# New Nikon 400 mm 1:2,8 Z TC VR S with built in telconverter - for Z9



## xps (Jan 19, 2022)

Nikon announced an 400mm 2.8 lens with an built in teleconverter. 560mm at f4.
Under 3kg.

Would be an nobrainer for wildlife if made by Canon.
Proud pricing. But an welcome fast lens.









NIKKOR Z 400 mm 1:2,8 TC VR S | Professionelles 1:2,8 Superteleobjektiv mit integriertem Telekonverter


Extremste Lebensräume. Größte Sportevents. Das lichtstarke, robuste und zuverlässige spiegellose 400-mm-Vollformat-Superteleobjektiv mit integriertem Telekonverter sprengt alle Limits.



www.nikon.de


----------



## AlanF (Jan 19, 2022)

_Nobrainer_ at $14,000/£13,500?


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Jan 19, 2022)

Got mine on pre order. A super fast 400mm f/2.8 that is also a 560mm f/4.0 that is as light as my old Canon 300mm f/2.8 os very much a no brainer. It is about 40g heavier than the RF 400mm f/2.8 but it has a built in 1.4x TC that you can flick in and out even while tracking and shooting a subject.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 19, 2022)

Photo Bunny said:


> Got mine on pre order. A super fast 400mm f/2.8 that is also a 560mm f/4.0 that is as light as my old Canon 300mm f/2.8 os very much a no brainer. It is about 40g heavier than the RF 400mm f/2.8 but it has a built in 1.4x TC that you can flick in and out even while tracking and shooting a subject.


Its MTF values at 560 f/4 are much worse than your 500mm f/5.6 PF according to Nikon‘s charts. Nikon has gone over to the design of having smaller elements further back in the lens to reduce weight, like Canon has done with the III series, which seems not to work as well with extenders. Steve Perry has found that the speed of the AF of the 500 PF has improved with the Z9.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Jan 20, 2022)

AlanF said:


> Its MTF values at 560 f/4 are much worse than your 500mm f/5.6 PF according to Nikon‘s charts. Nikon has gone over to the design of having smaller elements further back in the lens to reduce weight, like Canon has done with the III series, which seems not to work as well with extenders. Steve Perry has found that the speed of the AF of the 500 PF has improved with the Z9.


I am not replacing my 500 PF. I am getting a lens I can use under ISO 16000 1/125s in the winter and early mornings. And the 500 PF has indeed really came alive on my Z9.

In Canon news I got the ImageGraph Pro 300 the other day and got my first prints out of it last night. Right banger of a printer!

Looks like I'll end up with the 105 f/2.8 macro, 70-200 f/2.8 S, 500 f/5.6 PF, 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 S, 400 f/2.8 TC, and 800mm f/6.3 PF as my main wildlife kit. The 70-200 and 500 PF are the most likely on the block if if need to travel light.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 20, 2022)

Photo Bunny said:


> I am not replacing my 500 PF. I am getting a lens I can use under ISO 16000 1/125s in the winter and early mornings. And the 500 PF has indeed really came alive on my Z9.
> 
> In Canon news I got the ImageGraph Pro 300 the other day and got my first prints out of it last night. Right banger of a printer!
> 
> Looks like I'll end up with the 105 f/2.8 macro, 70-200 f/2.8 S, 500 f/5.6 PF, 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 S, 400 f/2.8 TC, and 800mm f/6.3 PF as my main wildlife kit. The 70-200 and 500 PF are the most likely on the block if if need to travel light.


That's an impressive kit, and were I 10 or 20 years younger and did your type of nature photography I would probably go for something similar. At the moment, the RF 100-500mm with extenders covers my needs at a weight I can manage and for my style of shooting. However, I would like a wider prime on occasion. A 400/2.8 and 600/4 seem to bottom out at ~ 3kg, which I can't manage. However, if they could get a 500/4 down to 2 kg, I would be very tempted.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Jan 20, 2022)

AlanF said:


> That's an impressive kit, and were I 10 or 20 years younger and did your type of nature photography I would probably go for something similar. At the moment, the RF 100-500mm with extenders covers my needs at a weight I can manage and for my style of shooting. However, I would like a wider prime on occasion. A 400/2.8 and 600/4 seem to bottom out at ~ 3kg, which I can't manage. However, if they could get a 500/4 down to 2 kg, I would be very tempted.







