Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2              4              38       39       end
  

Official Nikon 400/2.8S image thread + some discussions

  
 
bernardl
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #1 · p.3 #1 · Official Nikon 400/2.8S image thread + some discussions


Alistair1 wrote:
Cameralabs review.

https://www.cameralabs.com/nikon-z-400mm-f2-8-tc-vr-s-review/


The closest thing ever to a perfect lens?

I don't see any aspect the most demanding photographer wouldn't be pleased with. The total lack of LoCA is particularly impressive. This appears to be one of the very few true APO designs.

Cheers,
Bernard




Feb 23, 2022 at 08:29 PM
suteetat
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #2 · p.3 #2 · Official Nikon 400/2.8S image thread + some discussions


mach250 wrote:
This is something I've wondered since the Z line was released. It's just my impression but ever since I saw posts like this I've felt that the image quality from the Z system was enhanced in camera. Don't get me wrong, I've had a very minimal list of negatives, but I'm not alone in feeling the images have a clinical or almost too good of a look to them.


I think there is no one approach to lens design that will please nor work best for every situation and every person.
In the past, we already have plenty of lens with distortion, abberations and whatever optical imperfection that some may call character and other may call defect. Nowaday, we are getting lenses that are aiming for perfection but at a cost of character according to some people's preference. somehow I don't think we will ever get character and perfection in the same lens and
it is a matter of balance between the two pole.
Just a few weeks ago on a local camera forum, some people were lamenting missing all the CA in modern lens and think that it is a beautiful character
I doubt there is a single lens that will please everyone for every situation.
In a way I am glad that Z lens is taking a different approach. For the forseeable future, I am keeping 58/1.4G, 58/1.2, 105/1.4e, 135/2 DC for my character lens and they will complement 50/1.2, 58/.95 very well. Nothing wrong with owning many lenses of the similar focal lenght as long as they each offer something difference



Feb 23, 2022 at 08:38 PM
Blakehfreeman
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #3 · p.3 #3 · Official Nikon 400/2.8S image thread + some discussions


Very odd that Nikon went back to the F mount “look” for the lens (gold ring etc) and even weirder to me they ditched the OLED screen on this lens. Wish Nikon was more consistent on their style/look with their Z lineup.


Feb 23, 2022 at 08:44 PM
mach250
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #4 · p.3 #4 · Official Nikon 400/2.8S image thread + some discussions


Blakehfreeman wrote:
Very odd that Nikon went back to the F mount “look” for the lens (gold ring etc) and even weirder to me they ditched the OLED screen on this lens. Wish Nikon was more consistent on their style/look with their Z lineup.


Don't get me started on the tele lenses physical design choices

Z 400mm 1:2.8TC VR S

2 inches below

400/2.8S


I haven't benefited personally from the lens OLED so I don't know how beneficial it is. The focus distance meter doesn't have any of the useful details.



Feb 23, 2022 at 09:09 PM
Blakehfreeman
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #5 · p.3 #5 · Official Nikon 400/2.8S image thread + some discussions


The OLED screen is beginning to grow on me. I use the ring closest to the lens as a aperture ring and like the display showing the aperture in real-time on the OLED screen. Not a needed but a nice feature.

mach250 wrote:
Don't get me started on the tele lenses physical design choices

Z 400mm 1:2.8TC VR S

2 inches below

400/2.8S

I haven't benefited personally from the lens OLED so I don't know how beneficial it is. The focus distance meter doesn't have any of the useful details.





Feb 23, 2022 at 09:31 PM
suteetat
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #6 · p.3 #6 · Official Nikon 400/2.8S image thread + some discussions


Blakehfreeman wrote:
Very odd that Nikon went back to the F mount “look” for the lens (gold ring etc) and even weirder to me they ditched the OLED screen on this lens. Wish Nikon was more consistent on their style/look with their Z lineup.


I think the OLED screen looks nice as a feature but to be honest, I am not sure if I ever looked at it ever when I am taking pictures. It has been a week since I got 400/2.8s and I don't miss the OLED screen as all for any practical purpose.





Feb 23, 2022 at 09:33 PM
bernardl
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #7 · p.3 #7 · Official Nikon 400/2.8S image thread + some discussions


suteetat wrote:
I think there is no one approach to lens design that will please nor work best for every situation and every person.
In the past, we already have plenty of lens with distortion, abberations and whatever optical imperfection that some may call character and other may call defect. Nowaday, we are getting lenses that are aiming for perfection but at a cost of character according to some people's preference. somehow I don't think we will ever get character and perfection in the same lens and
it is a matter of balance between the two pole.
Just a few weeks ago on a
...Show more

Agreed.

