NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: Netr on January 09, 2018, 04:15:13
-
It will cost you an arm and a leg. And maybe your firstborn child.
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/nikon-announces-new-af-s-nikkor-180-400mm-f4e-tc14-fl-ed-vr-super-telephoto-zoom-lens-at-ces-2018-300579476.html
-
A lot of money - but less than I thought - IF it lands in SA at that price (which usually isn't the case)
The white paper on the lens sounds good.
-
wildlife and sports shooters will love this :o :o :o
-
wildlife and sports shooters will love this :o :o :o
What's not to love.... range is good - and on a D500 will be really great. One of the things birders care about (besides length) is weight - hopefully easy to use without a tripod. yup - it will be popular for those who can afford it. For the rest - there is the 200-500 :)
-
What's not to love.... range is good - and on a D500 will be really great. One of the things birders care about (besides length) is weight - hopefully easy to use without a tripod. yup - it will be popular for those who can afford it. For the rest - there is the 200-500 :)
the 200-500 is pretty good :o :o :o
Nikon stressed that they used magnesium alloys and fluorite to make it as light as possible.
definitely not a lens for me, out of my pay grade and not really something I can see myself using. tried shooting birds but ended up shooting something else ::)
-
the 200-500 is pretty good :o :o :o
Nikon stressed that they used magnesium alloys and fluorite to make it as light as possible.
definitely not a lens for me, out of my pay grade and not really something I can see myself using. tried shooting birds but ended up shooting something else ::)
As you say - every lens has a market :) I am not that market either.
-
Just like the Canon lens, but a little better :) An outstanding lens I'm sure.
Still seems strange to put a TC in a lens (to add flexibility) on a zoom (which is already flexible), makes the lens very complex. Why not just make it a 200-600/4-5.6 zoom, would be simpler. I guess that is how a lot would use it, but then sports shooters might want the constant apertures, and it starts to look like a consumer zoom :o
I wonder why they don't build a TC into their super primes like the 400/2.8?
-
I'd rather have a lens like this with a matched TC of the conventional type. I might be wrong but it seems like the built in TC adds a failure point I'd rather not have built in.
Dave Hartman
-
What's not to love.... range is good - and on a D500 will be really great. One of the things birders care about (besides length) is weight - hopefully easy to use without a tripod. yup - it will be popular for those who can afford it. For the rest - there is the 200-500 :)
The new 180-400 weighs 3500g (maybe with the tripod foot). The 200-500 weighs 2300g with the tripod collar. So, it's around 50% heavier.
-
The new 180-400 weighs 3500g (maybe with the tripod foot). The 200-500 weighs 2300g with the tripod collar. So, it's around 50% heavier.
Akira - I wouldnt compare it to the 200-500 (not in the same class) - I would think more in terms of my friends who have a 500mm prime - which is about 3090g - so ya - even for them this one isnt then very helpful in terms of weight. Eish.
-
Akira - I wouldnt compare it to the 200-500 (not in the same class) - I would think more in terms of my friends who have a 500mm prime - which is about 3090g - so ya - even for them this one isnt then very helpful in terms of weight. Eish.
I see. Then the question would be the necessity and the degree of convenience of a zoom lens which is one full stop slower than a prime when it is set with the teleconverter (the difference between 500mm and 560mm may not matter much).
Personally I'm not big fan of a lens with such amount of optical elements for the lens and alphabets/numbers for the name...
-
Interesting flip flop TC design - Clever little detail to quickly gain a little more reach without making it overly complex,,,
-
Perhaps this will be a lens of interest for me? The specifications and MTF graphs are surely impressive. Might turn out to be the ultimate landscape lens not just for chasing animals with or without feathers.
I'll contact Nikon and sign up for a review sample. Just need to clear out my current lens house, move into my new apartment then sell off the old digs. Might be able to increase cash flow in the process as well.
My guess is that by making this lens "naked" first (without the TC) would allow for a smaller and more compact design. Easier to optimise a TC later for just a single, dedicated optic.
-
I suspect a lot of people will rent this lens on an as-needed basis, eg safari trip or sporting occasion. Should be superb for those situations.
-
Impressive MTF graphs.
It's €11.999 in Holland, the Canon is a little more expensive €12.229 (and already a couple of years available).
The first time a comparable supertele of Canon is even more expensive than it's Nikon counterpart.
The Nikon one is a thad lighter (less heavy).
-
The first time a comparable supertele of Canon is even more expensive than it's Nikon counterpart.
I thought when Canon came out with the IS II generation long primes they were all more expensive than previously seen equivalents from either manufacturer. But they have come down in price a bit, and Nikon's FL generation is again more expensive but it too will probably come down in price over time.
In the case of the zoom, Canon added a new feature that seems to be very expensive to make, and Nikon felt obligated to follow with a similar product.
I think one can have mixed feelings about the built in TC; surely if the quality is good it is a practical thing to have but some users might prefer to have just the 200-400/4 range and a lighter and less expensive lens (but with the other improvements in the optics, focusing etc.). However, I realize at the high end there is a fierce competition to make the best product possible for the target user which is expected to be less price sensitive than many of us are.
