Jump to content

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


ShunCheung

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 65
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

To me, it very much looks like a mechanical switch that flips the 1.4x TC elements in and out of the optical path. I am sure most of us are aware that Canon introduced a 200-400mm/f4 with a built-in 1.4x TC early in this decade. I would imagine that most/all of the related mechanical problems have already been solved by Canon. At least I am not aware of any major complaints about that Canon lens, other than the fact that it is a lot more expensive than my Nikon 200-400mm/f4 AF-S VR. Of course, the new Nikon lens tops that Canon lens in price.

 

A powered TC seems to be an overkill. Not that a mechanical switching mechanism can never fail, but if somehow that motor fails and the TC is stuck half way, it'll render the lens useless. (If an AF motor fails, in most cases you can still focus manually.)

 

I still like my 200-400mm/f4 AF-S VR a lot, and in these days we also have alternatives such as the 80-400mm AF-S VR and 200-500mm/f5.6 AF-S VR that are far more affordable, I would imagine that the market for these exotic lenses that are over $10K is very limited.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is interesting that Nikon have developed said lens.

 

While a me too-offering can see daylight without too much market research, such an expensive product such as this must have had some prior market research done before given the green light. Like already stated, its marked is very limited. It must mean that Canon has sold enough of their's in order to make Nikon jealous and it must also mean that they must have gotten request to produce such a lens. I assume that the development and production costs are not insignificant. They must also have gotten enough feedback on the 200-400/4 II that it too was not good enough and bundling them with the TC-14EIII was not enough. I have never tried a 200-400 so I cannot form an opinion on it, but I assume the "long distance image quality problem" reports have hurt its sales since a lens costing that much should be "perfect". Or it is simply a combination of market research, PR value and saving face as the main competitor has such an offering...

 

Given today's high ISO performance, cropping capabilities and AF performance with F5.6-8, most of us do not see the added value of this lens compared to say the 200-500/5.6 or 80-400/5.6 translated into the extra expense. But then again so do many photographers comparing the 70-200/4 VR and 70-200/2.8E VR and 300/4 VR to the 300/2.8 VR (The latter by the way is still the only super tele not to have been given the FL and E makeover. Considering the arguments for the E aperture and consistency with higher frame rates, it is surprising that the 300/2.8 has not ben updated as that is traditionally considered a sports lens where high frame rates are involved.)

 

So, Shun, have you asked Nikon USA to provide you with a test sample?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it's 'distance use' people really want, why use a 'short' zoom + TC at-all?, just go 500 or 600mm f4 prime. OK, the newest versions are mega-£££, but there's a lot of VR versions around....! Afterall, you still only get to 560mm f5.6 with the 1.4 TC.

 

I fully get the flexibility of a zoom, but if range is a problem, you're using the wrong lens....:)

 

You might as well have another body with a 200 or 300mm prime handy for the closer things (or maybe 70-210 2.8?) and still save some money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

 

You still need the TC. The D500 only changes the angle of view. Focal length remains the same, no matter the format.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joe, exactly, in my case, I shot a boat race and wanted the turn where the boats were crowded together and opening the throttles. However that is where exhaust and spray in the air was concentrated. Not nearly as sharp as down the straight. Not enough wind that day to disperse it. Dennis I guess the focal length remaining the same on a crop and only the angle of view changing explains why there is a difference in the dof of a 135 equivalent and actual 135. I had noticed that on the d500 for portraits using an 85 1.4 and got the same compression shooting from same distance but the oof appeared different. I like the 10 fps of the d500 but don't like the way my lenses behave so will get in line for an 850. The extreme is my circular fisheye isn't circular. Edited by bob_bill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wouldn't they deliver the same images? Quality would be different but which one is better?

 

The DX image is only the center ("sweet spot") of the FX, about 24x18 (compared to 36x24 for FX), and it has smaller pixels. If the larger FX pixels are equal in quality, then the 36x24 image should be better, since it takes less magnification to achieve the same size image.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Using the new lens and a D5 vs a D500. When using the D5 switch the TC on and switch the TC off when use the D500. Both should give you the same image, same number of pixels. The D500 would have more noise but the lens is f/4 when the TC is off so the ISO can be 1 stop lower. Both should also have the same DOF.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I think Dennis is a bit confused about equivalence. A 400mm lens is a 400mm lens whether you have a DX body behind it or a teleconverter behind it. From the perspective of depth of field and total amount of light reading the sensor, a DX body with a 400 f/4 behaves like a 600mm f/6 does on FX - very close to the 1.4(1)x f/5.6(ish) you get from a teleconverter. (The same applies if you crop a DX region out of the FX frame afterwards.) Both DX and the teleconverter use the "sweet spot" - but at the same pixel count, both have similarly higher demands on the image resolution. The teleconverter has extra optics in the way that should slightly reduce resolution. A larger sensor should allow for higher bin size and more dynamic range - but that's not what the D5 is optimised for.

