Nikon Introduces a 180-400mm/f4 AF-S VR with Built-in 1.4x Teleconverter

Nikon is updating the 200-400mm/f4 AF-S VR II lens to one that has a built-in 1.4x teleconverter that can be swapped in and out, similar to Canon's 200-400mm/f4 with build-in 1.4x TC, which has been announced/available since 2011/2013: Canon EF 200–400mm lens - Wikipedia

 

The down side is that the Canon lens with teleconverter is very expensive, around $11000, while I paid "only" $5100 for my Nikkon 200-400mm/f4 AF-S VR version 1 way back in 2006.

 

Unfortunately, the new Nikon lens is also very expensive, with a US$12,399.95 suggested retail price and a March 2018 available date. Its full name is a very complex:

 

AF-S Nikkor 180-400mm f4E TC1.4 FL ED VR

 

With the built-in teleconverter engaged, it becomes a 252-560mm/f5.6 lens. This lens has a bulging lens barrel towards the mount end as a pocket for the teleconverter when it is swapped out of the optical path.

 

• minimum focus distance is 2.0 meters/6.6 feet
  
• weight is about 3.5kg/7lb 11.4oz
  
• length is 362.5mm/14.2 inches
  

Product images supplied by Nikon USA.

Additional info from Nikon Japan's web site: Nikon | News | Nikon releases the AF-S NIKKOR 180-400mm f/4E TC1.4 FL ED VR

 

Due to the price, I don't expect a lot of us pre-ordering this lens. :)

For the about the same cost one can purchase the Sigma 120-300/2.8 and the Sigma 500/4. Or Nikon's 500/4 alone (with a D500 thrown in as a 1.5x TC).

 

And for a whole lot less the 200-400 and the 200-500; is the 180-400 with 1.4x engaged (252-560/5.6) really going to be so much better than the 200-500 (disregarding the fact that the reach will be 60mm more)? Comparing the published MTF curves, the answer appears to be a clear yes. But at almost 9x the price of the 200-500, that's one expensive 180-560/4-5.6 lens:( Two-thirds of a stop slower and 1/7 of the price makes the Sigma Sport 150-600/5-6.3 look like a real bargain (granted, its MTF curve doesn't look as impressive as the 180-400's either).

 

Just looked at the prices of the other Nikon teles (400/2.8, 500/4, 600/4) - they are all north of $10,000 nowadays - something I hadn't noticed before.

 

At least it appears that one can zoom quickly over the entire range - the throw appears to be quite short (unlike on the 200-500).

I guess putting the Sigma 120-300mm 2.8 OS on a DX body gives something similar to the new lens on FX.

It's currently £2000 new...

Buy the compatible 1.4 TC and still gain a stop of light.

About the same weight too....what's not to like?...oh, and you save 10 Grand.

Impressive quoted MTF graphs for the new zoom, but as with others, I've absolutely no interest in owning one. I hope they've fixed the "long distance image quality" problem the 200-400 had. I'm amused that Nikon have a press release claiming how innovative this lens is, when it's about as "me too" as it could be - although for that reason, they needed it.

 

I was out just after sunset on Sunday with my 200-500, trying to get shots of squirrels. This lens would have helped negligibly, but the experience confirms my long-term lust for a 400 f/2.8.

Never quite expected that they could make the 200-400 f/4 seem affordable, but somehow they managed.

Do Nikon guarantee that the air between the lens and its subject will be totally still and clear too? For that money they should.

 

No tele lens can be better than the air clarity at distance; no matter what the theoretical MTF (Made-up Total Fiction) curves suggest.

 

Making a "me too" copy of a Canon lens and pricing it 10% higher is just madness. Nikon really has lost the plot!

Edited January 9, 2018 by rodeo_joe|1

And still no tripod foot that's compatible with ANY quick-release system. Are there copyright issues or something?

 

The connection between lens collar and foot doesn't inspire great rigidity either. Maybe looks are deceptive?

 

I still don't understand the love of single point mounts. I mean, that's a pivot not a fixed mounting.

Why not a second brace somewhere?

 

I still find the Music or No Music button on lenses a bit weird.

Edited January 9, 2018 by mike_halliwell

Dieter was talking about the D500 instead of TC 1.4 I think that's a good idea. I wonder if you have a D5 and a D500. Use the TC on the D5 and no TC on the D500 I wonder how is the quality compare?

