At first, I was thinking the gentleman was trying to justify spending $7k fkr a marginal upgrade, The absolute killer was the looseness of the 400mm f2.8/1.4x/FTZ . At that point the upgrade made sense.
This is armchair thoughts, so take for what it is worth. The TC is what does it for me. In the field with snow flying, dust blowing, and salt spray, I would be much more willing to flip that switch and never take my eye off the viewfinder than stop, juggle three pieces, then get back behind the camera. It is a between step from a prime and a zoom.
I watched you video about 100 times and I started checking and found a camera store that had one in stock brand new so I bought it. I think your video was outstanding and I also enjoy your other videos. I had the fl ed version f mount 400f2.8. The image quality is a slight bit better but you really have to look but something that you did not mention were the new coatings that help in harsh light and I have to say they blow the old f mount away. Much better rendering and resolution. The biggest reason I switched were the multiple connections and the loud vr motor on f mount. The weight savings was a bonus but I have no buyers remorse. Thank you for the videos and content you put out
AWESOME. The Z (s series) 400 has to be the best Wildlife lens made at the moment for me. People will love the 600 but often overlook the difference in min focus distance which is a huge thing for me.
I’m waiting on mine😁 I have a 500 pf and have dreamed of a fast big telephoto for a few years now. The fast aperture, built in tc, native z mount and being in a situation recently where I needed better low light capability helping me make the decision. I work hard at my day job and have been saving!
97% of the work circulates online and is viewed on smartphones, tablets and laptops. Magazines, newspapers and high quality prints are very rare nowadays, so I don't think it's worth investing a lot of money in expensive lenses. For how much definition and weight you've gained, you could have easily kept the old 400 with F mount, who knows, maybe you could have added a D6 to it. Today it's better to spend your finances healthily. I still use the 400 2.8 pre VR, the Nikon AF-S 400mm f/2.8 D ED II with satisfaction and I don't think I'll spend crazy amounts of money for another 400 anymore 😉
Agree, although I have discovered that there is some sample variance for some odd reason with 400mm f/2.8E VR FL lenses. My old copy of the 400mm f/2.8E FL, was not as good optically as my previous generation 400mm f/2.8G VR was! Now year's later and after asking other's I found out later on that I was NOT alone in this feeling or finding. I met two other photographers/colleagues of mine who also had a poo(er) copy of the 400FL and they also felt the 400G VR was better. I cover breaking news and sports mostly and so I see a lot of other gear and I also get to test gear. Anyway, I ended up selling my 400mm f/2.8E VR FL and bought the 500mm f/4E VR FL and I've never looked back or regretted that decision. In fact the 500FL is so good, it continues to shock me with it's biting sharpness! Even with the TC-14E III it's incredibly sharp. This new 400mm f/2.8 S lens is definitely closer to the IQ of the 500FL, but looking at both lenses MTF chart, technically the 500mm FL has a better MTF chart. In the real world both are so incredibly sharp you'll never know the difference. The sharpest Nikon super-tele's by rank are the , #1 Nikon 800mm f/5.6E VR FL #2 Nikon 600mm f/4 S VR 1.4x TC #3 Nikon 500mm f/4E VR FL... (Two-way tie w/ the 400mm f/2.8 S VR 1.4x TC) #4 Nikon 120-300mm f/2.8E VR FL #5 Nikon 180-400mm f/4E VR FL #6 Nikon 400mm f/2.8G/E VR FL (as a tie, both are so close!) #7 Nikon 300mm f/2.8G VR II #8 Nikon 200mm f/2G VR II #9 Nikon 600mm f/4E VR FL #10 Nikon 600mm f/4G VR (Yes I did just put up 12 lenses, but only ranked from 1-10 and please read below, before judging...) Now see the last few lenses? All of them are epic lenses with cult like followings, lol. So the difference's are there, I can see the differences with my eyes, I have 20-10 vision and 6k monitor. I've used almost every Nikon and Canon super-tele, except for the newer Canon RF super-tele's. I work for a major news organization and we have Nikon NPS, Canon CPS and lot's of pool equipment for our staff photographers. I'm a photojournalist and I own and use Nikon gear, I've shot Nikon since the film days and was one of the first people to get a Nikon D1 in 1999. I know some may disagree with my above list, but I promise you I'm speaking from decades of experience and if you doubt my claims, go research the MTF charts and read each review for the above lenses. All of them are insanely sharp, but the Nikon 800mm FL, 500mm f/4E VR FL, and the new 600mm f/4 S VR for Z-mount are a notch above the other's. They are as close to optical perfection as you can get and Nikon deserves massive kudos, because the Canon glass is definitely NOT as sharp. Again I've not shot Canon's latest RF lenses, but I have used the 400mm and 600mm Version III lenses, which are optically the same. Overall Nikon seems to have an advantage over Canon, not just lately, this goes back to about 2011 when Nikon released the 800mm f/5.6E VR FL, which remains the sharpest lens anyone has ever made for DSLR/Mirrorless. There are a couple of $250,000 television lenses that match it, but for practical purposes the "Baby Jesus" 800FL remains the Top-Dog, in 2023! That's really saying something! Look at Canon's 800mm f/5.6L IS MTF chart vs. Nikon's 800mm f/5.6E VR FL and you'll see what I mean, it's not even close. Anyhow I am just happy Nikon has no current plans for a new 500mm f/4 and the only way I'd even consider one is if it too had a built in 1.4x and was at least a pound lighter. I wouldn't expect it to be any sharper than my 500FL though, I doubt there is any room for improvement. Until the new 600mm f/4 S with 1.4x TC was released, the 500FL was in the #2 position. However after using the new 600mm f/4 S VR for a few days, I'm absolutely blown away. Why? The previous few versions of Nikon's 600mm f/4 lenses were always a tad behind the other big primes. This got even worse with teleconverters for some odd reason. The 600mm FL loses about 15-20% of it's sharpness and contrast, whereas the 400 and 500FL only lose about 5%, and this was also the case with the 600G. Now Nikon has managed to leap frog the 400mm f/2.8 S VR and now the 600mm f/4 S VR is sharper than the 400mm! It was always the other way around for the past 20 years or so. A lot of wildlife photographer's are going to be blown away by the new 600mm. I'm just so blessed/lucky to have had some time with one recently. It was amazing! I'd absolutely trade my 500mm for it, but I don't think I'd pay $8,000 extra for 100mm more reach and built in TC, because I actually prefer the 500mm focal length. 400mm was often not enough for me personally and so I almost always had my 1.4x TC-14E III attached to it. Whereas the 600mm was often just a little too long and also too large and heavy for my personal preference. Now though that the new 600mm weighs so much less, it's now hand-holdable and that is awesome. Congratulations on the new 400mm! I have not yet had a chance to use the 400mm f/2.8 S VR, but I am sure I will someday.
Zenelli makes by far the best replacement foot, they are Italian made and carbon fiber, so they even help absorb vibrations. It's $245 or whatever, but well worth it and they already have the Z-edition. I have the original Zenelli Nikon foot attached to my 500mm FL and 180-400FL. Amazing and really help me get sharper images, but I have the PMG 42mm long monopod and tripod as well, so those are like tree trunks and extremely stable, but also expensive. I paid $850 for the monopod and $1600 total for the tripod and BH-55.