 

Because ISO is measured per unit area rather than as a fraction of the image, you'd need to increase the ISO on the D5 to compensate for the reduced effective aperture of the teleconverter. The difference is roughly the same as the noise difference between the D5 and D500 sensors, since it means the same amount of light is contributing to a pixel.

 

The D500 has AF covering more of the final frame, but this gives less precision about where AF is placed inside the AF region. The AF sites are larger relative to the frame, which explains how they can be "sensitive" to an effective smaller aperture.

 

If there's a difference, it's that a teleconverter typically moves the lens farther from the mount (not, admittedly, in the case of this integrated one), so teleconverting an FX body to get the reach of a DX one isn't hard. Focal reducers ("speed boosters") that go the other way require, I believe, a shorter flange distance, hence they're only available for mirrorless systems.

 

If you've got the crop the same, you can ignore what's going on behind the entrance aperture when it comes to depth of field and light capture. That determines how much light is entering the lens and the cone of confusion it projects through each point on the focal plane. So long as you get the same field of view, it doesn't matter whether you're using a longer lens or a smaller sensor behind that - the geometry cancels out.

 

Of course that's all theory. I can't vouch for changes introduced by engineering. :-)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heimbrandt: Historically my problem with the 200-400 f/4 is that it's a very big and heavy substitute for a 200/2 (which also hadn't had an FL update, by the way). I'd rather have my 200/2 and add teleconverters.

 

I wonder how much of Nikon's need for it came from them not having a 400/4 (or 400/5.6) prime, as Canon did - although Canon differentiated from the 400mm f/2.8 with DO. Nikon had to compete with the newish Canon lens (which has had rave reviews), but having put such an affordable 200-500 f/5.6 on the market makes it a harder sell - the 200-400 made more sense against an iffy 150-500 f/5-6.3 Bigma, especially given the limitations of that lens and the official f/5.6 autofocus limit of most bodies at the time, but times have changed. I assume Nikon don't expect the prosumer market to care about this lens due to price/performance; the question is how many pro shooters still exist with press companies cutting staff.

 

As Mike said, you can make do with a second body with a different lens, or stack teleconverters. However, if I were a pro shooting from side lines, I'd want the full zoom flexibility for cropping, and I'd have a 70-200 on another body anyway.

 

Now, if Sigma made a version of their 120-300 f/2.8 with a flip-in 1.4x TC, that would be pretty interesting. Otherwise, I'd rather have my two stops at 200mm and spend the money on another stop at 400mm.

 

If it stops pros leaking to Canon, good for Nikon - although they may be a bit late to the party for that one. For the rest of us, let's wait for the next prosumer lens. The camera market is shrinking, so we have to expect prices to rise so the companies stay profitable. Fortunately, the latest products are extremely good.

 

I wonder how many will be at the winter Olympics? I'd have been more interested to see a D5s or D500s, but at least Nikon have still released something. Now we get to wait and see what the D6x0/D750 replacement looks like (and whether it's mirrorless).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder how many will be at the winter Olympics? I'd have been more interested to see a D5s or D500s, but at least Nikon have still released something. Now we get to wait and see what the D6x0/D750 replacement looks like (and whether it's mirrorless).

 

I bet all the ones you see at the winter Olympics are loaners.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If someone gets me a D5 and the 180-400, I'll be more than happy to do a direct comparison (I already have the D500):D

 

With regard to Nikon and innovation: the 180-400 is yet another case where Nikon is clearly playing catch-up with Canon. Just like with PF/DO. Not at all the same as with VR/IS which Nikon had first and then choose to not utilize (and we all know the fallout from that decision).

