This lens does interest me. Biggest reason is its low weight. And then there is the focal length range.
As far as light goes:
>. Excepting IR, the first requirement for photography is light. Sure, I love shooting in low (up to 3 hands high) direct sunlight. But I also like shooting in rain. We cannot always have abundant or "sufficient" light.
>. I am finding that a lot of my shots were taken at ISO 25600 (with my Z8). Both the Z8 and D850 focus very fast..... even in low light.
In post I can effectively convert and denoise, (and sharpen if desired).
I did not notice this lens until today. Must keep looking at it more now.
I'm coming to a conclusion that for me anything below 400mm this lens will do. Not necessarily a bird lens because of the f/8 aperture. But great as a wildlife with environment. Sharpness is very good. It's pretty close to Sony 100-400 at 400mm. I know it's hard to accept. But the AF accuracy suffers sometimes may be because of f/8. Anyhow couple of samples wide open
Z8 and Z 28-400mm f/4-8 VR @ 1/200sec, f/8, ISO 640, 18.1MP(5207X3472), Focal length 400mm, Effective FL 630mm, Distance 15ft, AF Auto(Birds)
Actual pixel crop from above. 0 sharpening
Z8 and Z 28-400mm f/4-8 VR @ 1/200sec, f/8, ISO 720, 20.3MP(5521X3681), Focal length 400mm, Effective FL 600mm, Distance 15ft, AF Auto(Birds)
Any update from people using this lens? I'm debating between this and a 100-400 as a landscape/hiking lens, but currently have the 24-120 S lens. I would like the portability and all in one feature of the 28-400 but want to see if the sharpness differences between it and the 100-400 are significant enough.
I have been debating similarly. I am waiting to see if Nikon puts out any sales on the 28-400 in September, but I am probably going to buy one as an outdoors lens. I don't see the 28-400 replacing my 24-120 S for dedicated landscape work and I don't see it replacing a true wildlife lens like a 180-600. But when you want to go from landscape to telephoto work without changing lenses, there are almost no alternatives. Also what other 400mm lens is small and light enough that you can place in your bag just in case you might need it.
The only other similar lenses are the Nikon 24-200, which 200 is too short for most wildlife photos, or adapting the Tamron 50-400mm E, which is 2/3 of a stop faster on the long end but 50mm is not wide enough for most landscapes.
While the 100-400 is a very well regarded lens, I have a problem figuring out when I would use it, as 100 is not wide enough for me for landscapes, and for most of the birds by me I would need more than 400mm of reach. I have talked to people that use a 100-400 and a longer lens like a 180-600 but I just don't see myself wanting to carry two large telephoto lenses around often.
I could definitely see myself though eventually having the 28-400 on one body, and the 180-600 + TC 1.4 (252-840) on another body.
I don't have Nikon 100-400 and never owned one. But I had Sony 100-400 and replaced it with 28-400. 28-400 never going to be the level of 100-400 in sharpness. But this lens is not bad. It's the best super zoom I've used. I did a quick test against Sony 100-400. Here's the result. Sony at right.
To my surprise 28-400 had more magnification compared to 100-400 meaning less focus breathing at short distance. Both have pretty similar magnification at 400mm (1:3). AF speed not bad either. But it can hunt with low light (no surprise). Otherwise I love the lens. Wish if it was a 6.3 lens.
I'm also very interested in this lens. What's the weight of the Z8 with the 28-400mm lens? Is it heavy enough that one wouldn't bring this combination on a backpacking trip?
Weight is 1.6LB. In comparison the 24-120 is 1.4LB. So they are pretty close. 28-400 is 1" longer. For the range it's a small lens. IMO other than the f/8 maximum aperture it's a great travel lens.
lsquare wrote:
I'm also very interested in this lens. What's the weight of the Z8 with the 28-400mm lens? Is it heavy enough that one wouldn't bring this combination on a backpacking trip?
Just got mine and put it with my Z8. It's definitely not a small combo, but I don't find it too heavy or big. It pairs well with the grip size of the Z8.
It does look a bit big if you are planning on doing street photography, but it's barely heavier than the 24-120 and only slightly longer.
The green anole is around 0.6 magnification after cropping to 13mp. This is another reason I love this lens. At 400mm, a 5.2mp crop from Z8 will be 1:1 macro.
Z8 and Z 28-400mm f/4-8 VR @ 1/200sec, f/8, ISO 1600, 35.8MP(7323X4882), Focal length 400mm, Effective FL 450mm, Distance 11ft, AF Auto(Birds)
Z8 and Z 28-400mm f/4-8 VR @ 1/800sec, f/13, ISO 1600, 13.5MP(4504X3003), Focal length 400mm, Effective FL 730mm, Distance 5ft, AF Auto(Birds)
Jemini wrote:
I don't have Nikon 100-400 and never owned one. But I had Sony 100-400 and replaced it with 28-400. 28-400 never going to be the level of 100-400 in sharpness. But this lens is not bad. It's the best super zoom I've used. I did a quick test against Sony 100-400. Here's the result. Sony at right.
....
Thanks, but honestly what is missing is only, "contrast" for Nikon lens!
Dadasese69 wrote:
Thanks jemini for the amazing post. When amateur deliver the best shots, usually the pros are very quite to comment anything!
Thank you for kind words! I know these shots are nothing to be proud of. Primarily want to see if it can produce keepers. I'm planning to travel with one lens for family trips and see if I can get some keepers especially animalscapes..
Jemini wrote:
Thank you for kind words! I know these shots are nothing to be proud of. Primarily want to see if it can produce keepers. I'm planning to travel with one lens for family trips and see if I can get some keepers especially animalscapes..
I'm traveling out west by plane and while mostly interested in wildlife, trying to keep the bag light. Thinking of this lens and the 600PF which I already have. The 800PF, which I also have is too big to go on the trip. I already have the 28-200 and considering adding this lens.
Laslo Varadi wrote:
I'm traveling out west by plane and while mostly interested in wildlife, trying to keep the bag light. Thinking of this lens and the 600PF which I already have. The 800PF, which I also have is too big to go on the trip. I already have the 28-200 and considering adding this lens.
I think 28-400mm+600mm will be a fantastic combo..