I switched to Nikon for this lens. I went from a R3 and RF400 2.8 to the 400 Z 2.8 TC and Z9. The convenience of a built-in TC was worth it alone, and having the megapixels back in a pro body was icing on the cake. I am using the Wimberley AP-502 replacement foot and it is working great. I've balanced this lens on a gimbalhead with an external 2x TC without issues.
The 400mm F/2.8 is my dream lens. I spend much of my time pursuing and photographing owls in low light and I would love to have a lens that would perform better in low light. Congrats on your new lens.
I hemmed and hawed for several years about getting the 500mm f4 because of the cost and after a trip to Wyoming without one I finally pulled the trigger and never regretted it.
This is a very nice Video. I received my Z 400mm 2.8 TC last Month and tried testing the lens by shooting pictures of the Moon with my Z9, the New Z 400 Lens is extremely impressive when adding the 2x tele-converter. I was able to boost the magnification to 800 and 1120mm while shooting at ISO 64 with an aperture of F9, and 1/125 speed, the images came out extremely clear even when zoomed in at 400x in my Capture One 23 Photo Software. I find the Z 400 2.8 tc to be a phenomenal Lens, it is expensive but in my opinion, this is the best Lens you can possibly purchase, it is very versatile, I have no regrets on the purchase. Regarding the Lens Foot, I purchased the RRS Foot and absolutely love it, especially the QD socket on the foot. I chose the RRS Foot because it looks more like the original Foot, and of course it's also Swiss Arca compatible.
Thanks Jim. I have a foot from a less known company Hejnar (2 QD ports!) and I worked with Promedia Gear on some ideas and I think they are also doing a swept back foot with 2 QD ports (I hope!)
Excellent video Scott. I have just received the 600 f4 TC having traded in my 500 f4 FL and all my other F mount gear. Still had to add a further £5000 so I am in a similar situation in weighing up the advantages of the new lens against the money spent. I am an enthusiast wildlife photographer with a reasonably well paid job and a very understanding wife. I think all the advantages you gave for the Z 400 TC apply to the Z 600 TC as well. Also I now have 600 f4 and 840 f5.6 in one lens which I think is a game changer for me. With regards to a replacement lens foot I have gone with the Hejnar and it is very good. The foot projects both back and a long way forwards. It is balancing on my Wimberley gimbal very nicely. I think this lens foot would probably work very well on the Z 400 TC as well. Looking forward to seeing more on the Z 400 TC on your channel.
Looks great. Excited to see if quality is on par. Low profile and the extra plate extension on back is critical. The cage on mine really makes it back heavy. I think they placed the lens foot too far forward. And QD connectors !! Thanks so much. I would have never thought to find these.
Yes it has 2 QD connectors. That was important to me because I have a shoulder strap with QD and love how easily I can attach and detach all my lenses. I am very impressed by the quality and the reasonable price of the Hejnar foot.
I just got this beast 2 weeks ago and agree with you wholeheartedly. It’s not one particular feature, but the sum of all parts which really takes the pain of paying auch a steep price for this amazing piece of tech. As for the foot, the Kirk Enterprise feels really solid for me.
Thanks for the video, Looking forward to more, I have been using this lens about 14 weeks now *Its Three brilliant lenses in one, possibly four* have not tried DX mode as yet.
Awesome video with strong insight to your thought process. TC's are very useable with F-mount cameras, and you have to be comfortable with the trade-offs of using them. With the Z-mount, the trade-offs are fewer and less significant. Furthermore, the compromise of image quality is negligible with the 1.4 TC's according to what is printed and demonstrated online. Seeing the super tele's with integrated TC makes me wanna change careers so I can afford to buy/justify one.
I end up purchasing the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 400mm f/2.8E FL ED VR Lens brand new from Nikon USA website. They are having now a refurbished sales for all the big Fluorite lenses for such a great price! Yes, I agree. The 400mm f/2.8 Z is phenomenal. But the price! I could not resist the "older" for $5,687.95! What a bargain!
I used a similar thought process in upgrading my gear. I went from a F mount 300 F 2.8 VR and 1.4 and 2 X converters to a Z mount 100-400 and I did get a Kirk foot. It was cheaper than RRS and available. I think the RRS foot is slightly more clearance between the lens and inside of foot thus more room to fit my hand when carrying it.
Congrats on the new lens. Nice and informative comparison. The Z is the future and therefore, the smart choice if you have the budget. Enjoy it. Don't look back. :)
,Congratulations on your new Z !! The basic rule for me is ,if i got the money ,why not enjoy it !! , I think for a new buyer it's really worth the money to go with the Z as you've mentioned it's 2 lenses in 1 ..i will stick to my 500f4 fl for the time !!.
Scott, thanks for sharing your perspective. I’d also prefer not to have multiple contact points via adapter to teleconverter to lens. Before purchasing the 500 PF, I would often use the 300 PF with TC-14E III. There was some play/wiggle where the lens mounted to the teleconverter. It usually worked fine, but I did have occasions where autofocus didn’t work or auto ISO wouldn’t work. Restarting the camera or temporarily removing/replacing the battery fixed these issues, but that lens/TC combo was the only time I experienced those types of “ghost in the machine” issues. Consequently, I tend to prefer shooting sans TC in most situations. Sadly, I’ll likely be dealing with an adapter for quite a while. I recently got a Z9 & it will be a hot minute before I can justify spending on pricey native glass. Thankfully, both F mount PF lenses appear to work really well on this heavy Mirrorless Brick. Cheers.
Scott, great video with practical information. I am also a birder and have made many trips to Colombia, Brazil, Ecuador and Peru. I have not made the leap and purchased either of these lenses but think it would help immensely in those early morning and evening hours when low light persists and there is lots of foliage. I don't know if I would ever be able to sell any of my images but I'm hoping to explore many other places in the world when I retire. I also think I could add the 2x TC on top of the already included 1.4 built in TC and have all bases covered.
i switched from the AF-S 400/2,8G ED VR to the new Z-Lens. Light, sharp, fast. Stunning quality! But i also have problems to balance the lens on the gitzo gimbal!
I always had a feeling that using a Z body + FTZ adapter + F mount tc + F lens is gonna put a lot of stress on the mounts. Talking about superteles of course, not a 24-70mm. Strange that it was never mentioned by a lot of well known youtubers. Thanks for that.
I've just finished work as I'm reading this... its been a long day. I'm trying to get my head round this comment. Surely if the f mount lens is mounted on a tripod via the lens, it's not going to be putting any strain on the lens mount 🤔
Scott, another reason for the 400TC is that the 1.4TC is matched to the lens for the best optical performance, unlike on the F mount 400. I have a 500f4G that is 10 lbs and it weighs a lot vs the newer 400/600 TC lens at 6-7 lbs, but as you mentioned the cost factor to convert and lower sale/trade in values now come into play on what comes out of the savings. I even tried to upgrade to newer 500 FL version but didn’t enough trade in value. I was thinking of the lighter weight and longer repair cycles with a FL version. Great info on the Gimbal reviews and I believe I will be buying a Leophoto PG-1, but I am waiting on your last video on the topic. It’s very similar to your PMG Katana Jr, but $200 less. I was looking at buying made in the USA for Wimberley or PMG. But Leophoto is having sales that make it more affordable for the mid price point gimbals under $400! Great evals on photo gear!!