 

Even Canon doesn't seem to value a prime 400/5.6 that much - it never got an update to IS. Apparently, even they think that having a 100-400 is enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What am I missing here? Why should I spend $12,400 for this new lens with a built in 1.4x tc when I can buy a new Nikon 200-400mm f4 for about $7000 and a new TC 14E III for about $500 or $7500 total.That is about $4900 less than $12,400. Is the FL lens element in the new lens worth that much? (The Nikon 200-400 f 4 VR II does not have a FL lens element. )
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why should I spend $12,400 for this new lens with a built in 1.4x tc when I can buy a new Nikon 200-400mm f4 for about $7000 and a new TC 14E III for about $500 or $7500 total.That is about $4900 less than $12,400.

Because the new lens is at least 60% better than the old one?:rolleyes:

 

Or because it is $4900 more convenient to flip-in/out a TC than adding/removing one the conventional way?:cool:

 

Or because Nikon doesn't want you to look enviously towards the Canon guy with its 200-400 with built-in TC? :(

 

Or because Nikon wants you to save $13,600 by not buying the Sigma 200-500/2.8 (as well as about 27lbs in weight to haul around)?:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I think Dennis is a bit confused about equivalence. A 400mm lens is a 400mm lens whether you have a DX body behind it or a teleconverter behind it. From the perspective of depth of field and total amount of light reading the sensor, a DX body with a 400 f/4 behaves like a 600mm f/6 does on FX - very close to the 1.4(1)x f/5.6(ish) you get from a teleconverter. (The same applies if you crop a DX region out of the FX frame afterwards.) Both DX and the teleconverter use the "sweet spot" - but at the same pixel count, both have similarly higher demands on the image resolution. The teleconverter has extra optics in the way that should slightly reduce resolution. A larger sensor should allow for higher bin size and more dynamic range - but that's not what the D5 is optimised for...

... :)

 

In my first post I stated that the focal length did not change, only the angle of view. The magnification is the same; you're only seeing a smaller part of a FX-designed lens.

 

No confusion here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What am I missing here? Why should I spend $12,400 for this new lens with a built in 1.4x tc when I can buy a new Nikon 200-400mm f4 for about $7000 and a new TC 14E III for about $500 or $7500 total.That is about $4900 less than $12,400. Is the FL lens element in the new lens worth that much? (The Nikon 200-400 f 4 VR II does not have a FL lens element. )

Not that I have any plan to spend $12400 on this 180-400mm FL lens, which is clearly very expensive, but even though I like my 200-400mm/f4 AF-S VR, version 1, that lens does not work well with teleconverters. I have tried a few times putting a Nikon 1.4x TC on the 200-400mm/f4, and I don't particularly like the results.

 

Presumably, the new 180-400mm is still optically excellent with the build-in 1.4x TC in its optical path, but that needs to be verified by independent field tests. And it is still going to be an f5.6 lens with the TC and AF could be challenging under less-than-ideal light.

 

Another disappointment is that the new 180-400mm weights 3.5kg, which is heavier than the 200-400mm/f4 AF-S VR (3.36kg). Both are heavier than the 500mm/f4 FL AF-S VR at 3.09kg (and $10300). Of course, the 180-400 includes a 1.4x TC that you cannot remove (at least cannot remove without taking the lens apart).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another disappointment is that the new 180-400mm weights 3.5kg, which is heavier than the 200-400mm/f4 AF-S VR (3.36kg)

 

By 140 grams, or five ounces, insignificant compared to the weight of either lens. But the matters even less if the lens is too expensive to buy.

 

For me, the most interesting thing about this lens is that it will further bring down the second-hand cost of version 1 of Nikon's 200-400mm. There is one now reasonably accessible, used in 8+ condition, at B&H.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The other current-crop of FL E super teles are significantly lighter than the previous generation AF-S VR versions introduced in 2007 along with the D3 and D300. For example, the 600mm/f4 FL is 3.81kg, vs. 5.06kg for the 2007 AF-S VR version; that is 2.75 pounds lighter, partly due to using Fluorite elements in front.

 

Unfortunately, the 180-400mm/f4 FL is actually heavier than the previous 200-400mm/f4 version, and it is approaching the weight of the 600mm/f4 FL. Again, part of the additional weight is due to the build-in, non-removable 1.4x teleconverter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am thinking of getting the old 600mm f/4 AI. That would be good enough for me.

