Jump to content

Nikon Formally Announce the Z-Mount 400mm/f2.8 S w/ 1.4x TC


ShunCheung

Recommended Posts

Nikon has already pre-announced the development of this lens when they announced the Z9 on October 28, 2021. Actually I was quite surprised that they didn't also announce this 400mm/f2.8 and 600mm/f4 with the Z9. With the Beijing Winter Olympics coming up, this lens is pretty much a must to accompany the Z9.

 

What is unusual with this 400mm/f2.8 is that it has a 1.4x TC built-in, similar to the Canon 200-400mm/f4 and Nikon's 180-400mm/f4. Even with the TC, Nikon manage to reduce the weight to 2950 grams, about 6.5 pounds. That is within 100 grams from the Canon and Sony 400mm/f2.8, but those lenses do not have the TC built in. However, the Nikon is priced to US$13,999.95, which is $2000 over the Canon and Sony and about $2800 over the F-mount 400mm/f2.8 FL.

 

With the built-in TC, one can quickly switch between 400mm/f2.8 and 560mm/f4. The lens can take one additional TC at the end, at this point either another 1.4x and a 2x.

 

News on Nikon's corporate web site:

Nikon | News | Nikon releases the NIKKOR Z 400mm f/2.8 TC VR S, a fast, super-telephoto prime lens with a built-in 1.4x teleconverter for the Nikon Z mount system

 

400_2.8_TC_angle5.thumb.jpg.f1cc0910e59f0f90792bdf42473e5757.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is unusual with this 400mm/f2.8 is that it has a 1.4x TC built-in, similar to the Canon 200-400mm/f4 and Nikon's 180-400mm/f4.

Pretty cool. Total approximately 560mm f/4 @6.5lb for US$13,999.95 (Ouch!). This is definitely one of Nikon sharpest, if not the sharpest. Hwvr, pros and cons considered - such as focal length, aperture, weight and price, some other choices are good competitors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few days ago, I took a screen shot of the four 400mm/f2.8 lenses on B&H's web site. The two Canon are essentially identical lenses with EF and RF mounts, and they are priced within $1 with the Sony at almost $12K, and they are all about 2900 grams. The Nikon F-mount FL version is $800 cheaper but heavier. None of the four is in stock.

 

I was thinking that Nikon's Z 400/2.8 with 1.4x TC should be also around $12000, maybe $1000 more for the TC. The $14K price tag is higher than I thought, but really, another $1K or 2K hardly makes a difference in that price range. You either can afford it or you cannot.

 

Checking Roland Vink's web site: http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/lenses.html#400

 

The weight for Nikon's 400mm/f2.8 has been steadily coming down:

  • AF-I from 1992: 6600 grams
  • AF-S from 1998: 4800 grams, the ii version slightly lighter
  • AF-S VR from 2007 4620 grams with VR
  • AF-S FL VR from 2014: 3800 grams, with the lighter fluorite elements
  • Z-mount VR from 2022: 2950 grams with a built-in 1.4x TC

I have the 2007 version of the 600mm/f4 AF-S VR and I find that heavy. I would certainly pay more for the lighter weight. When capturing video, my microphone picks up a bit of the sound from that AF-S motor. The really silent AF motors on the Z lenses can really help.

 

 

400mm28.thumb.jpg.6667b864b004252d65620a5981cbdbc3.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me personally, the Olympus 150-400mm f/4.5 with a built-in 1.25 TC makes a lot more sense at USD$7,500 as it is 800mm @f/4.5 constant (in 35mm) even without flipping the TC on, and the 4-lb weight is much more handholdable. But this is another story coming from a different path.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1685837-REG/nikon_4265_hk_42_lens_hood.html

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1685840-REG/nikon_4269_c_pl_460_circular_polarizer.html

 

Wow, you better not loose or break your lens hood.....:(

 

That's an absolutely outrageous replacement cost...:eek:

 

Anyone remember how much the old rotating drop-ins were for the previous f2.8 or f4 lenses?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does someone who routinely needs a 400/2.8 value the built-in TC and is willing to pay the extra cost?

Is this a good option for someone who rather likes a 600/4 but may see the added versatility of having a 400/2.8 at the same time (at the expense of losing 40mm (600 ->560) and possibly a slight optical quality loss compared to a dedicated 600/4 lens). Same goes for the traditional 500/4 buyer - is the 400/2.8 with built-in TC a viable option? Is there actually a need for a Z-mount 500/4 and 600/4 now (as I expect these could be made even lighter than the just announced 400/2.8 with built-in TC)?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why worry about the cost of the replacement hood when the lens costs what it does? If you can genuinely afford the lens the replacement hood should not cause an issue (it's very unlikely that one would lose it or break it anyway).

I guess it's the 'equivalence' issue.

