I have pre-ordered for all the above reasons.
I had a 28-300 when I had a D850 and enjoyed it a lot as a walk around lens and also out on the boat.
I am looking forward to seeing how the 28-400 compares to my 24-200 and if I would be willing to part with the latter and replace it with the 28-400.
While this lens will clearly appeal to the “soccer mom’s” I think if the IQ is comparable to the 24-200 its appeal will be much broader.
Jemini wrote:
f4 to f8
Distortion guaranteed
Vignetting guaranteed
Sharpness Mediocre
AF like a snail
Weight 2.5lb
If these specs are wrong I'll get one
Aperture is indeed f/4 to f/8
Distortion and vignetting are still TBD
Sharpness is reportedly quite good, especially for the intended use. Looks very similar to the 24-200.
AF is reportedly slow when racking minimum focus to infinity, but reasonably fast within a smaller (more realistic) range
Weight 1.6 lb
Kudos Nikon for producing what appears to be a reasonably good long range zoom which expands the lens line up. Although it doesn’t meet my needs, I’m sure there will be a fair amount of interest.
I'll reserve my judgment and hope for the best. It seems it wasn't that long ago that Nikon announced the F-mount 200-500. That lens was roasted on here from what I recall. Later, it turned out to be a pretty good performer and quite popular. You never know.
Pre-ordered already . But not sure if I'll get it. I was ok with heavier bigger lens with bigger aperture. F8 is too slow and not great for occasional wildlife during travel. Some samples in Matt Granger video looks sharp with nice father definitions. The magnification is great too (though not sure what it's at 400mm). If the AF is good enough for running kids or slow flying birds I might get it. Hoping to see more samples before ship date.
Wezre wrote:
Aperture is indeed f/4 to f/8
Distortion and vignetting are still TBD
Sharpness is reportedly quite good, especially for the intended use. Looks very similar to the 24-200.
AF is reportedly slow when racking minimum focus to infinity, but reasonably fast within a smaller (more realistic) range
Weight 1.6 lb
OwlsEyes wrote:
One lens and one body, you could travel the world with a ZF, 28-400... Ok, maybe I'd throw in a 40mm f2 SE for the street.
For anyone who goes on cruises, organized "explore trips," or has kids, this is an affordable way to have it all in a relatively small package. In addition, this lens meets the needs of the backpacker or mountain climber who wants to take something that does not take up space and weight.
Looks like a great lens for the intended market - Nikon's marketing is already targeting travelers, hikers, parents with kids playing sports, amusement park visits, etc. I think this lens will be popular, even if it's not talked about much here on the enthusiast forums where there is a heavy focus on wildlife and other more niche types of photography.
F8 obviously keeps it small, and probably not a big deal for the intended use cases which will likely be in broad daylight most of the time. As long as Nikon doesn't go down the same road as other manufacturers where almost every long lens is F8-11, I think it's good to have options.
It also seems to be well featured with weather sealing, zoom lock, control ring, and 5.5 stop synchro VR. I haven't seen any proper reviews yet but I'm guessing it will perform much better than many expect, similar to the 24-200. Once the RAW converters get their profiles out, end-result performance will obviously be quite a bit better yet.
suteetat wrote:
I hope at 400 f8, it won't require stepping down to get better sharpness.
While I don't need it I suppose if I have a hiking trip where I need to carry
everything myself, I could see this as an excellent kit and couple with 14-30/4,
that's under 1.2kg total for all the lenses I need. If it performs anywhere
near 24-200, it could be interesting.
It will likely have no benefit from stopping down at 400mm anyway, because it is already within diffraction territory, at least on the more dense sensors?
Well, this lens sure isn't the fabled 10-1000mm f/1.0, but it's a step in that direction.
jcw1982 wrote:
I'll reserve my judgment and hope for the best. It seems it wasn't that long ago that Nikon announced the F-mount 200-500. That lens was roasted on here from what I recall. Later, it turned out to be a pretty good performer and quite popular. You never know.
That happens all the time, same with the 180-600, which by now everyone knows how good it is and is regularly out of stock.
Part of the problem is that most of the time, early reviews are done by people who are just trying to be first (that is how they maximize views/clicks), and there are way too many uncontrolled variables. I remember when the 180-600 came out, some reviewers were using RAW converters that didn't even have profiles for the lens, and comparing them to lenses that did have profiles, and obviously looked dramatically better as a result. They don't mention things like that because they either don't understand or don't care - and if their review turns out to be controversial, well that's even better for them.
The other problem is that people tend to look at web-sized user-posted samples here, and focus on the bad ones with a million unknowns (user skill, processing method, camera settings, RAW converter, etc.) while ignoring the good samples that actually show what the lens can do. I've never been able to wrap my head around that thought process, but it happens every time a new lens comes out.
