Nikon releases the NIKKOR Z 28-400mm f/4-8 VR

[mike_halliwell]

https://www.nikon.com/company/news/2024/0327_imaging_01.html

Ultimate single walkaround lens ?

[mike_halliwell]

Just noticed, it comes with a square lens hood.

Wonder why?

[joseph_smith3]

It zooms by extending lens elements based on pictures at NikonUSA. 

https://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/mirrorless-lenses/nikkor-z-28-400mm-f%2f4-8-vr.html?utm_source=WWA&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20240327_wwa-28-400_cs-z-3-26-2024&utm_content=btn&utm_term=LearnMore&ET_CID=5153267&ET_RID=908648365

 

[robert_bouknight1]

Well, it does not appeal to me as a travel lens, but I can see some applications where a one camera 28-400 zoom range could be useful.

[ShunCheung]

This new lens is a 14.2x zoom, that is a pretty serious super zoom so that it'll definitely have to extend quite a bit from 28mm to 400mm. It is very slow at f8 from 200mm and up. It uses 77mm front filters and the $1300 price tag is within expectations.

About 15 years ago, there were a lot of praises on the then F-mount 28-300mm/f4.5-5.6 AF-S VR, also using 77mm filters. Unfortunately, I ended up buying one. It was ok on my then 12MP D700, but later on I used it on a DX, 16MP D7000 and it simply isn't sharp on the 300mm end. Hopefully these Z-mount super zoom are better. I am reasonably happy with my 24-200mm Z but it is pretty slow at f6.3 past 85mm or so. f8 is quite limiting. I am a firm believer that we are better off splitting such zoom range into, for example, a 24-120 and 100-400. That would give me the important 24mm and a lot less optical compromises. It is just hard to go from pretty wide to super tele in one lens, both optically and mechanically.

 

 

 

[mike_halliwell]

21 minutes ago, ShunCheung said:

That would give me the important 24mm and a lot less optical compromises

The press release emphasises video. I guess it's probably quite OK for DX crop and/or 4K.

So, 28 > 600mm in one lens weighing 725g 😉

Having said that, the 24 - 200mm on the same score becomes a 24 > 300mm is a f6.3 @ 570gm.

[ShunCheung]

Sometimes I use the 24-200 for classical music video, as my 70-200mm/f2.8 S is tied up for capturing still images, but I also use the 100-400 S or the F-mount 70-200mm/f4 AF-S VR for video. Those lenses can give me a good crop to focus on a concerto soloist. The thing is that the 28-400 has no tripod collar. It will be difficult to use it on its long end on a tripod. It is also a slow lens. After my experience with the F-mount 28-300 AF-S VR, I am quite certain that this 28-400 is not for me.

[Rick Helmke]

Having been at this for a long time I discovered early that a lens going from wide angle to a telephoto is a compromise and doesn’t do anything very well. I doubt this will be any different and it’s slow. I know $1200 isn’t what it used to be but I think it can be spent on more effective glass. A lot of people will buy it and use it for everything thinking it’s the greatest thing since sliced bread but they’ll never see the shortcomings of this design. Then again I’m not the target market.

 

Rick H.

[ilkka_nissila]

7 hours ago, Rick Helmke said:

Having been at this for a long time I discovered early that a lens going from wide angle to a telephoto is a compromise and doesn’t do anything very well. I doubt this will be any different and it’s slow. I know $1200 isn’t what it used to be but I think it can be spent on more effective glass. A lot of people will buy it and use it for everything thinking it’s the greatest thing since sliced bread but they’ll never see the shortcomings of this design. Then again I’m not the target market.

I think that wide angle to short telephoto lenses such as the Z 24-70/2.8 are excellent and among the most useful lenses out there, but I agree extended-range wide-to-tele zooms are not that good.

I'm personally thinking about trading my 100-400 in for a 400/4.5, but I'm still exploring what the zoom gives me that the prime would not, and to be honest I still need to cover 300 mm with something.

I'm hoping that Nikon would consider making more of the zooms with internal zooming design for easier use and lighter zooming without changing the lens's balance.

I believe there are applications for high-power zooms especially for video where the requirements on resolution or maximum aperture are not as stringent as typical for stills. However, for high-focal-ratio zooms I would expect that a power zoom design would be preferable for video shooters. Why Nikon have made so far only one power zoom for Z (a wide angle for DX) is a mystery to me.

[ilkka_nissila]

I'm just guessing that the wide-range zooms became originally popular with the DX 18-200mm and the others are a continuation of this series. However, the 18-200mm was quite compact for the range (96.5mm long at the shortest setting) vs. the 28-400mm is 141.5mm which actually seems amazingly short but may be less comfortable to carry around one's neck than the 18-200mm. I have no doubt the 28-400mm is a lot better than the 18-200 was in objective metrics of image quality (certainly sharpness in the outer parts of the frame) but still I have this feeling that for travel / walkaround shooting, it might not be quite as attractive. I also wonder how well the telescoping barrel will hold up over extended usage and if the lens focal length stays in position when the lens is pointed up or down.