I'm currently using the d850 with 200-500 zoom, and while I'm generally happy with the performance, there's no question that the Z9 is in another league. Seriously considering upgrading to Z9 and using the 200-500 F mount, potentially upgrading to one of the Z lenses down the road (possibly the 100-400 or the 400 4.5). This was an incredibly useful video, thanks a lot!
Always informative and helpful. But for me the Z mount lenses are the way forward but it's getting very difficult to get the old F mount tele photo lenses repaired as parts are not readily available in some parts of the world.
Hi Scott, great video. I just got my Z9 couple of months ago and still learning to use it properly. I do not have Z lenses, could not afford them (yet). I am only using F lenses. One very dangerous thing with the FTZ adapter is when switching lens or teleconverter in a rush but ended up removing the FTZ adapter because I pressed the wrong button. Then I only realized that the adapter was gone once I tried to attach the other lens or teleconverter. Very dangerous, could damage the camera!
Great and timely video Scott. My 400 2.8fl and z9 have been great together but I do have the same issue with mount jiggle, as well as VR kicking on/off when the body moves. I have tightened both body and adapter mounts. Curious if you saw this as well? Thanks for another great video and looking forward to more.
The VR became a pain in the ass to be honest. I didn't mention that but definitely didn't like it. The new system is very quiet. And seemless. I will say I have read issues of the VR jumping a little and if I see that I'll make a quick video that shows it through the lens.
I have a 300 f2.8 and a 500 f4. Where I live I always need the reach. I constantly have issues with the 1.4 tc attached to the adapter. It’s a pain when it moves and sometimes craps out. For that reason and the money factor I got the Z 800 mm f6.3. I’m hoping in a few years to add another Z lens. I have a feeling I’m going to want the 400 2.8 with the built in tc.
Congrats on the lens man! Definitely think that if you have the money it’s a worthwhile upgrade. One other benefit of the internal TC is that you don’t have to rebalance your gimbal which can be a huge pain in the field. There have definitely been times where I thought I’d tightened it all the way down after rebalancing and then realized I screwed up (luckily before it had the chance to fall though 😅).
Scott, I love this lens, since mine came in I have forgotten all my other lenses. One strong caution, the lens hood is so light that I had it literally blow away as I was removing it from my lens. It blew out into the parking lot I was in and rolled like an empty beer can across the asphalt. I was fortunate and only ended up with some scratches on the hood.
It does seems super light, hopefull this lens is durable I will say it doesn't feel like the tanks the old 400s were, so lighter yes, but i like tough!
Hello.. First of all thanks for this informative video. I got one question. I currently use combination of D850 and 400mm AF S for wildlife photography & will be travelling for snow leapord expedition in coming few months. As the subject will be far away - Is it advisable to use 2x teleconverter. What will be pro and cons of that. Thanks
Congrats. If I can sell my 600 f/4, I’m buying it. That’ll give me 70-200, 200-400, 400, 600 and 800. The fact that Nikon put a proper foot on these has always pissed me off. I have always used RRS or Kirk. I have recently bought a couple Leofoto tripods and have been very happy. Tried their foot for Z70-200… terrible fit. A ton of wiggle room. They gladly took a return.
Be careful with the plate. With all the panning and spinning of the collar, I couldn’t keep it tight on my 800. Thing almost fell off my tripod a couple times so I sucked it up and bought a replacement
Dang. I just picked up a 600 gm and it costs just as much as your Nikon but it doesn’t have the bulit in 1.4 tc. Loving it so far and im learning how to appreciate wildlife photography. As for as feet go. I wasn’t happy with the leofoto or wimberely i tried. What am I missing on balancing a gimbal. Having laser etched marking helps me a lot when during fine tuning so that I can ensure how much I’m moving the lens foreword or rearward. 1-3mm is that critical difference when finding a balance point. What I found that works for me is pro media gear 6-8” acra plate. It secures using both 1/4 20 screws instead of just one so I don’t worry about the plate twisting. And its one of the few arca plates I’ve found that mark laser etched marked.
Hi Scott. I have a Z9 and my longest lens is a 300mm 2.8 F mount. VR ll. I want to improve my wildlife/birding photography. What would you recommend as a next step. I can afford the gear. Should I go to the 400mm 2.8TC Z or skip ahead to the 600mm 4.0 TC Z? Over my 60 years, i have learned that I should stretch and not go step by step in terms of upgrades. Thanks for whatever advice you may have.
If you shoot things VERY close the 400 is the way to go or if you like the flexibility of shooting large things (mammals) or including more habitat in your bird images. Its really that simple, IF you are always 12 feet away get the 600. I shoot warblers at close range so the choice is easy for me.
Thanks for your video. How does the lens perform at 2.8 when shooting from the Z9? I own the 400 2.8 FL version and when connected via the FTZ adapter to the Z9. When photographing sporting events, I can't use the 2.8 aperture because fast-moving objects /athletes/ are not perfectly sharp. I have to use an aperture of at least 3.2...
Odd I used that set up for a long time and never noticed an issue. Only issues was close focusing (too blurry) but that is the same as the z-mount lens
I owned the F400 2.8 and it was fantastic on the D850. Not so on the Z8 as tracking birds in flight wasn’t as successful as the Z100-400. The value of the F400 2.8 was dropping quickly and decided to trade in for the Z800 6.3. I can travel with the Z24-120, Z100-400, Z800 and ZTC x1.4 and it’s probably lighter than my previous setup.
Considering these are 400 primes I’m more interested to know how the bokeh compares? Edge to edge sharpness is almost never an issue with this lens unless you are filling the frame very evenly and that’s rare. I’m next in line to receive mine… I have an older (1999) 400 2.8 but it no longer autofocuses and it is listed as PNLA by Nikon. So the money is irrelevant in my case, I “need” a new one.
Good luck, I will say I have not noticed any difference in bokeh rendered, but I did not expect to see much difference as length and aperture are the same (yes shape of the diaphram will alter this as well) but I have not noticed a difference.
@@WildlifeInspired I did notice in the early sample images someone else did of baseball that the bokeh looked “less creamy” but then I saw some bird and wildlife images later that were stunning… I think it came down to the background in baseball being a little closer and or choppier. I think it will be everything I expect. My only concern is long term with the voice coil magnet collecting metal dust over time and causing issues.
Well I am in the process of buying a new Telelens and I am fighting with myself if I should get the Nikon Z 600mm TC or the Nikon Z 400mm TC. I usually been a bit short with 560mm and wish to have a bit more. The benefit of the Z 400mm TC is the variety of options and the capability to preform under bad light situations with the 2.8 aperture: 400 mm f/2.8 560 mm f/4 = 400 mm + inbuilt 1.4x TC 784mm f/5.6 = 400 mm + inbuilt 1.4x TC + external 1.4x TC 800mm f/5.6 = 400 mm + 2x TC 1120mm f/8 = 400mm + inbuilt 1.4x TC + external 2x TC Have you, or will you test any of the combinations? Wondering how the lens performs in RL and if the photos are still "sharp". I am really interested in the 2x TC added and any combination of an external TC + inbuilt one use. I am on the waiting list for the 400, 600 and 800. But I still haven't decided yet :/ Thanks again for the video :)
Definitely testing all those combos. 2x. Sharp. 2x + 1.4 really good. But def loss off sharpness. But I think there could be applications. For it (sensitive subjects like owls)
@@WildlifeInspired omg thats awesome thanks! Looking forward to that test. Because of all the Options I think the 400mm could be the better deal. I think the biggest problem is to get one of these new lenses :/ Thanks and have a great weekend!
