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

RocklandDragon

2.8? Pffftt. I'm not impressed. Make it a 400mm f/2 lens and I'll get two. :P :P


(Man, I want to try this 400mm though. I wonder if the improvements will be significant from the old 2.8. Might be a good deal to buy an old 2.8. )

sevencrossing

I think, just for a change, KR is right on this lens
Great for those who actually use a 400 f 2.8
because if you carry this lens around all day, two pounds is a very big saving
for the rest of us armchair reviewers, it is just another $3,000 we don't have

proudgeek

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?

Easy. Most of us are either bank robbers in our spare time or independently wealthy.

In all seriousness, I don't think many of us are rushing out and dropping $11k on a new lens, but it's fun to talk about. But if it's something you really enjoy and you feel like you're going to get a lot out of it, why not (as long as it doesn't put a drain on your finances)? As Golf said, people spend a lot more on cars, boats, etc. I have a small boat that I don't use nearly enough, but when I do use it I love it. Someone once asked me to amortize the per-use cost of the boat when I factored in insurance, gas, storage, etc. I told them that I refused to because if I ever knew I'd probably get rid of the boat. The bottom line is that you can't put a price on having a passion for doing something.

Ironheart

2.8? Pffftt. I'm not impressed. Make it a 400mm f/2 lens and I'll get two. :P :P

Sorry, the scientist in me won't let this slip by. The size and weight difference between an f/2.8 lens and a f/2 one is huge. The diameter of the front element would grow from 6.3 inches to over 8.5, or more than 40%. Each of the glass elements would be double the area (pi x r^2 and all that), so double, at least, the weight. You are looking at over 300oz or over 18 lbs.

Good luck carrying two for more than a few feet :-))

haroldp

I think, just for a change, KR is right on this lens
Great for those who actually use a 400 f 2.8
because if you carry this lens around all day, two pounds is a very big saving
for the rest of us armchair reviewers, it is just another $3,000 we don't have

"KR is right on this lens" - my broken clock is exactly right twice a day.

I don't 'carry it around', it comes out of my trunk and is mounted on a tripod where I freeze my butt waiting for birds (usually eagles'.

.... H

RocklandDragon

2.8? Pffftt. I'm not impressed. Make it a 400mm f/2 lens and I'll get two. :P :P

Sorry, the scientist in me won't let this slip by. The size and weight difference between an f/2.8 lens and a f/2 one is huge. The diameter of the front element would grow from 6.3 inches to over 8.5, or more than 40%. Each of the glass elements would be double the area (pi x r^2 and all that), so double, at least, the weight. You are looking at over 300oz or over 18 lbs.

Good luck carrying two for more than a few feet :-))

Nah. I know a 400 f/2 lens would be extremely massive and absurdly impratical. Might give the Sigma Rocket Launcher a run for it's money.

Build it anyway, Nikon. :P :P :P

adamz

400/2.8 was not created to work best with TC 20. It was primary created for all indoor sport photography shooters in order to allow them to get acceptable pictures in darker areas.
As for d800 and f8, well in good light it works quite well in worser condition it tends to haunts a lot.

NSXTypeR

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?

That's like saying why own a million dollar MRI machine when you can take images of the body with a X-ray machine.

Yeah both of them will give you images of a body, but you can see a lot more with an MRI machine than you can with X-rays.

I understand it's an incredibly extreme example, but it's a bit analogous. In the end of the day, the old and the new 400 2.8 wasn't something the average consumer would even consider anyway, so what's an extra $3,000 here or there?

Photobug

Great questions Golf. IMHO, here are my views:
++The old 400 2.8 is a great lens, just ask MsMoto. ) I expect the Pros who need the 400 will buy the new lens.
++Because the old 400mm is such a sharp lens and the new one cost $3K more than the old one, sales on eBay will increase drastically. Pro's who don't have a big usage for the 400 lens and advanced amateur who need it for BIF are going to buy those used 400mm lens. The price on the used 400 is going to go up over the next six months.
++Regarding the 300mm F2.8 lens. Yes I truly believe Nikon will upgrade the 300mm F2.8 lens and it's going to have the same price jump we saw with the 400mm. Best case it would be increased as much as the 80-400 lens update.

The difference in glass quality is so small, most people can't justify the $3K price increase. The old 400 mm lens will sell out quickly and will drive up the value of the used lens on eBay. That's my opinion.

It's great to be back from vacation but I am not looking forward to editing down 959 pictures. Also good to be back on NRF.

Msmoto

I would certainly think an old 2.8 would be great at a price point around $6,000. There are a lot of factors affecting the sharpness other than the optics. Thus, the new lens with the exceptional MTF data may, in practical use, be less of a difference than one thinks. And, if some folks purchase the new version and sell the old one, this might be an opportunity to own this gem.

Ade

The new 400 is also an "E" lens, not a "G" lens like the older one. Like other "E" lenses, the new 400's aperture is now controlled electronically using a special motor inside the lens, instead of using mechanical linkages to the body as before.

There are a few advantages moving to electronic aperture control:

- Increased stability. The old mechanical linkage has a tolerance slop which could vary shot-to-shot exposures by as much as 1/3 of a stop. This variance probably doesn't matter for single shots, but may be visible when doing burst shooting or time lapse. (This phenomenon is known as "aperture flicker").