I think the issue with tripod feet and QR systems is that once you make a built in QR for some tripod head type then you make the lens incompatible with others, or at least make users of some heads feel left out. Arca Swiss have themselves started to use slightly different QR system in some of their heads which doesn't work with the "standard" Arca-Swiss style plates (I'm sure they do it on purpose to force original accessories to be purchased). It may be that you could mount a different QR plate on the bottom of the standard one in the foot but still, it would be difficult for a manufacturer to choose one over the others without the help of some industry collaboration. I've noticed that e.g. Novoflex L bracket didn't work with Benro panoramic rail etc. The present solution is pretty ok so you buy a replacement foot or QR plate that works with your head.

Do Nikon guarantee that the air between the lens and its subject will be totally still and clear too?

 

Well, there is nothing Nikon can do about air quality, but they can try to optimize the lens MTF at various distances and the effect of the air then is combined with the aberrations of the lens to achieve the final image quality.

 

Nikon's press release specifically mention shooting field sports at distance so I think they probably have improved the (long) distance sharpness. They also mention improved AF algorithm enhancing AF tracking performance. I think one part of the problem which led people to think the 200-400 Nikkor is not sharp at distance with TCs is AF jitter which seemed to increase towards long distances, and I suspect they have addressed this, judging from the wording in the press release.

 

I'm amused that Nikon have a press release claiming how innovative this lens is,

 

Where is that? In the lens announcement press release I could not find any such word. Although the built in TC is not a Nikon original invention there may be other ways that the lens is innovative.

I think the issue with tripod feet and QR systems is that once you make a built in QR for some tripod head type then you make the lens incompatible with others, or at least make users of some heads feel left out.

 

Make them feel left out, yes (and possibly hurt people like RRS who sell replacement feet). You needn't make them any more incompatible than they already are, though - most of the Arca-compatible feet/clamps/L-plates I've seen still have a 1/4" thread that's just as useful as the one on Nikon's default feet. Most companies now have Arca-compatible clamps in their ranges now anyway (including Gitzo and Manfrotto). It doesn't feel like it could hurt in any way. That said, I'm mostly using plates attached to feet, except on my 200 f/2 which has an RRS replacement foot (because if you put a clamp on its front-mounted foot you can't get the hood on backwards for storage).

 

Arca Swiss have themselves started to use slightly different QR system in some of their heads which doesn't work with the "standard" Arca-Swiss style plates (I'm sure they do it on purpose to force original accessories to be purchased).

 

Arca tried to sue whoever it was (Wimberley? Kirk?) who first cloned their plate system, and I believe failed. There are a few subtly incompatible systems out there, but screw clamps work with most of them - some are just a bit tight or loose with some lever clamps. I believe the "monoball fix" system is purely an attempt by Arca to patent-protect their system again, theoretically making the plate a little smaller in the process. In practice, I think there's no benefit to it at all. Arca continue to sell heads with dual-lever clamps that take both systems (arguably with a little more fragility and height than they would with support only for a single system). I'm fairly sure it was one of those decisions made because it would have been really good for the company if everyone adopted the product, but there's precious little benefit to customers in doing so.

 

It may be that you could mount a different QR plate on the bottom of the standard one in the foot but still, it would be difficult for a manufacturer to choose one over the others without the help of some industry collaboration.

 

Or market observation? Everyone uses Arca-compatible clamps. At least one camera manufacturer (Fuji I think?) put an Arca-compatible clamp on their hand grip. Unless they're still concerned about patent issues, it would absolutely make sense to me for lens manufacturers (if not camera manufacturers!) to provide this. Someone should probably tell Sigma, because it would make a lot of sense for them to lead on this.

 

I've noticed that e.g. Novoflex L bracket didn't work with Benro panoramic rail etc. The present solution is pretty ok so you buy a replacement foot or QR plate that works with your head.

 

I'm honestly a little surprised. I've never had a problem with any plate or screw clamp (and most lever clamps have an adjustment screw). It's not rocket science to be compatible with the system, it's just a dovetail joint.

 

I'm amused that Nikon have a press release claiming how innovative this lens is,

 

Where is that? In the lens announcement press release I could not find any such word. Although the built in TC is not a Nikon original invention there may be other ways that the lens is innovative.