On the other hand when something is so clearly outside of one's budget it can be a relief as one doesn't have to try to reach for it.
-
I think one can have mixed feelings about the built in TC; surely if the quality is good it is a practical thing to have but some users might prefer to have just the 200-400/4 range and a lighter and much less expensive lens.
I would say that the built-in teleconverter wouldn't add too much weight to such an already heavy lens. Also, I don't think anyone would feel comfortable to have to unmount the lens, add or remove the separate TC and mount the lens again onto the body in the dusty environment like in Safari. In addition, this new zoom is designed so that you can flip the TC in and out with the right hand fingers by holding the camera grip. So you can respond to the shutter chance far quicker than with a separate TC.
-
By using FL elements Nikon was able to reduce the weight of the 70-200/2.8 by about 8%. In this case there is a 4% weight increase compared to the 200-400/4 II. I believe the reason they weren't able to reduce the weight is because of the TC, the mechanism that is used to move it precisely and the bulge in the housing.
-
By using FL elements Nikon was able to reduce the weight of the 70-200/2.8 by about 8%. In this case there is a 4% weight increase compared to the 200-400/4 II. I believe the reason they weren't able to reduce the weight is because of the TC, the mechanism that is used to move it precisely and the bulge in the housing.
Using FL elements for the largest front elements can not only contribute to reduce the total weight but also improve the otherwise front-heavy weight balance. The current 200-400 zoom uses four large (one concave and three convex ED) elements on the front, whereas the new 180-400 uses only three elements on the front. The first and the largest element is the lighter FL, and the second and the third elements are a bit smaller.
The overall weight is only 140g heavier, so it should be safe to say that the additional weight of TC was partially cancelled out. And the front-heavy weight balance is also improved by the addition of the integrated TC.
The improved weight balance would make the handhold more comfortable and stable.
-
I would say that the built-in teleconverter wouldn't add too much weight to such an already heavy lens. Also, I don't think anyone would feel comfortable to have to unmount the lens, add or remove the separate TC and mount the lens again onto the body in the dusty environment like in Safari. In addition, this new zoom is designed so that you can flip the TC in and out with the right hand fingers by holding the camera grip. So you can respond to the shutter chance far quicker than with a separate TC.
probably you would add a tc like with other long lenses - and just leave it - not change on and off on safari? Just guessing.
Akira - I am interested to know why you are not in favour of plenty elements - cost? or do you think it unnecessarily complicates the design?
-
I'd rather have a lens like this with a matched TC of the conventional type. I might be wrong but it seems like the built in TC adds a failure point I'd rather not have built in.
Dave Hartman
Yes, you're wrong. Nikon's own words as to "why?":
"Since it's integrated into the lens, the teleconverter maximizes light transmission to the sensor with very little falloff for tack-sharp images."
-
probably you would add a tc like with other long lenses - and just leave it - not change on and off on safari? Just guessing.
That sounds reasonable.
The question of, "To add, or not to add, the TC," becomes moot with the TC built-in with an on/off lever right on the lens.
This configuration makes the combo much-much more convenient to implement, where your eye still remains on the target as you simply flip a lever/switch ... than the conventional way, where you must take the camera away from your face, remove the lens, rummage for the TC, add (or remove) it, and then attempt to re-orient.
The savings in critical time, moments-captured this way, versus moments lost via the conventional add-on, would make the new lens invaluable to sports shooters and safari shooters also.
-
It is certainly possible that a larger number of elements would lead to some increase in flare and reduction in contrast. But there you have it, the trade-off of a prime supertelephoto with a smaller number of elements and a 180-400/4 +1.4X TC type lens. I think the value of the zoom is in the flexibility - you cannot just move to change framing with long-distance shots (you would have to do a lot of walking to change framing significantly) and when photographing certain situations it is a benefit to be able to access such a range of focal lengths because the subject may appear at different distances, e.g., in sports photography where you are tied to a fixed position. However, the 70-200/2.8 FL has very high contrast actually and it is a 22/18 design; the 180-400 is 27/19 so the number of groups is almost the same. With the TC in use, there are 35 elements in 24 groups.
High-resolution cameras (such as the D850) may give you some of that flexibility in framing but the zoom can be combined with such a camera to get even more flexibility (and a larger subject in the viewfinder, and more precise / selective AF). If you look at e.g. the Olympics there are many photographers that appear to be jam-packed into a very small space where you might not have enough space to store and change between large lenses. So in such a situation a zoom lens might be the best option, not that I would ever be in such a situation. ;)
The high cost certainly is going to create some grumbling online.
-
It is certainly possible that a larger number of elements would lead to some increase in flare and reduction in contrast. But there you have it, the trade-off of a prime supertelephoto with a smaller number of elements and a 180-400/4 +1.4X TC type lens. I think the value of the zoom is in the flexibility - you cannot just move to change framing with long-distance shots (you would have to do a lot of walking to change framing significantly) and when photographing certain situations it is a benefit to be able to access such a range of focal lengths because the subject may appear at different distances, e.g., in sports photography where you are tied to a fixed position. However, the 70-200/2.8 FL has very high contrast actually and it is a 22/18 design; the 180-400 is 27/19 so the number of groups is almost the same. With the TC in use, there are 35 elements in 24 groups.