I bought the Nikkor ED 600 / 5.6 and have been quite pleased with it. It is large and heavy, but very sharp. With excellent light, I have even used a Teleconverter.

A tenth of the cost of the new180-400mm-f4-af-s-vr-with-built-in-1-4x-teleconverter.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my first post I stated that the focal length did not change, only the angle of view. The magnification is the same; you're only seeing a smaller part of a FX-designed lens.

 

No confusion here.

 

Sorry, Dennis - I thought the discussion was about the 180-400 with a TC on FX vs without on DX, so I must have misinterpreted your "still need the teleconverter" comment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am thinking of getting the old 600mm f/4 AI. That would be good enough for me.

 

If you're sure about manual focus with a big supertele. I found the 500 f/4 AI-P to be very frustrating because it was hard to track anything I'd want to point it at, and too awkward to hand-hold.

 

Given that the AF-S 600mm f/4 is becoming affordable (and I'd have it on a tripod anyway) I'd almost be tempted - but sadly the latest one seems to be measurably sharper, so in reality I'm probably better just renting. (I'm still unclear whether the 800+TC14 is optically better than the latest 600+TC20 for real reach.)

 

A teleconverter is pretty negligibly light. I'm sure it adds to the weight, but if expect the benefit of FL to be less than for the 400/600/800 primes just because the front elements are already significantly smaller.

 

There are significant shortcomings to the old 200-400, and the quoted MTF of the new one is impressive. The high price, other than being justified by the competition, is likely exactly because none of us are sliding excited by it - Nikon know they won't sell many, and that bumps up the cost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gee, I posted this in the wrong thread (D850, first impressions).

 

Given the rather narrow range of focal lengths in the 180-400, I wonder how many will leave the TC engaged at all times out of "convenience" (paying for f/4 but not getting the benefit)? Or forget to disengage when it's no longer needed? It's clear when you need to engage it - if you need more reach. But when zooming back out, it's not that obvious when to disengage the TC (at the 285mm setting) when its presence is no longer needed and may actually degrade image quality. Of course, if one disengages at the 285mm setting one would then have to zoom in to 400 to get back the same framing; not the most convenient solution I think.

 

The lens could have cost a lot less if instead of f/4 it was designed as an f/4.5 (pushing the front element size below the magical 100mm size that seems to be what warrants exorbitant pricing). 1/3 of a stop less and 1/3 of the price. Or heaven forbid, try to make it more useful at shorter focal length and design it as variable aperture (f/2.8-f/4.5).

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think one of the important reasons behind stretching the focal range of a 200-400mm f/4 with a TC (instead of extending the zoom range itself) is because it allows the center of gravity to be maintained in the direction of the optical axis so the rig doesn't move off balance in use. Furthermore, in stadion/arena lighting the lighting is usually very even and manual settings may work best to ensure consistent exposure across shots. In figure skating autoexposure doesn't work well as the amount of bright ice varies from shot to shot and this throws averaging or matrix meters off. Thus I use manual exposure settings and a constant aperture zoom is useful because then you are assured the exposure is not changing as you zoom. Of course, if you flip the TC in or out, then the aperture does change. This is an inconvenience but much less so than applying / removing a conventional TC.

 

The 180-400 has better wide open MTF than the 200/2 so without doubt a 2x cropped image from the 200mm would fall apart in comparison to a full frame capture from the zoom at 400mm setting. I think the difficulty with utilizing the zoom comes from the need to follow the action itself, shift AF point around, time shots, operate a physically much longer lens, and then add the complexity of adjusting zooming to permit close to frame filling images at different ranges. That's a lot of things to attend to all at the same time. I think this lens would permit a greater variety of high quality shots at long ranges and from higher vantage points but when zoomed out, the background blur would not be ideal compared to the fixed 200mm. I do think the ability to get some really tight shots with simple backgrounds is enticing. It's too expensive for me though.

 

I think a key application for the zoom is if you must get a shot of a particular athlete's signature move, for example, or a key moment, and you cannot predict where she or he will be at that moment in advance. You have to try to cover the whole range of distances. The 180-400 with built in TC has a good range of focal lengths and the aperture is somewhat larger than other zoom solutions in this range, and the published MTF suggests very high performance.

 

none of us are sliding excited by it

 

All the grumbling online suggests many people want it but can't afford it or justify its cost. If people didn't want it, the 180-400 threads wouldn't be so active.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...