Where did you find the 400mm f2.8 Z? I’ve had an order in for about a year and looked everywhere and no one has it in inventory. I actually gave up on Nikon as a brand I shot exclusively for 2 decades because Nikon chose not to invest in manufacturing and make the big glass wildlife photography needs. It was not what I wanted to do and it was very expensive; Sony A1, A7rV, 400mm, 600mm, 200-600 and various accessories. I wonder how many people like me abandoned Nikon reluctantly because they were late to mirrorless and then failed to actually meet demand for kit in a reasonable timeframe.
I got mine through NPS and B&H took six months. I know others that waited on 2 months using smaller camera shops. I also know some that have waited a year (Non-NPS) and still havent gotten one. A little luck involved on which shops get which supply.
Hejnar makes a foot with TWO QD connections, no one else does. BUT WAIT I spoke to Promedia Gear last week and they are developing a foot for the 400 and I think they are taking my suggestion to add 2 QD connections.
If you shoot wildlife handheld it’s a no brainer. 2lb lighter, center of gravity moved backwards towards the body and better IS… it’s not a small change. It’s about 2 stops improvement in hand holdability (ie 1/250s vs 1/1000). Throw in the built-in TC and it’s easy to see the value. On a tripod… not as obvious indeed.
Agree It currently shooting ducks a lot so not seeing the some of those benefits. In fall I hike a lot and shoot handheld and there I think I'll really see the value !!
Matt Granger put the 2X TC on the new 400mm and was impressed - as far as I know, the old 2X converter on the old 400mm didn't render results that good.
I wish I could buy a 14,000 dollar lens! This is really a piece of art. 2.8 aperture would give excellent bokeh and separate the subject. Also it will work excellent in low light situation. Thanks.
@Wildlife Inspired w/ Scott Keys This is my only concern currently. As I shoot a lot of small song birds, kinglets and warblers etc. Is the shorter MFD on the 400mm with or without TC engaged going to give me less pixels on the bird than the Z600 TC with, or without TC engaged?
@Wildlife Inspired w/ Scott Keys TC 600mm: 4.3 m/14.11 ft from focal plane at F4 and 860mm @ F5.6 TC 400mm: 2.5 m/8.21 ft from focal plane at F2.8 and 560mm @ F4. Be good to see some tests with small birds with these settings. I would personally not want to be messing around with an additional TC in the field with either of these lenses.
The reproduction ratios without the TC at minimum focus is about the same. But for me I get some really close look. So basically if s bird comes inside 12 feet, I can't shoot it. This is not an issue for BIF or ducks. But can be for me with songbirds and sometimes shorebirds.
Scott, your trying to justify old versus new and is it worth it.... for me the 400mm F2.8 is a no brainer, while I don't have either lens, a 400mm F2.8 costs about $14K and a 600mm F4 is $15.5K.... I buy the 400mm F2.8 and I have both lenses for less than half the cost of both lenses.
@@WildlifeInspired I would love to share a personal happy moment with you. I just bought a used 400mm f2.8 FL lens for 3500 USD. & it is in great condition
I like your channel. First time watching. The new Z lens bokeh is crap compared to the G. If that lens of yours is an FL, then the G is sharper. They ruined the optical design of these lenses by removing the weight. If you NEED that TC switch, then the new lens still sucks because the Z9 can’t focus on anything at f2.8 or less to save its life.
Hi @Scott Keys, I hope you can help me, I have just received my z 400 2.8 TC, and notice that when i move the lens vertically upwards then downwards I notice something, I pressume VR, moves up and down with a dampening movement. When i switch the camera on it blocks and it does not do it anymore..... Is this movement normal when the camera is not connected?
Nikon Ai-s Nikkor 400mm f2.8 ED IF,,,,,,,,,,,,Nikon Af-S Nikkor 400Mm F2.8 Ed.................. Nikon Nikkor AF-S AFS 400mm f2.8 G ED VR...Hi. I know this isn't much to go by but amateur photographer here and i shot alot of night rugby league and am looking at the Nikon 400mm f2.8. Not much information I know but can you see any to stay away from as such?
After preordering minutes after it was announced, and 9 months of waiting, I finally got mine in late October, and I love it!
Awesome. Took me 7 months ! And that's through NPS
I keep coming to your videos because your honesty. I am tired of listen to others channels and their not so transparent opinions. Thanks a lot
I appreciate that
At first, I was thinking the gentleman was trying to justify spending $7k fkr a marginal upgrade, The absolute killer was the looseness of the 400mm f2.8/1.4x/FTZ . At that point the upgrade made sense.
This is armchair thoughts, so take for what it is worth. The TC is what does it for me. In the field with snow flying, dust blowing, and salt spray, I would be much more willing to flip that switch and never take my eye off the viewfinder than stop, juggle three pieces, then get back behind the camera. It is a between step from a prime and a zoom.
I watched you video about 100 times and I started checking and found a camera store that had one in stock brand new so I bought it. I think your video was outstanding and I also enjoy your other videos. I had the fl ed version f mount 400f2.8. The image quality is a slight bit better but you really have to look but something that you did not mention were the new coatings that help in harsh light and I have to say they blow the old f mount away. Much better rendering and resolution. The biggest reason I switched were the multiple connections and the loud vr motor on f mount. The weight savings was a bonus but I have no buyers remorse. Thank you for the videos and content you put out
AWESOME. The Z (s series) 400 has to be the best Wildlife lens made at the moment for me. People will love the 600 but often overlook the difference in min focus distance which is a huge thing for me.
I’m waiting on mine😁 I have a 500 pf and have dreamed of a fast big telephoto for a few years now. The fast aperture, built in tc, native z mount and being in a situation recently where I needed better low light capability helping me make the decision. I work hard at my day job and have been saving!
Thats awesome Angela. feels good to work for something!
97% of the work circulates online and is viewed on smartphones, tablets and laptops.
Magazines, newspapers and high quality prints are very rare nowadays, so I don't think it's worth investing a lot of money in expensive lenses. For how much definition and weight you've gained, you could have easily kept the old 400 with F mount, who knows, maybe you could have added a D6 to it.
Today it's better to spend your finances healthily.
I still use the 400 2.8 pre VR, the Nikon AF-S 400mm f/2.8 D ED II with satisfaction and I don't think I'll spend crazy amounts of money for another 400 anymore 😉
Great video Scott! Thanks for the "practical" comparison, it's very helpful!
Your videos are excellent, always informative and down to earth. I love the way you don't use charts but just tell us like it is. Always inspiring.
Thanks so much !!