High-resolution cameras (such as the D850) may give you some of that flexibility in framing but the zoom can be combined with such a camera to get even more flexibility (and a larger subject in the viewfinder, and more precise / selective AF). If you look at e.g. the Olympics there are many photographers that appear to be jam-packed into a very small space where you might not have enough space to store and change between large lenses. So in such a situation a zoom lens might be the best option, not that I would ever be in such a situation. ;)
The high cost certainly is going to create some grumbling online.
It seems unanimous that the highly-complex 70-200E FL is a superb lens, besting everything in its class, which is priced at only $2,800.
I think it is a fair bet to believe the highly-complex 180-400E FL TC, priced at $12,300, will be simply spectacular.
It will have its greatest usefulness on the D500, IMO, where its range will be an effective 270mm (TC off, at its widest) to 840mm (TC on, zoomed all the way in).
That is a ~300-900mm professional focal range, without having to carry an extra camera ... an extra lens ... nor even an extra TC.
(It is important to realize this range is on a legitimate pro lens, with Nikon's 'best of everything' on it, not a pro-sumer or budget/entry lens.)
The amount of money you would have to spend on Nikon's best, pro-grade, fixed lenses to duplicate this range would be $5,700 (for a 200mm), $5,500 (for a 300mm) and $11,200 (for 400mm), plus an additional $500 (1.4x TC) to get the 840mm total effective reach at the long-end. That is a total cost of $22,800, plus a total weight of 21.6 lb (9.83 kg), not to mention the hassle of swapping lenses/TC, just to get the same ~300 to ~900 effective range using Nikon's best prime lenses + TC.
Viewed in this light, the $12,300 price for the 180-400 +1.4 TC lens seems to be a bargain, and its 7.7 lb (3.5 kg) in weight seems to be a relief—all the while its everything-built-into-one configuration remains utterly hassle-free by comparison.
That's my vote :D
-
Viewed in this light, the $12,300 price for the 180-400 +1.4 TC lens seems to be a bargain, and its 7.7 lb (3.5 kg) in weight seems to be a relief—all the while its everything-built-into-one configuration remains utterly hassle-free by comparison.
That's my vote :D
you got my vote too ;D
-
Surely you are not comparing the prices of 1 or 2 stops faster primes with this f/4 (f/5.6) zoom.
-
Of interest is the Firmware update Nikon promises wrt AF using the D5, D500 and D850 - due in March 2018
https://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/camera-lenses/af-s-nikkor-180-400mm-f%252f4e-tc1.4-fl-ed-vr.html?icid=img_en_us:hp:banner:2:lens:180-400:010818:wwa
The AF-S NIKKOR 180-400mm f/4E TC1.4 FL ED VR draws peak performance from the 153-point AF system in recent Nikon DSLRs like the D5, D850 and D500. The sensors at the outer areas of the frame can be used as cross-type sensors*, drastically improving acquisition speed when a subject enters the frame. Enhanced servo drive control and higher-speed inversion of the Silent Wave Motor (SWM) improves tracking, even with subjects that radically change speed or direction.
*This feature will be available with a firmware upgrade for the D5, D850 and D500 as of March, 2018.
-
Surely you are not comparing the prices of 1 or 2 stops faster primes with this f/4 (f/5.6) zoom.
Surely you're not comparing the negligible benefit of "a 1-2 stop advantage" to a $10,000+ combined savings, a 14-lb reduction in combined weight, plus an enormous convenience benefit, all the while while using equal-quality glass :o
Most long glass shooters shoot between f/4 - f/8, so having f/2.8, or wider, provides almost zero benefit in the field.
The fact that the 180-400 is a constant f/4 reduces its weight considerably. Almost everyone I know wishes Nikon's 400mm f/2.8 came in a PF f/4 version, precisely because all the f/2.8 aperture does is add extra weight (it is 8.3 lb!). The fact is, the new 180-400 is more than a pound lighter than the 400mm, it is many-times more versatile and convenient, all the while losing nothing qualitatively.
Only human portrait shooters care about super-wide apertures.
-
I will wait and see how it proves to be
my 2 cents:
It copies the Canon path with TC which is ambiguous.
The TC will be dedicated (Like The external TC 800 so I expect little quality loss compared to conventional TC) - but adding size and weight
Will have to be proved how robust the switchin/out mechanism is
The selective quality flaws of the old 200-400 for long distance will be improved
Wonder how the close up distance has changed in comparison to its precedessors
the old 200-400 was not too well balanced - one can expect that to be improved
I hardly believe it will be as good as the 2,8/400 FL - but lets see
just had my 200-400/4 serviced - hm (no its too early for NAS)
Given the experience of the D850 it will also have to turn out when it will be truly available in numbers
-
Nikon specs say the near limit is 2 m at all focal settings.
-
Most long glass shooters shoot between f/4 - f/8, so having f/2.8, or wider, provides almost zero benefit in the field.
Only human portrait shooters care about super-wide apertures.