 

Anyway, I remember newspaper photographers using lenses like the Canon 35-350mm at times for large outdoor events back in the 1990s, and this was when ISO 800 film was pretty bad and ISO 400 was actuall very good, so the limits must have been set by those considerations (if going for colour). However, it's clear that some photographers considered the tradeoffs favourable even with those ISO options available. Today I think ISO 6400 can be better than ISO 800 negative film was, so that definitely puts the 28-400 mm with its f/8 maximum aperture at the telephoto end into play in situations where a 35-350mm f/3.5-5.6 could be used, and the 28-400 mm is a lot lighter. So considering these factors, I can imagine that for photojournalistic purposes some might find this lens useful in certain situations. I personally tend to find myself liking images made with wider apertures for the most part but then I'm not required to be able to capture wide angle and super telephoto images of a situation in a quick succession. If I were, unfortunately, in my country, I would still probably find myself happiest with f/2.8 zooms in similar situations and switching lenses as needed. However, I can imagine many people not willing to allocate so much space in the bag for two lenses if there is a possibility of covering with just one. Airshows are one example where f/4-8 would probably work okay and the range would be useful. The 28-400 is lighter than the 100-400 and much lighter than the 180-600 which are probably two of the choices which first come to mind for such situations. I was thinking about what I would need for the next royal coronation in the UK (I find the phenomena surrounding them and the public celebrations very photogenic, plus the logistical challenges of getting to a where shots could be successfully made very demanding with hundreds of thousands or millions of spectators crowding the streets all at once). I had success photographing Harry and Meghan's wedding procession in Windsor, but I was there at 6 am while the procession started at 1pm if I recall correctly, so I had to ration my eating and drinking so that I would not have to leave my spot on the street and potentially lose my good line of sight. 7-8 hours of waiting an 10 seconds of visibility with 3 seconds of good shooting of the couple, leading to maybe 10 good pics. I used the 70-200/2.8 for that and it was the correct choice for the situation. However, having waited there on the street for so many hours in the sun, I was exhausted and probably had heatstroke (according to a doctor I met an hour later, she looked at me and how bewildered I was and thought I should go to the medical tent). If I had prepared mentally for it, I could have run from my location to the other side of the park to see them come backwards a few minutes later, and in that situation a broader-range lens such as the 28-400 would probably have been useful, as there would not have been any way to get to a similarly close position through the crowds so quickly. There can also be balcony viewings (requiring very long focal lengths, I remember seeing a 600/4 with 2X TC) and fighter jet overflys and similar elements at such events, and these would benefit from the 400 mm reach. But I'm not sure if I would run into such situations often enough to justify a dedicated lens for such a purpose, and if I would really be happy with the results. I suspect the 100-400 can actually serve these situations although it's 630 g heavier than the 28-400mm. For now my plan is to use the 100-400mm for this type of occasions. Although I have to say that because of line-of-sight issues and distances (there is often someone in between, if trying to shoot across a long distance), it may be that the use of long focal lengths does not lead to high-quality results. It could work if from an elevated vantage point.

 

Anyway I am sure Nikon has done their market research and they're responding to a need with this lens. I'm personally hoping they would make a 300/4 or 300/2.8 for the Z mount sometime sooner rather than later. 😉 I do have the F-mount 300/2.8 but it's a project to carry around.

[Nick D.]

22 hours ago, mike_halliwell said:

The press release emphasises video. I guess it's probably quite OK for DX crop and/or 4K.

So, 28 > 600mm in one lens weighing 725g 😉

Having said that, the 24 - 200mm on the same score becomes a 24 > 300mm is a f6.3 @ 570gm.

24mm become 36mm on DX, not 28.

[ilkka_nissila]

17 minutes ago, Nick D. said:

24mm become 36mm on DX, not 28.

Right, but by switching between FX and DX modes in video, one can cover the wide end in FX and the long end in DX to achieve an extended range of fields of view to suit a variety of situations.

[ShunCheung]

4 hours ago, ilkka_nissila said:

I'm personally thinking about trading my 100-400 in for a 400/4.5, but I'm still exploring what the zoom gives me that the prime would not, and to be honest I still need to cover 300 mm with something.

I'm hoping that Nikon would consider making more of the zooms with internal zooming design for easier use and lighter zooming without changing the lens's balance.

I believe there are applications for high-power zooms especially for video where the requirements on resolution or maximum aperture are not as stringent as typical for stills. However, for high-focal-ratio zooms I would expect that a power zoom design would be preferable for video shooters. Why Nikon have made so far only one power zoom for Z (a wide angle for DX) is a mystery to me.

Ilkka, I have both the Z 100-400 and 400mm/4.5. Those two lenses serve somewhat different purposes and I travel with both so that I have some tele backup, in case one lens fails, e.g. if I drop it. For example, for my youth orchestra coverage, I would use the 100-400 on one camera to focus the video on a concerto soloist, and I use the 400mm/f4.5 for still images. Sometimes I use the 24-200 for that purpose as its wide zoom range often gives me the exact crop. But I prefer to have f5.6 from the 100-400 than f6.3 from the 24-200. For wide shots, I need the depth of field so that f5.6, f8 is not really an issue, and somewhat lower optical quality is a non-issue for video.