The New AF-S NIKKOR 400mm f/2.8E FL ED VR

Golf007sd

So Nikon has decided to introduce a lighter more advanced 400 2.8. What are your thought on this new lens?

New AF-S 400 2.8E FL ED VR Spec's

400 2.8E


400 2.8


Question 2: Do you think they will take the same step with the 300 2.8?

PB_PM

1st Thought, $3k price increase, when the imaging division is loosing money, maybe not a good idea.
2nd thought, they will likely update all the super telephotos (aka, 200mm F2, 300mm F2.8, 500mm F4, 600mm F4), in similar manner over the next 2-4 years.

scoobysmak

Question 1:
Well I would like to see how it performs compaired to the current, now older version. If weight savings is all you might get the lens still weighs 8lbs, thats not work the price difference in my opinion. I would have to use it on a tripod anyway unless I got an unlimited gym membership and my job was to work out all day. If 2 lbs is what makes or breaks your airline weight limits and this lens is a money maker for you then I can see upgrading.

Question 2:
I do see them updating the others but since the 400mm and 600mm are on the heavy side I see these getting the weight reduction first.

Beso

I have been holding off on buying the 400 f/2.8 for quite some time thinking that I would surely buy it; just a question of when. When NR announced the impending revision I thought it would be a relatively small price increase (i.e., $500 USD) and I would pull the trigger. I was more than a bit surprised when I saw the 33% ($3,000 USD) price increase. I still want a 400 f/2.8. The question now is whether the new lighter more sophisticated version is worth the extra $3K. I will have to think about that for a while. It will also be helpful to see some reviews and comparisons.

sevencrossing

This lens, together with the 200-400 f4 and the 600mm f 4 are favorites with wild life photographers. weight is not too important if you are shooting from a Landrover but if you hiking on foot, ever ounce counts. Next super tele to upgraded ? 600/4 G IF-ED VR

adamz

design wise I think we will have a slightly better handholding, as they managed to move the centre of gravity towards the back of the lens - you can tell this by the redesigned foot. add to this the 2 lbs weight reduction and we have a winner here. time to save money

@sevencrosing - right now if I would go to set a pure wildlife set (for bigger mammals) I would go with the following: 80-400/5.6 vrII, new 400/2.8 and 800/5.6. I would skip the 200-400/4 if I could afford the 400/2.8.

henrik1963

I hope that this newer and better 400 2.8 makes the old but very good 400 2.8 cheaper. I want one even if it is the "old" model :-)

Msmoto

I can only say that my current 400/2.8 is so incredibly sharp that I am very happy with it. And, now I can say I saved $3000…. )

However, the practical advantage may be that with the newer TC's the results will be exceptional, thus giving more versatility….

framer

I have an older AFS2 non vr model and it rocks. I've told the wife to bury me in the case w/the lens when I die.

How much better can they make perfection with this lens?

framer

proudgeek

It appears to be an awesome lens in every respect. Whether or not it's $11,000 awesome will depend on how much disposable cash you have and/or how much money you can make using it.

I'll be passing, based on both criteria.

Vipmediastar_JZ

D900 72MP and crop

Maybe if ESPN hired me to photograph sports but that is a long way in getting my foot into sports and BIF. for now the 70-200 is my super telephoto.

haroldp

I can only say that my current 400/2.8 is so incredibly sharp that I am very happy with it. And, now I can say I saved $3000…. )

I totally agree. My 400/2.8, even with TC is so good that my skill and setup are the limiting factors.

I like constant improvement, but $ 3K is a big jump, and I would not consider trading my current 400/2.8 VRII, my plan for improvement is to use it and sharpen my skills.

Regards ... H

WestEndBoy

I am thinking of this vs the 200mm f2 for portaits. If it is a significant improvement, I might be swayed.

Regarding the 2lbs, that is huge. I can handhold the current version but it is a little tiring. 2 lbs will make all the difference.

snakebunk

Looks fantastic, but it is a little bit on the expensive side for me. I wonder how much a 400/4 of the same quality would cost and weigh. I think I could do with one stop less.

Golf007sd

Msmoto

Great video… reminds me not to get garbage on the front element. And, i am quite careful about this….rarely clean lenses…just blow off dust.