I guess I´m not most. Not to take it personally but I will get any extra light. I have used 300mm 2.8 and 400mm 2.8 all wide open. Actually considering the 200-400 for stage because of the already mentioned useful zoom range. I may should give it a try. The new version is way out of my budget
-
probably you would add a tc like with other long lenses - and just leave it - not change on and off on safari? Just guessing.
Akira - I am interested to know why you are not in favour of plenty elements - cost? or do you think it unnecessarily complicates the design?
I've used a 300mm lens and a 1.4x teleconverter, and I often felt putting the TC on and off was clumsy.
In general, I'm big fan of simplicity, which is not based on the science, but is more spiritual. Seriously.
I would understand that more elements would be needed for more functions (wider zoom range, VR, TC) and more aberration correction. But more glass elements will absorb more light, increase chances of flare and/or ghost. Also, the complicated design makes the manufacturing of the lens more tricky. I've had sour experiences with higher-end zoom lenses, which also influences my opinion and feeling.
-
A more realistic cost comparison would be with a typical sports photographer’s kit (70-200/2.8 and 400/2.8, for example).
It is typical that newspapers will not publish an image with (unpaid) advertisements at the sports venue becoming legible in the image, so the photographers use tricks like the 400/2,8 wide open to avoid those texts and logos becoming readable in the images. If you have a full body image, a 400/2.8 may just be what is required to achieve this.
There are without doubt merits to the zoom and applications for it (being able to frame images quickly from a fixed position is one). However, today we have 45MP cameras and so you can do a bit of cropping with a prime too. A variety of approaches can lead to the desired end result.
-
A more realistic cost comparison would be with a typical sports photographer’s kit (70-200/2.8 and 400/2.8, for example).
It is typical that newspapers will not publish an image with (unpaid) advertisements at the sports venue becoming legible in the image, so the photographers use tricks like the 400/2,8 wide open to avoid those texts and logos becoming readable in the images. If you have a full body image, a 400/2.8 may just be what is required to achieve this.
There are without doubt merits to the zoom and applications for it (being able to frame images quickly from a fixed position is one). However, today we have 45MP cameras and so you can do a bit of cropping with a prime too. A variety of approaches can lead to the desired end result.
I think sports shooters still use lower pixel models like D5 as their main cameras, so zooming would be needed to compensate for their limited croppability. The slower f-stop could be compensated by the high-ISO capability of D-single-digit models which is superior to that of D850.
-
Big telephotos like the 300/2.8 already have "built-in" teleconverter in the rear group, this is why they are called "tele-photo" lenses rather than long focal length lenses. The converter keeps the lens more compact, consider the size of the "telephoto" AFS 800/5.6 (only 461mm long) compared to the "long focus" 800/8 ED (684mm long with focus unit). Actually the 800/8 ED physical length is considerably shorter than the focal length, so it is also a telephoto, but not to the same degree as the AFS 800/5.6.
So a 300/2.8 is probably more like a 200mm or 250mm lens if you ignore the rear converter group. Adding another TC to a telephoto seems like an inefficient way of increasing the focal length further since you end up with two converter groups at the rear which are not necessarily well matched. Surely it would be better to remove the rear converter group and replace it entirely with another (stronger) dedicated converter group. Better but not so practical. This is in effect what Leica did with their modular SLR telephoto system, where a single lens head can be combined with three focus/teleconverter units (see https://www.apotelyt.com/photo-lens/leica-apo-telyt-r-module).
I sometimes wonder why there are no telephotos with a variable strength rear converter group, in effect turning it into a variable aperture zoom. For example a 300-420/2.8-4 or 300-600/2.8-5.6. The AI-P 1200-1700/5.6-8 is the only example that matches this description. It is probably something like a 850/4 prime with a built-in variable 1.4-2x converter. Yes the zoom range is small and zooming in causes the aperture speed to drop off more quickly than most zooms, but it is no different to adding a separate TC, and it is certainly far more convenient, and could be properly optimised for each lens.
-
Nikon specs say the near limit is 2 m at all focal settings.
Or 6.5' in US terms.
Not only that, the reproduction ratio at its closest focusing distance is 0.25x (1:4) vs only 0.15x on the Canon equivalent.
To be able to get a 1:4 reproduction ratio, from 6.5' away, makes this a veritable "super macro" for dragonflies, large butterflies, etc. ... let alone sports and birds.
A significant advantage over the Canon equivalent ... and every other super-telephoto as well, for that matter.
-
So a 300/2.8 is probably more like a 200mm or 250mm lens if you ignore the rear converter group. Adding another TC to a telephoto seems like an inefficient way of increasing the focal length further since you end up with two converter groups at the rear which are not necessarily well matched. Surely it would be better to remove the rear converter group and replace it entirely with another (stronger) dedicated converter group. Better but not so practical. This is in effect what Leica did with their modular SLR telephoto system, where a single lens head can be combined with three focus/teleconverter units (see https://www.apotelyt.com/photo-lens/leica-apo-telyt-r-module).
Needless to say this to you, Roland, but Nikon also employed the interchangeable rear converter system for its large format telephoto lenses.
The Leica system is cost effective when you want to have more than one telephoto lenses, but I guess that is no as convenient as the normal TC system in the field, obviously.