Agree, although I have discovered that there is some sample variance for some odd reason with 400mm f/2.8E VR FL lenses. My old copy of the 400mm f/2.8E FL, was not as good optically as my previous generation 400mm f/2.8G VR was! Now year's later and after asking other's I found out later on that I was NOT alone in this feeling or finding. I met two other photographers/colleagues of mine who also had a poo(er) copy of the 400FL and they also felt the 400G VR was better. I cover breaking news and sports mostly and so I see a lot of other gear and I also get to test gear. Anyway, I ended up selling my 400mm f/2.8E VR FL and bought the 500mm f/4E VR FL and I've never looked back or regretted that decision. In fact the 500FL is so good, it continues to shock me with it's biting sharpness! Even with the TC-14E III it's incredibly sharp. This new 400mm f/2.8 S lens is definitely closer to the IQ of the 500FL, but looking at both lenses MTF chart, technically the 500mm FL has a better MTF chart. In the real world both are so incredibly sharp you'll never know the difference. The sharpest Nikon super-tele's by rank are the ,
#1 Nikon 800mm f/5.6E VR FL
#2 Nikon 600mm f/4 S VR 1.4x TC
#3 Nikon 500mm f/4E VR FL... (Two-way tie w/ the 400mm f/2.8 S VR 1.4x TC)
#4 Nikon 120-300mm f/2.8E VR FL
#5 Nikon 180-400mm f/4E VR FL
#6 Nikon 400mm f/2.8G/E VR FL (as a tie, both are so close!)
#7 Nikon 300mm f/2.8G VR II
#8 Nikon 200mm f/2G VR II
#9 Nikon 600mm f/4E VR FL
#10 Nikon 600mm f/4G VR
(Yes I did just put up 12 lenses, but only ranked from 1-10 and please read below, before judging...)
Now see the last few lenses? All of them are epic lenses with cult like followings, lol. So the difference's are there, I can see the differences with my eyes, I have 20-10 vision and 6k monitor. I've used almost every Nikon and Canon super-tele, except for the newer Canon RF super-tele's. I work for a major news organization and we have Nikon NPS, Canon CPS and lot's of pool equipment for our staff photographers. I'm a photojournalist and I own and use Nikon gear, I've shot Nikon since the film days and was one of the first people to get a Nikon D1 in 1999. I know some may disagree with my above list, but I promise you I'm speaking from decades of experience and if you doubt my claims, go research the MTF charts and read each review for the above lenses. All of them are insanely sharp, but the Nikon 800mm FL, 500mm f/4E VR FL, and the new 600mm f/4 S VR for Z-mount are a notch above the other's. They are as close to optical perfection as you can get and Nikon deserves massive kudos, because the Canon glass is definitely NOT as sharp. Again I've not shot Canon's latest RF lenses, but I have used the 400mm and 600mm Version III lenses, which are optically the same. Overall Nikon seems to have an advantage over Canon, not just lately, this goes back to about 2011 when Nikon released the 800mm f/5.6E VR FL, which remains the sharpest lens anyone has ever made for DSLR/Mirrorless. There are a couple of $250,000 television lenses that match it, but for practical purposes the "Baby Jesus" 800FL remains the Top-Dog, in 2023! That's really saying something!
Look at Canon's 800mm f/5.6L IS MTF chart vs. Nikon's 800mm f/5.6E VR FL and you'll see what I mean, it's not even close. Anyhow I am just happy Nikon has no current plans for a new 500mm f/4 and the only way I'd even consider one is if it too had a built in 1.4x and was at least a pound lighter. I wouldn't expect it to be any sharper than my 500FL though, I doubt there is any room for improvement. Until the new 600mm f/4 S with 1.4x TC was released, the 500FL was in the #2 position. However after using the new 600mm f/4 S VR for a few days, I'm absolutely blown away. Why? The previous few versions of Nikon's 600mm f/4 lenses were always a tad behind the other big primes. This got even worse with teleconverters for some odd reason. The 600mm FL loses about 15-20% of it's sharpness and contrast, whereas the 400 and 500FL only lose about 5%, and this was also the case with the 600G.
Now Nikon has managed to leap frog the 400mm f/2.8 S VR and now the 600mm f/4 S VR is sharper than the 400mm! It was always the other way around for the past 20 years or so. A lot of wildlife photographer's are going to be blown away by the new 600mm. I'm just so blessed/lucky to have had some time with one recently. It was amazing! I'd absolutely trade my 500mm for it, but I don't think I'd pay $8,000 extra for 100mm more reach and built in TC, because I actually prefer the 500mm focal length. 400mm was often not enough for me personally and so I almost always had my 1.4x TC-14E III attached to it. Whereas the 600mm was often just a little too long and also too large and heavy for my personal preference. Now though that the new 600mm weighs so much less, it's now hand-holdable and that is awesome. Congratulations on the new 400mm! I have not yet had a chance to use the 400mm f/2.8 S VR, but I am sure I will someday.
Zenelli makes by far the best replacement foot, they are Italian made and carbon fiber, so they even help absorb vibrations. It's $245 or whatever, but well worth it and they already have the Z-edition. I have the original Zenelli Nikon foot attached to my 500mm FL and 180-400FL. Amazing and really help me get sharper images, but I have the PMG 42mm long monopod and tripod as well, so those are like tree trunks and extremely stable, but also expensive. I paid $850 for the monopod and $1600 total for the tripod and BH-55.
I switched to Nikon for this lens. I went from a R3 and RF400 2.8 to the 400 Z 2.8 TC and Z9. The convenience of a built-in TC was worth it alone, and having the megapixels back in a pro body was icing on the cake. I am using the Wimberley AP-502 replacement foot and it is working great. I've balanced this lens on a gimbalhead with an external 2x TC without issues.
Congrats!
Lord I want the 400 f2.8 TC lens! Great video!!
The 400mm F/2.8 is my dream lens. I spend much of my time pursuing and photographing owls in low light and I would love to have a lens that would perform better in low light. Congrats on your new lens.
Thanks !!
I hemmed and hawed for several years about getting the 500mm f4 because of the cost and after a trip to Wyoming without one I finally pulled the trigger and never regretted it.
Awesome
This is a very nice Video. I received my Z 400mm 2.8 TC last Month and tried testing the lens by shooting pictures of the Moon with my Z9, the New Z 400 Lens is extremely impressive when adding the 2x tele-converter. I was able to boost the magnification to 800 and 1120mm while shooting at ISO 64 with an aperture of F9, and 1/125 speed, the images came out extremely clear even when zoomed in at 400x in my Capture One 23 Photo Software. I find the Z 400 2.8 tc to be a phenomenal Lens, it is expensive but in my opinion, this is the best Lens you can possibly purchase, it is very versatile, I have no regrets on the purchase. Regarding the Lens Foot, I purchased the RRS Foot and absolutely love it, especially the QD socket on the foot. I chose the RRS Foot because it looks more like the original Foot, and of course it's also Swiss Arca compatible.
Thanks Jim. I have a foot from a less known company Hejnar (2 QD ports!) and I worked with Promedia Gear on some ideas and I think they are also doing a swept back foot with 2 QD ports (I hope!)
I doubt I can ever afford a lense like that but I'm happy for you. I love watching your show so down to earth!