About the IQ… it would seem that one interesting potential is, that with the exceptional sharpness it would be even more effective on the small format bodies…as a super telephoto….

sevencrossing

Looks fantastic, but it is a little bit on the expensive side for me. I wonder how much a 400/4 of the same quality would cost and weigh. I think I could do with one stop less.

if you are happy with f4 then why not get the Nikon 200-400mm f4 G VR II AF-S ED
or if you can put up with f 5.6 the 80-400mm the gobsmacking amazing f/4.5-5.6G ED vr
Super Teles are very expensive as the glass is hand polished it is too big to be done by machine

haroldp

I have, use and enjoy the 200-400mm f4 G, and the 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6G ED for applications where they are the best choice.

I did not believe that those lenses could be significantly improved on, until I got the 400/2.8. It is a completely different class of optic. When using TC's it isn't even close.

Besides, since getting the 2.8, I no longer need a gym membership.

.... H

snakebunk

Looks fantastic, but it is a little bit on the expensive side for me. I wonder how much a 400/4 of the same quality would cost and weigh. I think I could do with one stop less.

if you are happy with f4 then why not get the Nikon 200-400mm f4 G VR II AF-S ED
or if you can put up with f 5.6 the 80-400mm the gobsmacking amazing f/4.5-5.6G ED vr
Super Teles are very expensive as the glass is hand polished it is too big to be done by machine

I don't need zoom and I want the highest possible sharpness. My point is that a lower weight and a lower price could be worth one stop less. In addition I am thinking a super sharp 400/4 could be a very useful 560/5.6 with a TC14, or 800/8 with a TC20.

sevencrossing

snakebunk 800/8 with a TC20

x2 converters my lose auto focus with f4 lenses
which, I suspect, is the reason Nikon make this lens an f2.8

but if you do want the the highest possible sharpness from a 400mm f4 lightweight lens, you might like to contact a division of Nikon called company 7, they were responsible for the Nikon 6mm f/2.8 Fisheye and some Nikons for the NASA Apollo Program
( but it might not be cheaper than the f 2.8)

snakebunk

@sevencrossing: With the D800 (for example) you have auto focus down to F8. I think auto focus with TC20 was one of the reasons to make the 400mm an F2.8 lense in the first place, but with current auto focus and ISO performance it is not as important anymore. Thank you for the company 7 tip Cool name by the way.

PB_PM

I don't need zoom and I want the highest possible sharpness. My point is that a lower weight and a lower price could be worth one stop less. In addition I am thinking a super sharp 400/4 could be a very useful 560/5.6 with a TC14, or 800/8 with a TC20.

Exactly, a 400mm F4 prime would also be much lighter. The 200-400mm F4 also is known for not being the best at 400mm for subjects beyond 15m.

Msmoto

The idea of a 400mm f/4 with fluorite elements…would in my guessing be in the $4,000 to 5,000 price range.. But, if it were as sharp as the f/2.8/fluorite, this would be an excellent sports lens as the weight would be very manageable.

Just my thoughts today….

snakebunk

I hade to look and it turns out that Canon makes a 400/4. It is close to half the price and half the weight of their 400/2.8. Of some reason it is also a lot shorter. I don't know about the quality of that lense but maybe it is possible that Nikon makes one as well.

kenadams

I need to ask a serious question now. How can so many of you even remotely afford an +8k (11k for the new one..) lens?? If you're professionals (whatever that means, haha), does it *really* pay off? If not... then even more: wdf? I mean, everybody says lenses are the better investment, but if it's only one lens?

Golf007sd

@kenadams: Lenses of this caliber are purchased by photographers that have a need or want for it. Moreover, such owners that buy such a lens, have about twice the dollar amount invested in gear already. Hence, it is not for the "average joe."

As for the price itself, it is all relative. Go ask a person that owns a recreational equipment, like an off-road dirt bike, a jet sky, snowmobile, or one who owns a boat....if "does it really pay off" or does the equipment deliver what you seek. Now...keeping that list in mind, what the cost of such equipment would be if it has been classified as "professional gear." They would be in the $50,000 to well over a million for the boat. Hence, the 400 2.8 (both versions) are classified as professional gear.