-
Almost everyone I know wishes Nikon's 400mm f/2.8 came in a PF f/4 version, precisely because all the f/2.8 aperture does is add extra weight (it is 8.3 lb!).
I'm sure stadium sports shooter value the extra stop. Stadium shooter need to blur out the crowd if shooting from the field level. I'd rather have the PF f/4. I've handled the old 400/3.5 AIS ED-IF. At 2.8K it wasn't that bad. My 400/5.6 AI ED at 1.2K is more reasonable to hand hold but 400mm is more suited to a tripod or at least a monopod. I find it hard to frame hand held.
Only human portrait shooters care about super-wide apertures.
There are many reasons for using a wide aperture not just portraiture or candids.
Dave Hartman
-
I'm sure stadium sports shooter value the extra stop. Stadium shooter need to blur out the crowd if shooting from the field level.
I'd rather have the PF f/4. I've handled the old 400/3.5 AIS ED-IF. At 2.8K it wasn't that bad. My 400/5.6 AI ED at 1.2K is more reasonable to hand hold but 400mm is more suited to a tripod or at least a monopod. I find it hard to frame hand held.
There are many reasons for using a wide aperture not just portraiture or candids.
Dave Hartman
Nonsense. There is no sports shooter on earth who shoots f/2.8. Not a single one.
Stadiums have artificial light, so the need for wide apertures is not the same as low-light situations.
With wildlife photography, the only time I shoot f/2.8 is if I am using a 2x extender, which gives me an effective f/5.6.
Regarding "blurring out the crowd," here is f/5.6: Does anyone need a background anymore blurred than this, folks? (both @ f/5.6) :o ::) ;D
-
Nonsense. There is no sports shooter on earth who shoots f/2.8. Not a single one.
John, you have good points to make, so why ruin your credibility by making such hyperbolic statements?
-
I've used a 300mm lens and a 1.4x teleconverter, and I often felt putting the TC on and off was clumsy.
In general, I'm big fan of simplicity, which is not based on the science, but is more spiritual. Seriously.
I would understand that more elements would be needed for more functions (wider zoom range, VR, TC) and more aberration correction. But more glass elements will absorb more light, increase chances of flare and/or ghost. Also, the complicated design makes the manufacturing of the lens more tricky. I've had sour experiences with higher-end zoom lenses, which also influences my opinion and feeling.
I am not a fan of TC's either - eventually sold my 2x TCIII - used it on one trip and hated it. I get you on the Simplicity thing.
Regarding "blurring out the crowd," here is f/5.6: Does anyone need a background anymore blurred than this, folks? (both @ f/5.6) :o ::) ;D
Nonsense. This is decided by distance to background as well - and not just your f5.6. And all to often you cant choose that background.
-
Nonsense. There is no sports shooter on earth who shoots f/2.8. Not a single one.
-
-
Big telephotos like the 300/2.8 already have "built-in" teleconverter in the rear group, this is why they are called "tele-photo" lenses rather than long focal length lenses. The converter keeps the lens more compact, consider the size of the "telephoto" AFS 800/5.6 (only 461mm long) compared to the "long focus" 800/8 ED (684mm long with focus unit). Actually the 800/8 ED physical length is considerably shorter than the focal length, so it is also a telephoto, but not to the same degree as the AFS 800/5.6.
So a 300/2.8 is probably more like a 200mm or 250mm lens if you ignore the rear converter group. Adding another TC to a telephoto seems like an inefficient way of increasing the focal length further since you end up with two converter groups at the rear which are not necessarily well matched. Surely it would be better to remove the rear converter group and replace it entirely with another (stronger) dedicated converter group. Better but not so practical. This is in effect what Leica did with their modular SLR telephoto system, where a single lens head can be combined with three focus/teleconverter units (see https://www.apotelyt.com/photo-lens/leica-apo-telyt-r-module).
I sometimes wonder why there are no telephotos with a variable strength rear converter group, in effect turning it into a variable aperture zoom. For example a 300-420/2.8-4 or 300-600/2.8-5.6. The AI-P 1200-1700/5.6-8 is the only example that matches this description. It is probably something like a 850/4 prime with a built-in variable 1.4-2x converter. Yes the zoom range is small and zooming in causes the aperture speed to drop off more quickly than most zooms, but it is no different to adding a separate TC, and it is certainly far more convenient, and could be properly optimised for each lens.
Thanks for this interesting information. The 300 f2.8G is my core telephoto :-)
The in-built TC in a 180-400 f4 does have its appeal. But 3.5kg is pushing the envelope for handheld shooting. Personally, I find 2.9/3.0kg the upper limit to not only shoot but carry - Thus the 200 f2G or 300 f2.8G with a D850 or D500 is the best compromise. Being shorter length, both these lenses are easier to wield than longer telephotos. Time and again they deliver in situations on birds and mammals where monopod or a tripod is impossible. Obviously, one can exploit the legendary bokeh of both these primes... full open if necessary :-)
After months of usage, I find the TC2 III and TC14 II essential to capture birds with these 2 Nikkors. The TC2 gives excellent IQ on the D850. The pay off in twinning TCs with the exotic Nikkor primes up to 600 is widely confirmed - cf Brad Hill, Thom Hogan, reviews on Photography Life etc
I still see the 500 fE FL is the optimal solution for my needs demanding longer reach on wildlife. At <3.1 kg it's manageable to carry and handhold. Less weight and longer FL than all the 400 solutions. The 500 f4 with the 1.4 TC = 700 f5.6 + the capability for much rarer cases demanding a 1000 f8, which then demands a tripod. As prices compare (RRP), 1000 less quid for a new 500 f4E is substantial. For only 1 lens, I would invest that in a 600 f4E at 300g heavier than the 180-400.
