p.5 #1 · Official Nikon 400/2.8S image thread + some discussions
RobMoser wrote:
According to Wimberly's web site, the 400, 600 & 800E lenses all use the same foot.
Rob
The new footer for 400/2.8S uses larger hex nuts and the front and rear pairs of hex nuts are spaced further apart
than the 600E so look like we will have to wait for new footer then, I think.
p.5 #2 · Official Nikon 400/2.8S image thread + some discussions
I think suteetat is saying that the screw pattern on the new 400S is not the same as 600E and Wimberly is saying that 400E, 600E, and 400E all have the same pattern. This makes the 400S not compatible with the 400E so Winberly will need to design some new foot for the new Z super teles.
In any case, my interest in this lens is its (light)weight and planning to just use it handheld. When I had the 600E(8.3lbs) I never needed the tripod. Looking forward to this 6.5lbs 400S.
Some of the things brought up in the review are more than likely true, but here is a quote from the article that should not be forgotten:
"this is the only lens I’ve ever used with the Z9 I’m not sure which is to blame"
1) Some of the things that are mentioned are Z9 related (jumpy VR)
2) Since this is the first time the reviewer was using a Z9, one has to wonder how many of the things are due to the computer 4 inches behind the viewfinder?
p.5 #8 · Official Nikon 400/2.8S image thread + some discussions
I don't know. I only read the disclaimer that the lens is a "pre-production" like 10 times in the short article that doesn't really have much depth. Should be titled as first impression and not review.
I posted the following on another forum earlier (I've updated it here as I did more testing):
- No VR toggle - True. This is done in camera on pretty much all (probably all) Nikon Z lenses. To be honest I find this an improvement because I can see it quickly on the i-menu and don't need to look away from the viewfinder if I want to check it.
- No grooves - True. This is the same as other Nikon lenses I'm used to.
- Stabilization using "normal" - Partially true. This is more of a Z9 thing. I also find the initial displacement a little offputting on "normal" but it's only 1 frame and I tend to use "sport" anyway.
- 1.4x TC results - Nobody has done rigorous tests yet. I was very happy with the 1.4x with my results from Saturday. I've done some tests where I keep the camera to subject distance the same and compare how much detail I when cropping 560mm to match 400mm at 100%. In this case I definitely get more detail on the 560mm shot. I've done another test where I move the camera back at 560mm to match framing with the 400mm and compared. In this case there is a minor loss of detail with the TC engaged but it's still very good. I do not see a loss of sharpness at around 30-40m at all with the TC (beyond the minor loss of acuity from using a TC).
- Focus speed from end-to-end - I did not find it "fairly quick". I found it very fast. I have no used other brands so I'm only comparing to lenses like the 500 FL or the 180-400 FL.
Note that I'm not trying to defend Nikon here or justify my purchase. I've been checking the lens to make sure that I'm personally happy with it and don't want to send it back. My conclusions so far have been that I'm delighted with it and definitely not sending it anywhere.
p.5 #10 · Official Nikon 400/2.8S image thread + some discussions
So it focuses faster than the 500mm f/4E?
The 400mm f/2.8E fl was the fastest tele I used on a Nikon body. I just don't want the S version to be any slower than the FL version of 400mm
p.5 #11 · Official Nikon 400/2.8S image thread + some discussions
protikh wrote:
So it focuses faster than the 500mm f/4E?
The 400mm f/2.8E fl was the fastest tele I used on a Nikon body. I just don't want the S version to be any slower than the FL version of 400mm
At the weekend I went to a hawk conservancy. The first session where they flew some birds was some owls in a small circular area with various trees in it. It's better with a 200-300mm because the owls can get very close (you have to duck) but I wanted to play with the lens and see how it did with the Z9. There were times where I was trying to track an owl and I'd lost focus whilst panning (the owls were close, the backgrounds messy, the lighting bad.. it was a difficult place to start learning to use both the lens and Z9) but if I gave the camera any kind of clear opportunity and tried to focus it would immediately snap straight onto the owl and I'd get some really sharp results.
With my D5/D850 and 500 FL or 180-400 I wouldn't have expected such an immediate response. Those lenses are quick but this just felt like I pressed the button and it snapped to it. There were a few times where it failed to focus on an owl but that was down to the Z9, me and the difficult backgrounds. I was playing around with different AF modes too to try and see what was most successful.
Regarding the image jump post shutter release while in Normal VR mode, it reminded me of Steve Perry mentioning something similar in his review of the 500 PF, I believe it was, and is why he recommended leaving it on Sport mode most of the time. So that wouldn’t concern me. And given the various images I’ve seen with the internal 1.4 engaged, and even those with the 1.4 stacked with a 2x, those looked pretty impressive. I think the author simply proved that one can take so so images with a top tier lens in bad light. If I recall, the bird was sitting in shade and the author was expecting fine feather detail while cropping a shot taken with the internal 1.4 engaged.
I’m mostly curious about the comment regarding the lens’s propensity to attract dust. Could it be the material in the new hood either sucks more dust in or perhaps repels dust from its own surface that then falls to the glass? Or it was just super dry and dusty when the author was out shooting. Haha. Given the author’s misread on the VR issue and the 1.4 TC issue, I would guess the dust “problem” is a non issue as well.
Some of the findings are clearly not aligned with what other testers have found and measured. In particular the claimed softness at long distances and focusing speed.
p.5 #14 · Official Nikon 400/2.8S image thread + some discussions
At longer distance, certainly using internal TC with external 2xTC will give significant softness in comparison to closer distance from my experience and I would avoid using double TC for 50+m distance.
However, I don't have the same issue with TCx2 or internal TC at longer distance so far.
Focus speed at longer distance is always excellent for me. It is the closer, near minimum focusing distance that seems to be a bit more problematic for me.
I was shooting outdoor out in the open and in the forest quite a lot over the past 4 days and there was little dust on the front lens, nothing that a little blower would not take care of. I have not notice that it is any different from y 600/4e FL so far.
p.5 #16 · Official Nikon 400/2.8S image thread + some discussions
CATProductions wrote:
Beautiful color!
Thanks, I love this pitta and think it is one of the most colorful bird here. It is a migratory bird and we only get to see them usually only during this time of the year.
p.5 #20 · Official Nikon 400/2.8S image thread + some discussions
suteetat wrote:
At longer distance, certainly using internal TC with external 2xTC will give significant softness in comparison to closer distance from my experience and I would avoid using double TC for 50+m distance.
However, I don't have the same issue with TCx2 or internal TC at longer distance so far.
Focus speed at longer distance is always excellent for me. It is the closer, near minimum focusing distance that seems to be a bit more problematic for me.
I was shooting outdoor out in the open and in the forest quite a lot over the past 4 days and there was little dust on the front lens, nothing that a little blower would not take care of. I have not notice that it is any different from y 600/4e FL so far. ...Show more →
Cameralabs review echos your finding on great results with 1.4 or 2x at long distance. https://www.cameralabs.com/nikon-z-400mm-f2-8-tc-vr-s-review/2/ . Looking at those downloadable full-resolution photos taken at a long distance (1km), I am pleasantly surprised how much additional detail 2x has captured over 1.4x at the center area of the frame. And the 1.4 captured more details than the bare lens, of course.