Just to illustrate, my songthush here was on the Z9 with the 500 f/5.6 and I manages ISO 900 with 1/320 at about 13:30 so my afternoon walk is about ideal for the 100-400 and 500 PF. But the wee robin there on the same 500 f/5.6 PF lens was ISO 16,000 with 1/160s shutter speed at about 11:30 in poor weather, I would have kept the slow shutter for the rain but had more detail from dropping the ISO. I am wanting the f/2.8 for these scenarios as I could for that picture have mustered ISO 4000 or taken some outside shots at ISO 10,000-16,000 with shutters as fast as 1/1000.

I should also add so there is no confusion: I don't get have the 400 f/2.8 TC and 800 f/6.3 in my kit yet, they are pre-ordered and I look forward to using them. I also have a 1.4X TC that with how good the 100-400 S performs is making me consider dropping the 500 f/5.6 PF from my lineup due to how inflexible it is when walking about.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 20, 2022)

Photo Bunny said:


> I should also add so there is no confusion: I don't get have the 400 f/2.8 TC and 800 f/6.3 in my kit yet, they are pre-ordered and I look forward to using them. I also have a 1.4X TC that with how good the 100-400 S performs is making me consider dropping the 500 f/5.6 PF from my lineup due to how inflexible it is when walking about.


Interesting. The 500PF f/5.6 was my favourite lens, but the 100-500 f/7.1 is near as dammit as sharp and has all the flexibility of a zoom with near macro focussing. 2/3rds stop from f/5.6 to 7.1 is a tolerable loss. The 100-400 S at 560 f/8 is also in effect the same as 500 f/7.1 for light and signal/noise.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Jan 20, 2022)

AlanF said:


> Interesting. The 500PF f/5.6 was my favourite lens, but the 100-500 f/7.1 is near as dammit as sharp and has all the flexibility of a zoom with near macro focussing. 2/3rds stop from f/5.6 to 7.1 is a tolerable loss. The 100-400 S at 560 f/8 is also in effect the same as 500 f/7.1 for light and signal/noise.



The 500 PF is one of my favourite lenses but it can only focus at 3m or more vs the 90cm at 400mm of the 100-400 S which make it way more versatile for various smaller subjects like lizards and snakes. I have been out with the 500 and misses shots because the subject was too big, too close, or too far away. It it a Goldilocks lens where when you have something in perfect framing and lighting you get the shot but you have to pass by a lot of amazing shots or have a second body with you. I often bring the 70-200 f/2.8 and 1.4x TC with me on the Z6 when I have the 500 PF on the Z9. For just my daily walks I see the 100-400 being reached for more and more and that's going to be the death kneel of the 500 PF, I can see myself just not reaching for it.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 20, 2022)

Photo Bunny said:


> The 500 PF is one of my favourite lenses but it can only focus at 3m or more vs the 90cm at 400mm of the 100-400 S which make it way more versatile for various smaller subjects like lizards and snakes. I have been out with the 500 and misses shots because the subject was too big, too close, or too far away. It it a Goldilocks lens where when you have something in perfect framing and lighting you get the shot but you have to pass by a lot of amazing shots or have a second body with you. I often bring the 70-200 f/2.8 and 1.4x TC with me on the Z6 when I have the 500 PF on the Z9. For just my daily walks I see the 100-400 being reached for more and more and that's going to be the death kneel of the 500 PF, I can see myself just not reaching for it.


That's what happened to me - I just stopped using it. I photo birds, butterflies and dragonflies when I am out. At 3m, the 500 PF is sharper than anything I have ever seen, and I could still do insects and birds with the same lens. But, the zoom gets down to a meter or so and gets so much more detail. For amusement, here is a Robin I took a week ago at iso51k on the R5 + 100-500mm where I had mistakenly set the ss to 1/3200s. It used just standard Deepprime noise reduction in PL5 followed by selective sharpening of the bird in Topaz.


----------



## Del Paso (Jan 20, 2022)

AlanF said:


> _Nobrainer_ at $14,000/£13,500?


Depends on what or whom you call no-brainer...


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Jan 20, 2022)

AlanF said:


> That's what happened to me - I just stopped using it. I photo birds, butterflies and dragonflies when I am out. At 3m, the 500 PF is sharper than anything I have ever seen, and I could still do insects and birds with the same lens. But, the zoom gets down to a meter or so and gets so much more detail. For amusement, here is a Robin I took a week ago at iso51k on the R5 + 100-500mm where I had mistakenly set the ss to 1/3200s. It used just standard Deepprime noise reduction in PL5 followed by selective sharpening of the bird in Topaz.
> 
> View attachment 202158


I haven’t done much sharpening and Denoise yet. Though I did buy the Topaz Denoise. Usually I just use the file as it comes out of Capture One with maybe the eye brightened up and some change to the white point.

https://photos.photobunny.co.uk/pancake.jpg the link will take to to the robin at full resolution. No noise reduction other than whatever Capture One does by default. The only thing I don’t like about the Z9 just now is that high efficiency RAW isn’t supported by Capture One yet. But I haven’t been able to outrun the buffer on 20, 30 and 120 FPS modes. It is more likely the subject moves off than you run out of buffer unless you have a perched bird and just decide to fill a card of it looking at you for several minutes.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 20, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> Depends on what or whom you call no-brainer...