The 400 solution that would be a boon for simpler carry is a 400 fE PF to complement the 300 f4E PF. Since the excellent 400 f5.6AIS, weighing 1.2kg, Nikon have neglected this vacant niche for too long. Fresnel technology, fluorite elements, and the lighter Mg chassis of modern primes allows for a handy 400 f4E PF. Its design should maintain decent IQ with the TC1.4.... just my recurring plea to Nikon.....
Zooms have undeniable advantages, which is why so many of us depend on them. But IMHO (and African experiences since 1983) a FL of 400mm is still too short for too many wildlife subjects - especially on FX. Even with the remarkable benefits promised in a dedicated, in built TC, 560mm is also limiting for smaller subjects, pertinently birds. Either a 400 prime and 180/200-400 Zoom lacks the capacity to extend the FL to the 700 f5.6 of a 500 f4. As with the 200-400 f4, this 180-400 f4 sounds ideal in a vehicle or hide, where it's simpler to have it on a 2nd camera & even better on a D500. It will very likely become a most reliable optic in many sports arenas.
2 examples appended 300 f2.8G with TC2 III. Blue Cranes - D500 ISO400, Cape Batis with moth 100%crop - D850 ISO5600
-
In 2017, I lost some equipment; in the meantime, everything has been replaced, except the Nikkor 300m f/2.8 VR II, as I was waiting for the new FL version. In the meantime I bought the 70-200mm f/2.8E FL, which gives me a reach of 400mm with the TC20E. The 180-400mm could be an alternative, provided the quality is there (which was not entirely the case of the 200-400mm), to give me the close to 600mm reach.
I'm quite surprised about disappointments with the Nikkor TC's. At the beginning, I was quite sceptical, but the results in the field proved to be very satisfactory (on the 300mm f/2.8 and the 70-200mm f/2.8 ).
And yes, I'm shooting these lenses also wide open; though the wide opening is more there to provide more light to the AF system. I'm shooting a lot of "speed blurs" which results that I'm shooting often at f/14-18 (I don't like using ND filters)
Pictures with TC20-E III:
(1) D5 + Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8E FL + TC-20E III @400mm f/14 1/125s ISO100
(2) D5 + Nikkor 300mm f/2.8 VR II + TC-20E III @ 600mm f/18 1/80s ISO 100
-
In 2017, I lost some equipment; in the meantime, everything has been replaced, except the Nikkor 300m f/2.8 VR II, as I was waiting for the new FL version. In the meantime I bought the 70-200mm f/2.8E FL, which gives me a reach of 400mm with the TC20E. The 180-400mm could be an alternative, provided the quality is there (which was not entirely the case of the 200-400mm), to give me the close to 600mm reach.
I'm quite surprised about disappointments with the Nikkor TC's. At the beginning, I was quite sceptical, but the results in the field proved to be very satisfactory (on the 300mm f/2.8 and the 70-200mm f/2.8 ).
And yes, I'm shooting these lenses also wide open; though the wide opening is more there to provide more light to the AF system.
Good to see TCE2 delivers on the 70-200 f2.8E
fyi Brad Hill just posted his take on the 180-400 http://www.naturalart.ca/voice/blog.html#Nikon180-400Thoughts
-
Good to see TCE2 delivers on the 70-200 f2.8E
fyi Brad Hill just posted his take on the 180-400 http://www.naturalart.ca/voice/blog.html#Nikon180-400Thoughts
Chambeshi, thanks for the link :). In the meantime, I also posted a 300mm f/2.8 TC20-E III picture
-
Chambeshi, thanks for the link :). In the meantime, I also posted a 300mm f/2.8 TC20-E III picture
Thanks MFloyd Great glass combo, it will be intriguing to see the IQ of the anticipated E and Fluorite upgrade of the 300 f2.8G. This superb lens will be even better if Nikon shave off some weight but so long as cost is not increased toward the stratosphere!
-
This superb lens will be even better if Nikon shave off some weight but so long as cost is not increased toward the stratosphere!
I suspect a substantial price increase is expected (7500€ is my guess, maybe 8000€). On the other hand if TC performance improves then the FL upgrade may be worth it as it may reduce the need to have separate longer lenses.
With the 70-200/2.8 FL I find that the 1.4X works very well (stopped down a bit), with shots consistently in focus with the D5, but with the 2X only static subjects were focused well, and even a person walking towards the camera was going too fast for the rig to follow focus on precisely. I think the 1.4X performance was definitely an improvement over the previous 70-200/2.8. At longer distances results may or may not be the same, my results were at a distance of roughly 5-15 meters.
