy both a 200 2.0TC and a 300 2.8TC if Nikon released them.
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 :-)
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.
Rogério Peccioli
December 17, 2022 5:36 pm
Thanks for sharing your impressions on this amazing lens. Analyze very didactic and tasty to read. Big Libor hug.
Thank you very much, Rogério. I’m glad you enjoyed reading it. Have a nice day.
pierre lagarde
December 17, 2022 1:13 am
I had the chance to hold this lens on a Z9 yesterday and was indeed impressed by how light it feels in hand (especially when you see the size of it). Nikon puts a great effort to the balance of their Z telephoto lenses indeed.
And great pictures, I do love the one of the “marmoset” monkey (is it?). It is adorable :D
You’re right Pierre, that based on physical appearance you set your muscles to a completely different perception than what actually comes :)
About the primate in the photo. It is indeed a Tamarin, as Marcin writes. Marmosets are very similar monkeys, but they are significantly smaller. You can’t see the size difference in the photo though.
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 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 :-)
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.
Thanks for sharing your impressions on this amazing lens. Analyze very didactic and tasty to read. Big Libor hug.
Thank you very much, Rogério. I’m glad you enjoyed reading it. Have a nice day.
I had the chance to hold this lens on a Z9 yesterday and was indeed impressed by how light it feels in hand (especially when you see the size of it).
Nikon puts a great effort to the balance of their Z telephoto lenses indeed.
And great pictures, I do love the one of the “marmoset” monkey (is it?). It is adorable :D
Looks like some tamarin to me.
You’re right Pierre, that based on physical appearance you set your muscles to a completely different perception than what actually comes :)
About the primate in the photo. It is indeed a Tamarin, as Marcin writes. Marmosets are very similar monkeys, but they are significantly smaller. You can’t see the size difference in the photo though.