Thanks so much. I try
Excellent video Scott. I have just received the 600 f4 TC having traded in my 500 f4 FL and all my other F mount gear. Still had to add a further £5000 so I am in a similar situation in weighing up the advantages of the new lens against the money spent. I am an enthusiast wildlife photographer with a reasonably well paid job and a very understanding wife. I think all the advantages you gave for the Z 400 TC apply to the Z 600 TC as well. Also I now have 600 f4 and 840 f5.6 in one lens which I think is a game changer for me. With regards to a replacement lens foot I have gone with the Hejnar and it is very good. The foot projects both back and a long way forwards. It is balancing on my Wimberley gimbal very nicely. I think this lens foot would probably work very well on the Z 400 TC as well. Looking forward to seeing more on the Z 400 TC on your channel.
Looking into the foot right now !!
Looks great. Excited to see if quality is on par. Low profile and the extra plate extension on back is critical. The cage on mine really makes it back heavy. I think they placed the lens foot too far forward. And QD connectors !! Thanks so much. I would have never thought to find these.
Yes it has 2 QD connectors. That was important to me because I have a shoulder strap with QD and love how easily I can attach and detach all my lenses. I am very impressed by the quality and the reasonable price of the Hejnar foot.
I just got this beast 2 weeks ago and agree with you wholeheartedly. It’s not one particular feature, but the sum of all parts which really takes the pain of paying auch a steep price for this amazing piece of tech.
As for the foot, the Kirk Enterprise feels really solid for me.
Thanks for the video, Looking forward to more, I have been using this lens about 14 weeks now *Its Three brilliant lenses in one, possibly four* have not tried DX mode as yet.
Incredibly flexible. The 2x plus 1.4 actually provided usable images with just a little loss of IQ from what I can tell.
Well done Scott. Compelling reasons for and not to. It’s on my radar for certain. It’s only a matter of time!❤️
Ill be doing a comparison of the 600 f4 and 400 2.8 soon
Awesome video with strong insight to your thought process. TC's are very useable with F-mount cameras, and you have to be comfortable with the trade-offs of using them. With the Z-mount, the trade-offs are fewer and less significant. Furthermore, the compromise of image quality is negligible with the 1.4 TC's according to what is printed and demonstrated online. Seeing the super tele's with integrated TC makes me wanna change careers so I can afford to buy/justify one.
I end up purchasing the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 400mm f/2.8E FL ED VR Lens brand new from Nikon USA website. They are having now a refurbished sales for all the big Fluorite lenses for such a great price! Yes, I agree. The 400mm f/2.8 Z is phenomenal. But the price! I could not resist the "older" for $5,687.95! What a bargain!
You are a smart shopper. That is a great price on a great lens.
I used a similar thought process in upgrading my gear. I went from a F mount 300 F 2.8 VR and 1.4 and 2 X converters to a Z mount 100-400 and I did get a Kirk foot. It was cheaper than RRS and available. I think the RRS foot is slightly more clearance between the lens and inside of foot thus more room to fit my hand when carrying it.
I Upgraded as well for the same reasons. Less weight, better balance, TC included. I just love it. I use the Kirk-food.
Congrats on the new lens. Nice and informative comparison. The Z is the future and therefore, the smart choice if you have the budget. Enjoy it. Don't look back. :)
Thanks! 👍
One further advantage with Z over F is ‘synchro VR’ which allows shooting at an even slower shutter speed. I own the Z 600 TC VR S.
Congrats on the new lens! I think it was well spend money! specially for the weight and inbuilt 1.4 extender! I wish canon had it to 😄
,Congratulations on your new Z !! The basic rule for me is ,if i got the money ,why not enjoy it !! , I think for a new buyer it's really worth the money to go with the Z as you've mentioned it's 2 lenses in 1 ..i will stick to my 500f4 fl for the time !!.
the 500fl is my dream lens. I just wish it were lighter. it weighs almost the same as the Z600 f4
Scott, thanks for sharing your perspective. I’d also prefer not to have multiple contact points via adapter to teleconverter to lens. Before purchasing the 500 PF, I would often use the 300 PF with TC-14E III. There was some play/wiggle where the lens mounted to the teleconverter. It usually worked fine, but I did have occasions where autofocus didn’t work or auto ISO wouldn’t work. Restarting the camera or temporarily removing/replacing the battery fixed these issues, but that lens/TC combo was the only time I experienced those types of “ghost in the machine” issues. Consequently, I tend to prefer shooting sans TC in most situations. Sadly, I’ll likely be dealing with an adapter for quite a while. I recently got a Z9 & it will be a hot minute before I can justify spending on pricey native glass. Thankfully, both F mount PF lenses appear to work really well on this heavy Mirrorless Brick. Cheers.
Enjoy !!!
Scott, great video with practical information. I am also a birder and have made many trips to Colombia, Brazil, Ecuador and Peru. I have not made the leap and purchased either of these lenses but think it would help immensely in those early morning and evening hours when low light persists and there is lots of foliage. I don't know if I would ever be able to sell any of my images but I'm hoping to explore many other places in the world when I retire. I also think I could add the 2x TC on top of the already included 1.4 built in TC and have all bases covered.
Tested the 2x and worked really well !
i switched from the AF-S 400/2,8G ED VR to the new Z-Lens. Light, sharp, fast. Stunning quality! But i also have problems to balance the lens on the gitzo gimbal!
Alex. Shoot me an email. I ordered a foot and if it works out. I'll let you know
@@WildlifeInspired Done! Thanks a lot!
I always had a feeling that using a Z body + FTZ adapter + F mount tc + F lens is gonna put a lot of stress on the mounts. Talking about superteles of course, not a 24-70mm. Strange that it was never mentioned by a lot of well known youtubers. Thanks for that.
I totally agree!
Correct
I've just finished work as I'm reading this... its been a long day. I'm trying to get my head round this comment. Surely if the f mount lens is mounted on a tripod via the lens, it's not going to be putting any strain on the lens mount 🤔
@@jasonlight8813 functionality
Scott, another reason for the 400TC is that the 1.4TC is matched to the lens for the best optical performance, unlike on the F mount 400. I have a 500f4G that is 10 lbs and it weighs a lot vs the newer 400/600 TC lens at 6-7 lbs, but as you mentioned the cost factor to convert and lower sale/trade in values now come into play on what comes out of the savings. I even tried to upgrade to newer 500 FL version but didn’t enough trade in value. I was thinking of the lighter weight and longer repair cycles with a FL version.
Great info on the Gimbal reviews and I believe I will be buying a Leophoto PG-1, but I am waiting on your last video on the topic. It’s very similar to your PMG Katana Jr, but $200 less. I was looking at buying made in the USA for Wimberley or PMG. But Leophoto is having sales that make it more affordable for the mid price point gimbals under $400! Great evals on photo gear!!
Thanks Mike!
I'm currently using the d850 with 200-500 zoom, and while I'm generally happy with the performance, there's no question that the Z9 is in another league.
Seriously considering upgrading to Z9 and using the 200-500 F mount, potentially upgrading to one of the Z lenses down the road (possibly the 100-400 or the 400 4.5).
This was an incredibly useful video, thanks a lot!
stay tuned and subscribe I have a video coming out soon on the 100-400 and 400 4.5 comparing them all !
@@WildlifeInspired looking forward to these! Thanks!
Always awesome videos,Scott !! THANK YOU!!.
Always good practical info👍
Always informative and helpful. But for me the Z mount lenses are the way forward but it's getting very difficult to get the old F mount tele photo lenses repaired as parts are not readily available in some parts of the world.