-
Nonsense. There is no sports shooter on earth who shoots f/2.8. Not a single one.
I find that shooting wide open is common among sports photographers.
Stadiums have artificial light, so the need for wide apertures is not the same as low-light situations.
Nevertheless photographers use lenses such as 400/2.8 wide open, to provide a clear image of the athlete and blur out those advertisements I mentioned.
In typical ice skating arena, the lighting allows 1/1250s, f/2, ISO 2500. That's not quite fast enough to avoid movement blur in jumps and pirouettes, one should probably use 1/2000s or faster, but I make this compromise to get better tonality. With an f/4 lens you're stuck with ISO 6400 and shutter speeds that are not quite sufficient to freeze the fastest movement.
To simulate what happens with an 400mm f/4 lens, here is an approximately 2x crop of Evgenia Medvedeva (in her world record performance) taken with a 200mm f/2 lens wide open. 200/2 wide open cropped by 2x gives similar angle of view and depth of field as a 400/4 would.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ilkka_nissila/33613997871/in/dateposted-public/
As you can see the ISU text is clearly visible and readable, which is acceptable in this image because it gives context but most of the texts in those boards are from advertisers and quite distracting. If I had used a 400mm f/2.8 lens, such texts would probably have been blurry enough to not be a distraction and I'd have better signal-to-noise ratio and sharpness as well.
Ideally I would like something like this
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ilkka_nissila/38263777715/in/dateposted-public/
where the skater was close enough so that only a slight crop was needed at 200mm, f/2, but I'm not usually so lucky.
An example of how advertisements can get through (70-200/2.8 wide open but cropped):
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ilkka_nissila/33763460836/in/dateposted-public/
What some photographers do is go higher up and shoot from the stairs with something like a 600mm f/4, to get clear ice as background. However, then you get the perspective of a higher vantage point which is not in my opinion as intimate as being at ice level. And having no audience in the background can be a bit boring as well. I think the 180-400/4 TC could be ideal for such shots other than the fact that there is one stop loss compared to the fast primes.
Here is a crop of a 300mm f/4 shot from 8th row (I don't remember specifics but ISO 6400, f/4 seems likely).
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ilkka_nissila/33803606665/in/dateposted-public/
You can see that in the latter case there is no distraction in the background but I prefer the ice level intimacy and blurry blobs of spectators rather than the perspective of a distant observer. However, I grant that this perspective has its advantages.
Jeff Cable shot some figure skating with Canon's 200-400/4 Extender in Sochi Winter Olympics and posted some of them on his blog:
http://blog.jeffcable.com/2014/02/figure-skating-photos-from-team.html
In this case the rink boards were not covered with advertisements (apart from the event itself) and this must make the work of photographers a bit easier, though I don't think having the text SOCHI behind the atletes helps those images visually (the olympic rings are nice, though).
With wildlife photography, the only time I shoot f/2.8 is if I am using a 2x extender, which gives me an effective f/5.6.
You have a smaller subject than I do. And nature is a very different shooting environment than a stadium or arena where advertisements are purposefully placed to be difficult to avoid in television and photography coverage.
-
My apologies if this has been raised before, I did not feel like reading four pages of argument.
One big advantage of a built-in converter for (African, at least) wildlife photographers is that you are much less likely to get a sensor full of dust by the end of the second day.
Anybody who has been to the Kgalagadi should know what I am talking about.
-
One big advantage of a built-in converter for (African, at least) wildlife photographers is that you are much less likely to get a sensor full of dust by the end of the second day.
Right. And many people who are investing in a safari like this can probably afford to rent the 180-400/4 for the time they need it, at least in countries where good rental services are available.
I think in any new release, there are people who think it's either not going to be good enough, or that it's far too expensive. Eventually the consensus will usually arise around the observation that it is a useful tool.
-
Yes, you're wrong. Nikon's own words as to "why?":
"Since it's integrated into the lens, the teleconverter maximizes light transmission to the sensor with very little falloff for tack-sharp images."
This reply doesn't address what wrote.
Dave
-
Detailed take on PL by Nasim Mansurov of the specs of this new super-zoom
https://photographylife.com/nikon-180-400mm-f-4e-tc1-4-fl-ed-vr-announcement#more-152569
to quote re TC performance: "The above MTF charts are extremely impressive. Looks like the built-in 1.4x teleconverter mostly negatively affects the wider focal lengths, where there is a visible drop in sharpness. However, if you look at the MTF charts of the Nikon 200-400mm f/4G VR II above, you will realize that the 180-400mm with the 1.4x performs as good as the 200-400mm without one! I honestly did not expect the built-in teleconverter to be this good, but as I have pointed out earlier, that’s what happens with a teleconverter is specifically made for a lens. Now take a look at the right two graphs, where performance at 400mm is shown with and without a teleconverter – this is where I was blown away when I first saw the MTF chart. With these MTF charts, Nikon is basically saying that the built-in 1.4x teleconverter will not affect contrast or sharpness, since the lines are practically unchanged! Only towards the mid-frame and edges of the frame is where we can see a slight drop in performance, but otherwise, this looks unbelievably good. To me, this looks like an invitation to stack another 1.4x on top of the lens…"
-
I think it should be remembered that the Nikon MTFs are for maximum aperture, so the with TC graph is at f/5.6 and the without TC is at f/4. The MTF of the primary lens likely increases when stopping down the to f/5.6 (without TC in place), so stating that there is no sharpness or contrast loss due to application of the TC may be premature. Anyway the graphs are very impressive.