However, I think that character can mean different things to different people.

To me there is a difference between character and optical defects.

- optical defects would be coma, chromatic aberrations,...
- character is more about how the bokeh looks and how the sharpness drops off away from the plane of ideal sharpness, both in front and behind

It is true that recent Nikon lenses, including the 105mm f1.4E and Z mount lenses, have very few optical defects, but they still have plenty of character.

This is IMHO very different from a lens such as the Sony 135mm f1.8 that is also devoid of most optical defects, but IMHO also shows a lack of character in its bokeh. It feels like a software rendering instead of feeling like photography. I have never felt that will lenses such as the 105mm f1.4E or 85mm f1.8 S.

Cheers,
Bernard



Feb 23, 2022 at 09:37 PM
Blakehfreeman
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #8 · p.3 #8 · Official Nikon 400/2.8S image thread + some discussions


would you mind shipping your 400mm to me for a week to see if I agree with your assessment?… 😇

suteetat wrote:
I think the OLED screen looks nice as a feature but to be honest, I am not sure if I ever looked at it ever when I am taking pictures. It has been a week since I got 400/2.8s and I don't miss the OLED screen as all for any practical purpose.






Feb 23, 2022 at 09:40 PM
suteetat
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #9 · p.3 #9 · Official Nikon 400/2.8S image thread + some discussions


bernardl wrote:
Agreed.

However, I think that character can mean different things to different people.

To me there is a difference between character and optical defects.

- optical defects would be coma, chromatic aberrations,...
- character is more about how the bokeh looks and how the sharpness drops off away from the plane of ideal sharpness, both in front and behind

It is true that recent Nikon lenses, including the 105mm f1.4E and Z mount lenses, have very few optical defects, but they still have plenty of character.

This is IMHO very different from a lens such as the Sony 135mm f1.8 that is also devoid of most
...Show more

It really depends on how you look at it, I think. The famous Leica glow of the older lens is a good example.
Most people would call it character but in reality, it is intentional (or unintentional) use of abbertation in the lens
design. Now, if you call that glow, an optical defect, it is not incorrect either.
May be character is an optical defect that is aesthetically pleasing and optical defect is when the defect does not add anything aesthetic to the picture, perhaps.
Nikon 58/1.4 is another good example. If I remember correctly, it has rather wavy plane of focus rather than flat. I think this is intentional on Nikon's part to give it a certain looks but wavy plane of focus could also be considered a defect in absolute term.
Now, I agree that sometimes we get 105/1.4e or Noct Nikkopr 58/.95 and 50/1.2s to a certain extent that seems to go for
optical perfection but somehow manage to be full of character. May be Nikon finds the magic balance where the defect does not standout while still giving enough character to the lens, the same way that Mandler manage to finesse those abberations into incredible image without being distracting.



Feb 23, 2022 at 10:17 PM
suteetat
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #10 · p.3 #10 · Official Nikon 400/2.8S image thread + some discussions


Blakehfreeman wrote:
would you mind shipping your 400mm to me for a week to see if I agree with your assessment?… 😇



I think it is easier for you just to tape over OLED screen on your lens and see if you miss it




Feb 23, 2022 at 10:18 PM
 


Search in Used Dept. 

Lance B
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #11 · p.3 #11 · Official Nikon 400/2.8S image thread + some discussions


suteetat wrote:
I don't have 400/2.8e FL. I had 500/4e FL and currently has 600/4e FL.
The hood on 400/2.8s is probably somewhere around 100g++ lighter and the material is thinner than 600/4 hood.
I love the balance of 400/2.8s though. It is roughly the same weight as 200/2 VR ii and 500/4e FL but I find that it is
easier to handhold 400/2.8s than either lens and is much much easier to handhold than 600/4e FL despite only 800+ g
difference.



So, what do you think the 400 f2.8S TC VR hood is made of? Does it look to be an exotic material or just a cheap thin plastic? The reason I ask is that if it is an exotic material that is thin, yet strong and light, then this may explain the high price for the hood. They obviously went with the light material in keeping with the desire for a light lens but they may also want a very strong material to avoid easy breakage and to protect the rigours of professional abuse.



Feb 24, 2022 at 01:07 AM
suteetat
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #12 · p.3 #12 · Official Nikon 400/2.8S image thread + some discussions


Lance B wrote:
So, what do you think the 400 f2.8S TC VR hood is made of? Does it look to be an exotic material or just a cheap thin plastic? The reason I ask is that if it is an exotic material that is thin, yet strong and light, then this may explain the high price for the hood. They obviously went with the light material in keeping with the desire for a light lens but they may also want a very strong material to avoid easy breakage and to protect the rigours of professional abuse.