 

If I did leave the lens hood on the car roof whilst rushing to get the lens out of the rain and drive off, it's going to cost me 4x new Nikon EnEl18Ds AND a 650GB Cobalt CFx card in value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has a set of elements moving into the light's path when the TC is switched on. When not used, the elements are moved outside of the light path to the side. A switch on the side of the lens is used to move the TC. It's not a zoom lens.

 

Looking at the picture, and guessing the size of lens element, it wasn't so obvious that they would fit.

That is, that there was enough room to the side. But maybe they tilt or something like that.

 

Reminds me that I do have a 28, 35mm lens. It has a switch (which I believe moves lens elements) but only two positions.

There is no in between, so I believe it isn't called a zoom lens. As well as I know, all elements stay in the path.

-- glen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just noticed the Medical Warning at the end of the news release.

 

No-one with a pacemaker or 'other medical devices' should use this lens as it contains MAGNETS.....:eek:

If you have a heart problem, there is risk to get a heart attack when you see the price tag. :rolleyes:

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking at the picture, and guessing the size of lens element, it wasn't so obvious that they would fit.

That is, that there was enough room to the side. But maybe they tilt or something like that.

 

The size of the built-in TC elements (in the rear middle part of the design) can be seen in the cross-sections here:

 

Nikon | Imaging Products | NIKKOR Z 400mm f/2.8 TC VR S

 

The extension of barrel which houses a part of the mechanism and elements in TC OFF position is not visible in the cross-section illustrations but can be seen in the main image of the lens at the top.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting (kinda!) the built-in TC has 1 built in ED glass element out of 7... whereas the 'conventional' external TC Z 1.4 has 1 Aspheric out of 6.

 

Looking at the MTFs, with, and without internal TC, the IQ takes quite a modest hit, mostly at the edges.

 

I look forward to seeing Z400mm frames, cropped to 560mm compared to 'native' 560mm frames and then compared to Z400mm + Ext. TC 1.4 Z

 

... and them maybe compared to 400mm E FL + TC 1.4e iii

 

I still run DSLRs too, so might decide a 400mm E FL is better 'value' to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I look forward to seeing Z400mm frames, cropped to 560mm compared to 'native' 560mm frames and then compared to Z400mm + Ext. TC 1.4 Z

I would expect that a dedicated TC built into the optical system of the lens will do better than a TC that is attached behind it. There's a noticeable difference in the MTF charts between the Z-mount 400 with TC and the F-mount 600/4 - with the latter clearly doing better (whether or not those differences can be seen in real life images is a different story). Also appears to be worse than the F-mount 180-400 with TC engaged - though that's at f/5.6 and not f/4. Not sure what to expect with regard to comparing "cropped 560" vs "560 w TC" - I expect that pixel peeping will favor the TC images.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I copied Nikon's 400/2.8 S cross section diagram here. The group I am highlighting in green forms the 1.4x teleconverter that can be swung out from the optical path. Notice that those TC elements are smaller (with a smaller diameter) than the elements in front of and behind them. Therefore, Nikon can manage to use a reasonably small bump on the side to store those elements when they are out of the optical path.

 

As Dieter points out, the MTF curves with the TC engaged is inferior to the straight F-mount 600mm/f4 FL. For those who need 600mm, I think it is best to wait for the true 600mm/f4 S lens, which potentially may also have a built-in TC. The main advantage of this arrangement is that during sports/action photography, you can add or remove the TC in a fraction of a second. When these lenses are on a tripod, it is a pain to remove the body and add/remove a TC. Frequently you also change the composition a little.

400_28_lensconstruction.jpg.4abf1937d9aaff55f7aa69ca15286b15.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When these lenses are on a tripod, it is a pain to remove the body and add/remove a TC.

It's even worse when hand-holding, especially when not using a shoulder strap. Not enough hands to hold the camera, the lens, and the TC. Not to mention, removing or adding the TC's front and rear caps. Steve Perry carries his TC in a belt pouch - without the caps attached to make mounting and unmounting them to the camera easier. I would very much prefer a built-in TC that I can engage/disengage at the flip of a switch.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a way, now that 1.1/2 stops is pretty irrelevant, ISO wise, they could have been brave and put in a x1.7.

 

680mm is a useful increase, where-as 560mm is a bit, well, meh!

 

Whether it's a 1 stop or 1.1/2 stop 'hit' is pretty insignificant.

 

___________

 

Course, if you were real innovative, they could be all on a 4 mount rotary TC ring, a bit like the astronomers have with filter wheels for different viewing or photography filters... even 6 is quite common.

 

A 4 shot (TC) revolver, if you will.

 

Blank, x1.4, x1.7 and x2...:D

 

.....or maybe it's just easier to make a 400mm 2.8 > 800mm f5.6 ZOOM....:cool::p

 

.....or maybe not??? ;)

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...