Don't even get me started on how bad some early YouTube reviews are. I didn't even think I'd enjoy stuff like the 50 1.2 or 85 1.2 or my current GFX set up as much I am based on how some reviews were shot or Flickr or other photographers in general. Some things you just have to shoot for yourself and be done with it. CanadaMark wrote:
That happens all the time, same with the 180-600, which by now everyone knows how good it is and is regularly out of stock.
Part of the problem is that most of the time, early reviews are done by people who are just trying to be first (that is how they maximize views/clicks), and there are way too many uncontrolled variables. I remember when the 180-600 came out, some reviewers were using RAW converters that didn't even have profiles for the lens, and comparing them to lenses that did have profiles, and obviously looked dramatically better as a result. They don't mention things like that because they either don't understand or don't care - and if their review turns out to be controversial, well that's even better for them.
The other problem is that people tend to look at web-sized user-posted samples here, and focus on the bad ones with a million unknowns (user skill, processing method, camera settings, RAW converter, etc.) while ignoring the good samples that actually show what the lens can do. I've never been able to wrap my head around that thought process, but it happens every time a new lens comes out....Show more →
That lens hood alone will sell a few copies! I like that it will be a talking point.
This isn't for me but I love that Nikon keeps pumping out the options. The days of questioning Nikon's ability to get mirrorless lenses out are well in the past.
As I expected this looks like it’s going to be a solid performer for many people who don’t process images at 300% and worry more about composition and light, just like the 24-200. I’m sure it will get mixed initial reviews then sell tons of copies and find good use.
BPsmith511 wrote:
As I expected this looks like it’s going to be a solid performer for many people who don’t process images at 300% and worry more about composition and light, just like the 24-200. I’m sure it will get mixed initial reviews then sell tons of copies and find good use.
I kind of suspect a lens like this is going to lead a lot more people to try to process images at more extreme crops, which the lens is unlikely to really work very well with.
Why? I think once you get up past 300mm there's sort of this weird no-man's land where most of the stuff that's close enough to shoot with 300 or 400mm was also close enough that a lot of people would have already been shooting it at shorter focal ranges but most of the stuff that you wind up wanting to shoot with a longer lens is still too far away.
For instance, I can foresee a lot of people with this lens being inspired to try to photograph some birds or to do the moon or to go to their kids' soccer game and try to shoot stuff on the other side of the field and it's all just going to be very small in the frame and people are going to be cropping to greater extremes.
Yup. And as before, Nikon is doing a stellar job at telephotos.
urbanwild wrote:
That lens hood alone will sell a few copies! I like that it will be a talking point.
This isn't for me but I love that Nikon keeps pumping out the options. The days of questioning Nikon's ability to get mirrorless lenses out are well in the past.
I am super interested in a comparison between Nikon 24-200 vs Olympus 12-100 and Nikon 28-400 vs Olympus 12-200, for travel.
I use both M43 systems and the Nikon full-frame system. I bought my first m43 camera as it is so lightweight for traveling (I used a Panasonic 14-140). But these days I found M43 system is losing its advantage of being light, with so many new full-frame lens/bodies released (for example sony a7c and the nikon 28-400 lens).
Of course, if one needs super good optic quality, he won't consider these super-zoom lens. But I am mainly talking about the people that want maybe only one lens for travel and is constrained by the budget.
I don't see the limitation so much in the area of optical qualities, even if these will of course exist with a 14.2x zoom.
I think the more severe limitations is the slow speed in the telephoto range of 200 - 400mm, where you have to cope with f/8.
It really depends on what you want to photograph with it.
As long as the subjects are reasonably static, it's not a major problem, especially as you also have extended latitude via IBIS, but as soon as you have to freeze movement and need four-digit shutter speeds, where even with much, much faster solutions the water is already up to your neck very quickly, it becomes almost unusable.
Or to stay with the example, the water is no longer up to your neck, like with a 400/4.5 or 560/6.3, but you are already drowning.
So as a travel zoom, it's certainly an alternative for users who want to cover the maximum possible focal length range with one lens, but action and movement push you into ISO ranges with 200-400mm f/8 that you don't want to put yourself through even with the best NR software.
. But not sure if I'll get it. I was ok with heavier bigger lens with bigger aperture. F8 is too slow and not great for occasional wildlife during travel. Some samples in Matt Granger video looks sharp with nice father definitions. The magnification is great too (though not sure what it's at 400mm). If the AF is good enough for running kids or slow flying birds I might get it. Hoping to see more samples before ship date.