 

“This lens is a great example of how Nikon continues to push the boundaries of innovation and what’s possible with pro-level optics and high-end imaging equipment,” said Kosuke Kawaura, Director of Marketing and Planning, Nikon Inc.

 

(Second paragraph of the press release parrotted by dpreview.) Yes, it could be innovative in other ways, but Nikon should probably be aware of how this looks.

 

I still don't understand the love of single point mounts. I mean, that's a pivot not a fixed mounting.

Why not a second brace somewhere?

 

Agreed. The really big lenses (1200mm+) have two-point contacts. I don't see why "conventional" superteles couldn't.

 

The 200-400 was one of the first Nikon lenses I remember seeing, when I was thinking about buying a D700 and moving to the Nikon system. Wasn't on my priority list then (I got a 150-500 Sigma, not that it made me all that happy) and isn't really now!

Novoflex uses a slightly narrower dovetail and Benro’s screw lock didn’t have enough range to lock it in place. RRS panoramic system did lock onto the Novoflex L bracket. I have Novoflex focusing rails and some of the a-s compatible plates are too tight to mount on those. So there really is no standard ...

 

That sounds like Kawaura is a Nikon marketing person who gave a presentation or was interviewed and used words such as innovative to get people excited - it’s not an official press release.

 

Two point supports can be added e.g. the RRS long lens support but they make rotating the lens a bit more clumsy and also they add to the total weight. Most people use long lenses with fast shutter speeds. At 560mm I am sure turning VR on would be a good idea even with the lens on tripod, for easier composition and focusing and perhaps also reducing blur in images at intermediate shutter speeds.

Edited January 9, 2018 by ilkka_nissila

Still, atleast no-one has tried to change the1/4 BSW thread yet!

 

It's a bit odd, or maybe not, that the most common QR system, that of the ubiquitious Arca Swiss, they only make generic plates to fit lenses and accesories by the above mentioned screw. ie they don't actually make feet to fit their own clamps.

 

I guess the 4 stops of VR assistance is to aid composition rather than prevent camera shake at 'sports' shutter speeds. I can imagine fairly static 'bird in tree' could benefit from VR and a more rigid collar/foot mechanism.

Oh yes, the Arca dovetail was never a standard, just people copying what Arca did, sometimes not very accurately - Arca were too busy trying to patent their proprietary solution to try standardising it (because that would actually have required some foresight and caring what the customer wanted, whereas all camera support manufacturers would rather sell more redundant products), possibly deliberately to try to avoid getting sued. I'm a little surprised someone was far enough out that a screw clamp didn't cope, but I believe you that some are more flexible than others.

 

Agreed that Kawuara may have been quoted to try to drum up the press, but nonetheless, it's under the "press release" section of DPReview's article, so I assume the quote was included by Nikon. In fact, the official source appears to be here - with that quote included.

 

And yes, the RRS long lens roller (or equivalent from Kirk), and support systems that hold the camera, do exist. Still, they could be made lighter and less clunky if they were integrated. I do often use the 200-500 hand-held at a high shutter speed (and I find it acceptable at least at 1/250s with VR on) - but I also found myself in low light using that lens in the 1/50s danger zone on a tripod. Better support is good.

 

Nobody's changed the 1/4" mount (which I think is actually an ISO standard). There are, of course, a vast number of variants on the "stop rotation" solution, for no obvious reason. I'd like to say that filter thread sizes are standard (for a diameter), but IIRC there is some fine/coarse variation, again for no obvious reason.

 

I absolutely value the VR on the 200-500 even at higher shutter speeds - it's a huge difference in framing hand-held. (I'd be interested to see a "turn the VR off for the actual shot" option.)