Hi Scott, great video. I just got my Z9 couple of months ago and still learning to use it properly. I do not have Z lenses, could not afford them (yet). I am only using F lenses. One very dangerous thing with the FTZ adapter is when switching lens or teleconverter in a rush but ended up removing the FTZ adapter because I pressed the wrong button. Then I only realized that the adapter was gone once I tried to attach the other lens or teleconverter. Very dangerous, could damage the camera!
YES! I ahve done that!
Great and timely video Scott. My 400 2.8fl and z9 have been great together but I do have the same issue with mount jiggle, as well as VR kicking on/off when the body moves. I have tightened both body and adapter mounts. Curious if you saw this as well? Thanks for another great video and looking forward to more.
The VR became a pain in the ass to be honest. I didn't mention that but definitely didn't like it. The new system is very quiet. And seemless. I will say I have read issues of the VR jumping a little and if I see that I'll make a quick video that shows it through the lens.
@@WildlifeInspired Thanks for confirming, I was wondering if it was just my copy of the ftzii. It’s a total pain!!
I have a 300 f2.8 and a 500 f4. Where I live I always need the reach. I constantly have issues with the 1.4 tc attached to the adapter. It’s a pain when it moves and sometimes craps out. For that reason and the money factor I got the Z 800 mm f6.3. I’m hoping in a few years to add another Z lens. I have a feeling I’m going to want the 400 2.8 with the built in tc.
Is your normal job perhaps a teacher? I think you can teach and explain extremely well!
Not my usual job but a LONG time ago I was a teacher and coach.
Congrats on the lens man! Definitely think that if you have the money it’s a worthwhile upgrade. One other benefit of the internal TC is that you don’t have to rebalance your gimbal which can be a huge pain in the field. There have definitely been times where I thought I’d tightened it all the way down after rebalancing and then realized I screwed up (luckily before it had the chance to fall though 😅).
Yes. This way you can mark the lens plate/foot and be done
Scott, I love this lens, since mine came in I have forgotten all my other lenses. One strong caution, the lens hood is so light that I had it literally blow away as I was removing it from my lens. It blew out into the parking lot I was in and rolled like an empty beer can across the asphalt. I was fortunate and only ended up with some scratches on the hood.
It does seems super light, hopefull this lens is durable I will say it doesn't feel like the tanks the old 400s were, so lighter yes, but i like tough!
Hello.. First of all thanks for this informative video. I got one question.
I currently use combination of D850 and 400mm AF S for wildlife photography & will be travelling for snow leapord expedition in coming few months. As the subject will be far away - Is it advisable to use 2x teleconverter. What will be pro and cons of that. Thanks
The nikon f mount 2x is not their best option, the 1.4 might be a better option
Many thanks ❤
Per your question - I suggest you get the Kirk foot with the sure grip coating…
I got a hejnat which I love, BUT the grip sucks to carry. It's the only one with 2 QD sockets.
Congrats. If I can sell my 600 f/4, I’m buying it. That’ll give me 70-200, 200-400, 400, 600 and 800. The fact that Nikon put a proper foot on these has always pissed me off. I have always used RRS or Kirk. I have recently bought a couple Leofoto tripods and have been very happy. Tried their foot for Z70-200… terrible fit. A ton of wiggle room. They gladly took a return.
The 70-200 feet always seem to have play. Waiting for PMG but good to know to avoid the Leofoto.
Be careful with the plate. With all the panning and spinning of the collar, I couldn’t keep it tight on my 800. Thing almost fell off my tripod a couple times so I sucked it up and bought a replacement
Dang. I just picked up a 600 gm and it costs just as much as your Nikon but it doesn’t have the bulit in 1.4 tc. Loving it so far and im learning how to appreciate wildlife photography.
As for as feet go. I wasn’t happy with the leofoto or wimberely i tried. What am I missing on balancing a gimbal. Having laser etched marking helps me a lot when during fine tuning so that I can ensure how much I’m moving the lens foreword or rearward. 1-3mm is that critical difference when finding a balance point.
What I found that works for me is pro media gear 6-8” acra plate. It secures using both 1/4 20 screws instead of just one so I don’t worry about the plate twisting. And its one of the few arca plates I’ve found that mark laser etched marked.
I also looked at RRS and their plate is not marked. And currently PMG doesnt sell a foot for the 600 GM
You forgot to mention one little benefit of the built in teleconverter - the balance point on your gimbal will not shift when engaging the TC…
Very true! Subtle but definitely a nice thing
Hope canon catches up. Else some day I’ll shift to Nikon. Nice lens Scott.
Thanks!
Great video. You think the way I do. Thanks for sharing.
Thanks for watching!
Hi Scott, Thanks for posting this informative video! Got a question, what‘s that case around the Z9?
Just noticed your other video …
Hi Scott. I have a Z9 and my longest lens is a 300mm 2.8 F mount. VR ll. I want to improve my wildlife/birding photography. What would you recommend as a next step. I can afford the gear. Should I go to the 400mm 2.8TC Z or skip ahead to the 600mm 4.0 TC Z? Over my 60 years, i have learned that I should stretch and not go step by step in terms of upgrades. Thanks for whatever advice you may have.
If you shoot things VERY close the 400 is the way to go or if you like the flexibility of shooting large things (mammals) or including more habitat in your bird images. Its really that simple, IF you are always 12 feet away get the 600. I shoot warblers at close range so the choice is easy for me.
Thanks for your video. How does the lens perform at 2.8 when shooting from the Z9? I own the 400 2.8 FL version and when connected via the FTZ adapter to the Z9. When photographing sporting events, I can't use the 2.8 aperture because fast-moving objects /athletes/ are not perfectly sharp. I have to use an aperture of at least 3.2...
Odd I used that set up for a long time and never noticed an issue. Only issues was close focusing (too blurry) but that is the same as the z-mount lens
I owned the F400 2.8 and it was fantastic on the D850. Not so on the Z8 as tracking birds in flight wasn’t as successful as the Z100-400. The value of the F400 2.8 was dropping quickly and decided to trade in for the Z800 6.3. I can travel with the Z24-120, Z100-400, Z800 and ZTC x1.4 and it’s probably lighter than my previous setup.
I have yet to use the 800 but I feel like it could be the ultimate birds in flight lens for my migration photos!
Considering these are 400 primes I’m more interested to know how the bokeh compares? Edge to edge sharpness is almost never an issue with this lens unless you are filling the frame very evenly and that’s rare. I’m next in line to receive mine… I have an older (1999) 400 2.8 but it no longer autofocuses and it is listed as PNLA by Nikon. So the money is irrelevant in my case, I “need” a new one.
Good luck, I will say I have not noticed any difference in bokeh rendered, but I did not expect to see much difference as length and aperture are the same (yes shape of the diaphram will alter this as well) but I have not noticed a difference.
@@WildlifeInspired I did notice in the early sample images someone else did of baseball that the bokeh looked “less creamy” but then I saw some bird and wildlife images later that were stunning… I think it came down to the background in baseball being a little closer and or choppier. I think it will be everything I expect. My only concern is long term with the voice coil magnet collecting metal dust over time and causing issues.