- Better reliability. Bent apertures are a thing of the past. But be sure to keep those contacts clean and be prepared to spend $$ when the aperture motor breaks.

- Faster response. Moving to electronic shutters helps pave the way to faster fps cameras in the future, i.e., beyond the D4S speed of 11 fps.

I guess it's just a matter of time now before the "trinity" of lenses all get updated to "E" "FL" with a new VR and a new price point.

Photobug

Thanks Ade for the explanation of the electronic aperture control. Did not know this.

From my perspective, I would buy the now "old" model. If I have to pay to have it fixed it's certainly NOT going to cost any where near $3K.

Golf007sd

So do we think a 20% increase is the path for all lenses, should Nikon decide to implement the electronic aperture control on other pro-lenses?

tc88

It's not a matter of if but when Nikon will implement electrial aperture control on all lens. And at some point, it's going to discontinue the support of mechanical aperture control in camera. That's called planned obsolescence and how it forces people to upgrade. I would worry more about your current lens investments.

PB_PM

So do we think a 20% increase is the path for all lenses, should Nikon decide to implement the electronic aperture control on other pro-lenses?

I think we need to accept that adding another motor will add to the cost of lenses. That said, Canon has been using electronic apertures for many years, and yet somehow the price of Canon lenses is not 20% higher than Nikon's. With time the prices should fall back down to normal levels. I think the real issue with the price increases we are seeing comes from being in a declining camera market, and the changes in international currencies.

proudgeek

It seems to me that the introduction of the "E" lenses represents a pretty big departure for Nikon. I took a look through their lens lineup and the 400 f/2.8 is the only E. Surprising that no mention is made of it. One would think that they would.

PB_PM

It seems to me that the introduction of the "E" lenses represents a pretty big departure for Nikon. I took a look through their lens lineup and the 400 f/2.8 is the only E. Surprising that no mention is made of it. One would think that they would.

Not at all the first E lens. The 24, 45, and 85mm PC lenses are E lenses, as is last years 800mm F5.6.

Ade

@proudgeek

Nikon already has several "E" lenses, starting with the three PC-E tilt/shift lenses (24mm, 45mm and 85mm) and more recently the 800mm f/5.6 E FL. But you are right that they will likely become more prevalent.

@Golf007sd

There is a price increase but I think most of the increase we see in the 400mm comes from using large fluorite elements (which are very expensive), rather than from the electromagnetic aperture.

Fluorite helps control longitudinal chromatic aberration (LoCA). This type of CA increases with focal length, so lenses like the 400mm and 800mm need a lot of CA correction and can really benefit from using fluorite in the design.

The 70-200/2.8 could be improved by using fluorite elements, although it's LoCA is already quite low. I think the Canon version of this lens already uses fluorite.

For shorter / normal lenses like the 24-70, fluorite might not be worth it from a cost/benefit perspective. Optically, at this focal range LoCA can be very well controlled using ED glass.

On the flip side, Canon has patents on wide-angle lenses with fluorite elements. I guess the benefit no longer pure optics, but achieving a lighter, simpler design vs. using ED glass.

Due to inflation prices on new versions of lenses will continue to go up (from an MSRP perspective) -- but Nikon can't price itself out of the market.

proudgeek

I hadn't noticed the 800mm. Not 100% sure your assessment that the perspective control lenses are of the E class as they E is in a different spot within the name.
PC-E Micro NIKKOR 85mm f/2.8D vs. AF-S NIKKOR 400mm f/2.8E FL ED VR

I could very well be wrong.

Ade

It's the same "E", as in electromagnetic aperture control.

It's called PC-E because basically Nikon copied Canon (they called it TS-E).

Mechanical linkages aren't practical in PC lenses because of the tilting & shifting, so making it electronic only makes sense. However, only "relatively" newer cameras (starting with the D3/D300) can control "E" lens apertures.

Nikon has been slow to adopt electromagnetic apertures, whereas every Canon lens since circa 1987 (!) has utilized this technology. (They call it EMD -- electromagnetic diaphragm).

proudgeek

^^ Thank you. Very helpful.

IAmSebOakley

I am very interested in how this new combination will work on the new elements and the weight side of things, I don't use a 400mm 2.8 at all and actually never played with one either but would love to see what people say about this as I am sure the next lens that Nikon would upgrade would be the 600mm F4 which I do use, I have the new VRII but that does get on the heavy side after using it all day !

Msmoto

@IAmSebOakley

Welcome to NRF. Do you handhold the 600? I do know that the 400 when handheld gets very heavy after only a few minutes, but for some subjects I find it is easier to handhold and then rest than to use any support as the support gets in the way of shooting certain subjects.

haroldp

Lately, I am in the back seat, resting the 400/2.8 (Usually with tce17-eII ) on my hand supported by an open window, while my wife drives. I only shoot when stopped. This is when VR comes in handy.

I find that getting out of the car and setting up a tripod often spooks the wildlife (usually migratory birds) .

.... H

framer

@IAmSebOakley

Welcome to NRF. Do you handhold the 600? I do know that the 400 when handheld gets very heavy after only a few minutes, but for some subjects I find it is easier to handhold and then rest than to use any support as the support gets in the way of shooting certain subjects.

But it saves on gym membership costs and you can tell the doctor you exercise regularly.

framer