Bubu, I currently shoot a 400 2.8 on a crop d500 so start with 600 mm 2.8 equivalent. Shot I posted on both nature and jokingly in casual conversation bokeh post was just that but at f/8. Having enough dof when 2 subjects within 50 feet means stopping down. Mine doesn't have VR, but even training for a body buiilding competition, I can't comfortably hand hold that 10 lb lens so it lives on a gimbal head. With an old 1.7 tc I am at 1020 equiv with some image degradation and down to f/4.8 minimum. I understand the new 1.4 tc has virtually no image degradation and 840 mm equiv. and f/4. With a d850 I will have the megapixels to shoot either FF or crop if needed. With the 1.7 a 680 mm. FF. In crop will have about the same resolution as the d500. So can go from 400 mm to 1020 with several lengths in between giving me the flexibility of a zoom with the IQ and aperture of a fixed. So the zoom stops would be 400 600 680 840 and 1020. Having more dof at an equivalent length on the crop is desirable to me for nature and not so much for portraiture where I like the softest bg possible. At these lengths, I am finding the bg is plenty soft even at f/8. Would be nice if the d850 allows assigning an exterior button to switch between FF and crop. One resolution this year the subject of another post, is to hand paint a canvas background. I hope I can achieve something close to what this lens renders outdoors.

The international press release is here:

 

Nikon | News | Nikon releases the AF-S NIKKOR 180-400mm f/4E TC1.4 FL ED VR

 

I guess we can see the cultural differences in the choice of words. Also the CES conference may be a place where some hype is expected.

Maybe we're missing something. Surely under the "In The Box" listing for this lens will be:

 

-LF-4 Rear Lens Cap

-Lens Hood

-Soft Case

-New D850 body

-New D500 body

 

Short of that I don't think you have to worry about a large backorder list. But what do I know?

"Well, there is nothing Nikon can do about air quality,"

- Exactly!

 

"...but they can try to optimize the lens MTF at various distances and the effect of the air then is combined with the aberrations of the lens to achieve the final image quality."

 

Nope. I disagree completely. The lens could be optically perfect, but air turbulence, mist, etc. will still dictate the definition of the image. Thus wasting about 10 grand's worth of optics for the great majority of shots. Unless they use a pilot laser and adaptive optics it's all just wasted effort. But then you could add a couple of zeroes at least to the price.

The effect of scattering from the air and lens aberrations are cumulative. You can still see the differences between lenses at long distance, this has been shown in several tests.

 

For example cameralabs do long distance tests as part of their lens reviews, also Brad Hill published a comparison between four 400mm lenses at km distances some years ago. The differences between lens performance at long distances were glaringly obvious.

 

Finally, many users use superteles to photograph relatively small subjects not so far away.

Indeed. At least for the 180/200-400 category, one of the primary uses is relatively short-range sports, such as court-side at tennis. (I used a 150-500 from a few rows back on one end a few years ago, and it was pretty reasonable for range - upper body and serve at 150mm near end, full body at 500mm the other.) Court side, 180-400 is about right for different crops, with the TC to zoom in when the players are changing ends. The distance isn't far at all, which is probably why the 200-400 has historically been good enough.

 

The changes on the new lens probably make more difference for wildlife shooters, where the previous lens had problems. I've mostly found 500mm significantly too short for exotic stuff (unless you want an entire wolf pack or environment), although it varies and I gather your get relatively nearer to big stuff on safari (or if you didn't more effort than I did).

 

Bring back the 1200-1700 f/5.6-8, I say...

Bring back the 1200-1700 f/5.6-8, I say...

 

I read a story that Nikon said that they fell into lack of use because with digital, sports photographers could use shorter lenses and crop and still get good enough results. I think such lenses can be quite difficult to use, just thinking about the weight of the of tripod needed.

 

Did you notice that the TC switch is on the right side of the lens in the 180-400/4 Nikkor? The intention is apparently that it can be switched on and off with the right hand without lifting your grip off the camera (presumably if shooting verticals, you have a vertical grip so the right hand is always to the right side of the lens and not above it). In the Canon 200-400, the TC switch is on the left and top side of the lens. I'm a little bit annoyed at the size of the space between e.g. the 105/1.4 and D850 grip; it has become quite narrow and I'm much happier with the D5 grip. I wonder how the TC switch affect shooting comfort. But it's at least on the right hand side, so it would be possible operate without taking the left hand off the lens. No, I'm not going to buy this lens either.

I guess it's a powered TC, in as much as it swings or slides into place via a small actuator when you throw the switch?

There is a lock and switch so it looks like it is manually (not electrically) powered.

I'm not sure a lock defines it, but I thought it looked chunky enough to move the teleconverter elements into the optical path manually. I'm reasonably sure that's how the Canon one works.

Yes, but remember the Nikon one is filled with INNOVATION :)