In no way does the hood feel like it is worth $1000. Material feels about the same as 600/4e FL but thinner so it feels less substantial and a bit more plasticky than 600/4e hood but is not cheap feeling like 200-500/5.6 but certainly does not feel
expensive. However, if you throw an exotic plastic material at me, I have no idea if I would recognize it or not.
Tapping it with my knuckles just felt like the usual plastic to me. It does have felt lining inside but that would not add that much cost to the hood anyhow.



Feb 24, 2022 at 01:38 AM
Lance B
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #13 · p.3 #13 · Official Nikon 400/2.8S image thread + some discussions


suteetat wrote:
In no way does the hood feel like it is worth $1000. Material feels about the same as 600/4e FL but thinner so it feels less substantial and a bit more plasticky than 600/4e hood but is not cheap feeling like 200-500/5.6 but certainly does not feel
expensive. However, if you throw an exotic plastic material at me, I have no idea if I would recognize it or not.
Tapping it with my knuckles just felt like the usual plastic to me. It does have felt lining inside but that would not add that much cost to the hood anyhow.


Thanks for your feedback. I am sure there are some exotic materials used to keep weight low yet strong and that is partly why the high price but there is also the normal high price to be paid for the original manufacturers product compared to 3rd party product.



Feb 24, 2022 at 03:22 AM
AcuteShadows
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #14 · p.3 #14 · Official Nikon 400/2.8S image thread + some discussions


suteetat wrote:
In no way does the hood feel like it is worth $1000. Material feels about the same as 600/4e FL but thinner so it feels less substantial and a bit more plasticky than 600/4e hood but is not cheap feeling like 200-500/5.6 but certainly does not feel
expensive. However, if you throw an exotic plastic material at me, I have no idea if I would recognize it or not.
Tapping it with my knuckles just felt like the usual plastic to me. It does have felt lining inside but that would not add that much cost to the hood anyhow.


If it's carbon fibre, it's not plastic, and that's why it is expensive.



Feb 24, 2022 at 04:03 AM
suteetat
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #15 · p.3 #15 · Official Nikon 400/2.8S image thread + some discussions


AcuteShadows wrote:
If it's carbon fibre, it's not plastic, and that's why it is expensive.


It is not carbon fiber like 600/4e FL hood (I just took lenscoat off my 600/4 to compare to 400/2.8s) If anything, the material feel a bit more like hood for 24-70/2.8s and 14-24/2.8s but a bit thicker. I am not saying that it is the same material but I don't feel that I can notice much difference
between the two except that surface has a bit less texture than 24-70 and 14-24 hood but that's about it.
Tapping either hood feel about the same.
Whether there is any special or exotic material in there, I can't really tell from look and feel.

PS as far as hood is concerned, I don't really care what it is madeof if it is doing its job and being lighter is a bonus
as long as it fits firmly on the lens. Eventually, I will cover it with lenscoat anyhow so how the material feel does not really matter much. But if it costs $1000 to replace, if I need one, I would buy 3rd party hood in a heartbeat as I don't think Nikon hood is anything special (as far as I can tell).



Feb 24, 2022 at 05:04 AM
AcuteShadows
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #16 · p.3 #16 · Official Nikon 400/2.8S image thread + some discussions


suteetat wrote:
It is not carbon fiber like 600/4e FL hood (I just took lenscoat off my 600/4 to compare to 400/2.8s) If anything, the material feel a bit more like hood for 24-70/2.8s and 14-24/2.8s but a bit thicker. I am not saying that it is the same material but I don't feel that I can notice much difference
between the two except that surface has a bit less texture than 24-70 and 14-24 hood but that's about it.
Tapping either hood feel about the same.
Whether there is any special or exotic material in there, I can't really tell from look and
...Show more

I have a Novoflex carbon fibre tripod. The look and feel of the material is indistinguishable from plastics, except that it is much lighter than a material of the same stiffness made of plastics (or aluminum). It has some kind of structure printed or otherwise applied to it, but this visible structure has nothing to do with the actual structure of the material itself - it is just there so that people are not doubting that they in fact have a carbon fibre tripod.