Well I am in the process of buying a new Telelens and I am fighting with myself if I should get the Nikon Z 600mm TC or the Nikon Z 400mm TC. I usually been a bit short with 560mm and wish to have a bit more. The benefit of the Z 400mm TC is the variety of options and the capability to preform under bad light situations with the 2.8 aperture:
400 mm f/2.8
560 mm f/4 = 400 mm + inbuilt 1.4x TC
784mm f/5.6 = 400 mm + inbuilt 1.4x TC + external 1.4x TC
800mm f/5.6 = 400 mm + 2x TC
1120mm f/8 = 400mm + inbuilt 1.4x TC + external 2x TC
Have you, or will you test any of the combinations? Wondering how the lens performs in RL and if the photos are still "sharp". I am really interested in the 2x TC added and any combination of an external TC + inbuilt one use. I am on the waiting list for the 400, 600 and 800. But I still haven't decided yet :/ Thanks again for the video :)
Definitely testing all those combos. 2x. Sharp. 2x + 1.4 really good. But def loss off sharpness. But I think there could be applications. For it (sensitive subjects like owls)
@@WildlifeInspired omg thats awesome thanks! Looking forward to that test. Because of all the Options I think the 400mm could be the better deal. I think the biggest problem is to get one of these new lenses :/ Thanks and have a great weekend!
Where did you find the 400mm f2.8 Z? I’ve had an order in for about a year and looked everywhere and no one has it in inventory. I actually gave up on Nikon as a brand I shot exclusively for 2 decades because Nikon chose not to invest in manufacturing and make the big glass wildlife photography needs. It was not what I wanted to do and it was very expensive; Sony A1, A7rV, 400mm, 600mm, 200-600 and various accessories. I wonder how many people like me abandoned Nikon reluctantly because they were late to mirrorless and then failed to actually meet demand for kit in a reasonable timeframe.
I got mine through NPS and B&H took six months. I know others that waited on 2 months using smaller camera shops. I also know some that have waited a year (Non-NPS) and still havent gotten one. A little luck involved on which shops get which supply.
Did you end up getting the foot for this lens ? Would love to know what you use . My 400 arrives next week
Hejnar makes a foot with TWO QD connections, no one else does. BUT WAIT I spoke to Promedia Gear last week and they are developing a foot for the 400 and I think they are taking my suggestion to add 2 QD connections.
@@WildlifeInspired ok ! Thanks ! Make a video with links when that happens ! Appreciate it
Très très bonne vidéo !!! Merci beaucoup
If you shoot wildlife handheld it’s a no brainer. 2lb lighter, center of gravity moved backwards towards the body and better IS… it’s not a small change. It’s about 2 stops improvement in hand holdability (ie 1/250s vs 1/1000). Throw in the built-in TC and it’s easy to see the value. On a tripod… not as obvious indeed.
Agree It currently shooting ducks a lot so not seeing the some of those benefits. In fall I hike a lot and shoot handheld and there I think I'll really see the value !!
Matt Granger put the 2X TC on the new 400mm and was impressed - as far as I know, the old 2X converter on the old 400mm didn't render results that good.
new 2x is much better!
屋内スポーツをよく撮るので、今使っているZ 400mm/f4.5をZ 400mm/f2.8に買い換えようと思っていましたが、F 400mm/f2.8も検討していました。
この動画が非常に参考になりました。ありがとうございました。
I wish I could buy a 14,000 dollar lens! This is really a piece of art. 2.8 aperture would give excellent bokeh and separate the subject. Also it will work excellent in low light situation. Thanks.
The sum of all things and the fact that you can sell the second one.
Wow,I was contemplating buying your 400 2.8 used but you talked me out of it……😀
Oh nooooooo. I didn't think that through. Lol
@@WildlifeInspired just kidding……waiting patiently for my 800 f6.3.✌️
just curious how do you tighten up loose connections?
Just a jewelers Phillips head on all the mount connections.
RRS does have a replacement foot but sadly backordered
I got a hejnar foot, low profile and sweeps back which i love. QD connections too.
Did you consider the 600 f4 plus 1,4 tc? If not, why not?
Focusing distance. Period. I'll do a video on this soon
@Wildlife Inspired w/ Scott Keys This is my only concern currently. As I shoot a lot of small song birds, kinglets and warblers etc. Is the shorter MFD on the 400mm with or without TC engaged going to give me less pixels on the bird than the Z600 TC with, or without TC engaged?
@Wildlife Inspired w/ Scott Keys TC 600mm: 4.3 m/14.11 ft from focal plane at F4 and 860mm @ F5.6
TC 400mm: 2.5 m/8.21 ft from focal plane at F2.8 and 560mm @ F4.
Be good to see some tests with small birds with these settings. I would personally not want to be messing around with an additional TC in the field with either of these lenses.
The reproduction ratios without the TC at minimum focus is about the same. But for me I get some really close look. So basically if s bird comes inside 12 feet, I can't shoot it. This is not an issue for BIF or ducks. But can be for me with songbirds and sometimes shorebirds.
Hey Scott, not sure if I missed it but how long did it take you to get it once ordered?
6 months and that was WITH the NPS membership. I am hearing as soon as 3 months for some NPS and as longs as a year without.
@@WildlifeInspired Appreciate it!
Scott, your trying to justify old versus new and is it worth it.... for me the 400mm F2.8 is a no brainer, while I don't have either lens, a 400mm F2.8 costs about $14K and a 600mm F4 is $15.5K.... I buy the 400mm F2.8 and I have both lenses for less than half the cost of both lenses.
Can you guide how to monetize photography? Specially nature & wildlife
Follow along I am doing a video on that soon.
@@WildlifeInspired I would love to share a personal happy moment with you. I just bought a used 400mm f2.8 FL lens for 3500 USD. & it is in great condition
Dear youtube community: can anyone tell me if you feel a “ loose piece “ inside this lens when it is not attached to camera?
I struggle big time. I’m trying to monetize so I am very interested. I just want to make money for gear.
Final deciding factor for me, does wife say yes… lol
Lol Always the last word. Give me some time on the money video. I'll record it in a couple weeks.
I like your channel. First time watching. The new Z lens bokeh is crap compared to the G. If that lens of yours is an FL, then the G is sharper. They ruined the optical design of these lenses by removing the weight. If you NEED that TC switch, then the new lens still sucks because the Z9 can’t focus on anything at f2.8 or less to save its life.
I would pay Nikon stupid money for a bolt on f to z converter
Hi @Scott Keys, I hope you can help me, I have just received my z 400 2.8 TC, and notice that when i move the lens vertically upwards then downwards I notice something, I pressume VR, moves up and down with a dampening movement. When i switch the camera on it blocks and it does not do it anymore..... Is this movement normal when the camera is not connected?
Wimberley foot
i went with Hejnar, very similar design to Wimberly.
0:35 He said "This lens" pointing to covered lens on his left. Wrf lens 8s "this" lens? I dont have the time for figure out what "rhis" lens is. 👋 bye
Childish.
Boring...
Nikon Ai-s Nikkor 400mm f2.8 ED IF,,,,,,,,,,,,Nikon Af-S Nikkor 400Mm F2.8 Ed.................. Nikon Nikkor AF-S AFS 400mm f2.8 G ED VR...Hi. I know this isn't much to go by but amateur photographer here and i shot alot of night rugby league and am looking at the Nikon 400mm f2.8. Not much information I know but can you see any to stay away from as such?