From your emoji you clearly know that no-brainer referring to "what" means something that is so obvious it requires no thought, and when applied to a "whom" means that they are stupid. No-brainer referring to spending $14k on a lens could mean either.


----------



## Del Paso (Jan 20, 2022)

AlanF said:


> From your emoji you clearly know that no-brainer referring to "what" means something that is so obvious it requires no thought, and when applied to a "whom" means that they are stupid. No-brainer referring to spending $14k on a lens could mean either.


To be honest, I believe that for a professional wildlife photographer, spending $14000 can definitely be an intelligent choice, provided IQ doesn't suffer from the use of the 1,4X.
I wonder why Canon did not fit their big RF whites with a built-in extender. 
I could never justify the cost, due to lack of "birding-talent" and satisfaction with the EF 100-400. I would certainly be the $14000 no-brainer if I bought this lens...


----------



## AlanF (Jan 20, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> To be honest, I believe that for a professional wildlife photographer, spending $14000 can definitely be an intelligent choice, provided IQ doesn't suffer from the use of the 1,4X.
> I wonder why Canon did not fit their big RF whites with a built-in extender.
> I could never justify the cost, due to lack of "birding-talent" and satisfaction with the EF 100-400. I would certainly be the $14000 no-brainer if I bought this lens...


My guess is that there are more enthusiasts with deep pockets buying them than pros. And, if they enjoy the lenses, good luck to them. But, it wouldn't be a sensible buy for me and many others whose shooting style depends on travelling light.


----------



## Del Paso (Jan 20, 2022)

AlanF said:


> My guess is that there are more enthusiasts with deep pockets buying them than pros. And, if they enjoy the lenses, good luck to them. But, it wouldn't be a sensible buy for me and many others whose shooting style depends on travelling light.


Travelling light...
I always try to, like 2 years ago in Wales. Resulting in an F-Stop Ajna filled to the brim with Leica M and 21, 28, 35, 50, 5DIV with , EF100, EF 100-400, TSE 24, EF 16-35, ext 1,4X, binoculars and a Ricoh WG50.
But (this was the lightweight version) : no strobe or tripod.
PS: Wales is beautiful, and food was great!


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Jan 20, 2022)

AlanF said:


> My guess is that there are more enthusiasts with deep pockets buying them than pros. And, if they enjoy the lenses, good luck to them. But, it wouldn't be a sensible buy for me and many others whose shooting style depends on travelling light.


I think pro's are the bigger buyer here. I am something like preorder 20 odd on the NPS list on day one. In order to join NPS it wasn't like Canon where you shove in a bunch of serial numbers, I had to show income from photography.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 20, 2022)

Photo Bunny said:


> I think pro's are the bigger buyer here. I am something like preorder 20 odd on the NPS list on day one. In order to join NPS it wasn't like Canon where you shove in a bunch of serial numbers, I had to show income from photography.


Maybe that's why Canon outsells Nikon big time. Nikon has some of the best camera and lens designers let down by the worst corporate side.


----------



## Del Paso (Jan 20, 2022)

There was a time, not too long ago, when a professional didn't even consider an alternative to Nikon. They had the largest choice of lenses, the best professional bodies. Canon had no chance against them, not even with their F1 and F1new bodies, despite their qualities. The pro-world belonged to the F, F2 and F3 Nikons.
And then came the EOS, and Nikon didn't react fast enough. Same with mirrorless. But the cherry on the cake was poor service and customer care. This, in my opinion, resulted in Nikon's market erosion. They are now number 3, behind Sony (Minolta) and, according to Photo Bunny, have not yet learnt the lesson. Despite great new cameras and lenses...a pity.
I still love my F2.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Jan 21, 2022)

AlanF said:


> Maybe that's why Canon outsells Nikon big time. Nikon has some of the best camera and lens designers let down by the worst corporate side.


After switching I can definitely say Nikon lenses and bodies feel and produce images that seem like a step up from Canon. But I could have likely said they same thing if I had taken the RF 100-500 and R5. Though then I wouldn't have a 70-200 f/2.8 that can also be a 98-280 f/4.0 with no image quality and AF speed penalty. Still I keep a toe in the door with Canon, that ImageGraph Pro 300 I got is absolutely cracking.


----------