Feb 24, 2022 at 05:23 AM
suteetat
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #17 · p.3 #17 · Official Nikon 400/2.8S image thread + some discussions


AcuteShadows wrote:
I have a Novoflex carbon fibre tripod. The look and feel of the material is indistinguishable from plastics, except that it is much lighter than a material of the same stiffness made of plastics (or aluminum). It has some kind of structure printed or otherwise applied to it, but this visible structure has nothing to do with the actual structure of the material itself - it is just there so that people are not doubting that they in fact have a carbon fibre tripod.


This is true. If I did not take off the lenscoat off the hood on 600/4e FL and saw carbon fiber weave on the hood, I would not be able to tell that it is carbon fiber. 400/2.8s hood does not have typical carbon fiber weave. Whether that can rule out carbon fiber or not, I have no idea. As I said, from look and feel alone, I can't distinguish it from some other hoods in the S line lens. Of the S line lens that I have, 24-70/2.8 and 14-24/2.8 material seems a bit thicker than 50/1.2s and felt a bit more expensive. On the other hand, 50/1.2s hood feels a bit more substantial than 50/1.8s. However, I have absolutely no idea if they are all made from the same material but different thickness or if there are actual different material. I personally put 400/2.8s hood at the same level as 24-70/2.8s and 14-24/2.8s based on look and feel only. 600/4e FL looks more impressive with carbon fiber weave but if I close my eyes and go by feel alone, it just felt thicker and heavier. Certainly someone with more knowledge of material science and plastic/polycarbonate material could educate me more if there is anything different about 400/2.8s hood. To me it just felt plasticky, not cheap plastic like some of the cheaper lens but it certainly does not feel like $1000 (nor would 600/4e FL hood) from the outside either. I certainly am not willing to try to see if it is in fact stiffer, tougher while being lighter than 600/4e FL hood or not considering replacement cost



Feb 24, 2022 at 06:23 AM
philwaring
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #18 · p.3 #18 · Official Nikon 400/2.8S image thread + some discussions


suteetat wrote:
This is true. If I did not take off the lenscoat off the hood on 600/4e FL and saw carbon fiber weave on the hood, I would not be able to tell that it is carbon fiber. 400/2.8s hood does not have typical carbon fiber weave. Whether that can rule out carbon fiber or not, I have no idea. As I said, from look and feel alone, I can't distinguish it from some other hoods in the S line lens. Of the S line lens that I have, 24-70/2.8 and 14-24/2.8 material seems a bit thicker than 50/1.2s and felt
...Show more

If you have a set of scales handy, how much does the hood for the 400 Z actually weigh? My tracking info is still not giving me any details (Nikon said it would once it entered the UK) but I shall forever hold out hope.



Feb 24, 2022 at 07:00 AM
AcuteShadows
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #19 · p.3 #19 · Official Nikon 400/2.8S image thread + some discussions


suteetat wrote:
This is true. If I did not take off the lenscoat off the hood on 600/4e FL and saw carbon fiber weave on the hood, I would not be able to tell that it is carbon fiber. 400/2.8s hood does not have typical carbon fiber weave. Whether that can rule out carbon fiber or not, I have no idea. As I said, from look and feel alone, I can't distinguish it from some other hoods in the S line lens. Of the S line lens that I have, 24-70/2.8 and 14-24/2.8 material seems a bit thicker than 50/1.2s and felt
...Show more

I think its just the felt coating that makes the 14-24 S and 24-70 f/2.8 S lens hoods appear to be thicker. I think it's the same material. I don't think that material is carbon fibre, because these hoods are smaller, so they don't need to be as stiff as a supertele lens hood, and they are closer to the camera grip, so they generate a smaller moment relative to the rotational center per unit of mass - thus they don't need to be as light as supertele lens hoods. My carbon tripod would probably cost around $5K if it was prices the same way as that hood, so I don't know why it is priced the way it is.



Feb 24, 2022 at 07:48 AM
suteetat
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #20 · p.3 #20 · Official Nikon 400/2.8S image thread + some discussions


philwaring wrote:
If you have a set of scales handy, how much does the hood for the 400 Z actually weigh? My tracking info is still not giving me any details (Nikon said it would once it entered the UK) but I shall forever hold out hope.


I don't have the right kind of scale at home for this. It is smaller, thinner than 600/4e FL hood. I would guesstimate around 100-200g lighter. Definitely not 3-400g lighter, I would think. Strange I can't find the weight on HK-42 or HK-40 (for 600/4e FL) on the web and Nikon site only give package weight of 1.7 lbs for HK-40 but the hood itself does not weight anywhere near that.



Feb 24, 2022 at 08:03 AM
1       2              4              38       39       end






FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2              4              38       39       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.