-
Nonsense. This is decided by distance to background as well - and not just your f5.6. And all to often you cant choose that background.
And how close is "the crowd" to the actual sports action?
-
I'm quite surprised about disappointments with the Nikkor TC's. At the beginning, I was quite sceptical, but the results in the field proved to be very satisfactory (on the 300mm f/2.8 and the 70-200mm f/2.8 ).
Agree with this 100%.
The TC 2x III is wonderful on the 300 f/2.8 VR II
-
I find that shooting wide open is common among sports photographers.
Nevertheless photographers use lenses such as 400/2.8 wide open, to provide a clear image of the athlete and blur out those advertisements I mentioned.
In typical ice skating arena, the lighting allows 1/1250s, f/2, ISO 2500. That's not quite fast enough to avoid movement blur in jumps and pirouettes, one should probably use 1/2000s or faster, but I make this compromise to get better tonality. With an f/4 lens you're stuck with ISO 6400 and shutter speeds that are not quite sufficient to freeze the fastest movement.
To simulate what happens with an 400mm f/4 lens, here is an approximately 2x crop of Evgenia Medvedeva (in her world record performance) taken with a 200mm f/2 lens wide open. 200/2 wide open cropped by 2x gives similar angle of view and depth of field as a 400/4 would.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ilkka_nissila/33613997871/in/dateposted-public/
As you can see the ISU text is clearly visible and readable, which is acceptable in this image because it gives context but most of the texts in those boards are from advertisers and quite distracting. If I had used a 400mm f/2.8 lens, such texts would probably have been blurry enough to not be a distraction and I'd have better signal-to-noise ratio and sharpness as well.
Ideally I would like something like this
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ilkka_nissila/38263777715/in/dateposted-public/
where the skater was close enough so that only a slight crop was needed at 200mm, f/2, but I'm not usually so lucky.
An example of how advertisements can get through (70-200/2.8 wide open but cropped):
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ilkka_nissila/33763460836/in/dateposted-public/
What some photographers do is go higher up and shoot from the stairs with something like a 600mm f/4, to get clear ice as background. However, then you get the perspective of a higher vantage point which is not in my opinion as intimate as being at ice level. And having no audience in the background can be a bit boring as well. I think the 180-400/4 TC could be ideal for such shots other than the fact that there is one stop loss compared to the fast primes.
Here is a crop of a 300mm f/4 shot from 8th row (I don't remember specifics but ISO 6400, f/4 seems likely).
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ilkka_nissila/33803606665/in/dateposted-public/
You can see that in the latter case there is no distraction in the background but I prefer the ice level intimacy and blurry blobs of spectators rather than the perspective of a distant observer. However, I grant that this perspective has its advantages.
Jeff Cable shot some figure skating with Canon's 200-400/4 Extender in Sochi Winter Olympics and posted some of them on his blog:
http://blog.jeffcable.com/2014/02/figure-skating-photos-from-team.html
In this case the rink boards were not covered with advertisements (apart from the event itself) and this must make the work of photographers a bit easier, though I don't think having the text SOCHI behind the atletes helps those images visually (the olympic rings are nice, though).
You have a smaller subject than I do. And nature is a very different shooting environment than a stadium or arena where advertisements are purposefully placed to be difficult to avoid in television and photography coverage.
Thanks for the time taken to post all this.
But show me how f/2.8 changes much in identical circumstances.
Also, I use shutter speeds of 3200, f/5.6, and ISO 1600-2500 all the time ... don't know why you're limited to 2500 under bright lights.
-
But show me how f/2.8 changes much in identical circumstances.
It's difficult to shoot identical scenarios with two different settings when the event doesn't repeat itself. I can try make a comparison of 200mm shots at f/2, f/2.8, and f/4 at the next skating event I shoot.
Also, I use shutter speeds of 3200, f/5.6, and ISO 1600-2500 all the time ... don't know why you're limited to 2500 under bright lights.
In my experience the competition lighting in different arenas is within about one stop of each other. I don't know how it is in the US; perhaps arenas are lit brighter there. In practice with an f/4 tele I have to be at ISO 5000-6400 if I want to moderately well freeze the action (1/800s or similar). With the 200/2 I can be at ISO 1250 to 2500 depending on the venue and what shutter speed I use (1/1250s or 1/1600s typically with that lens). ISO 1600 shots are cleaner than ISO 6400 but of course if the 200mm shots are cropped significantly, the appearance of noise increases.
Theatrical lighting during show performances (i.e. during opening and closing ceremonies) can be significantly dimmer than competition lighting and is very difficult to shoot in because of moving spot lights and very high contrast.
As to the distances involved, I made a rough drawing of the approximate distances that I can get a full figure shot of an athlete at different focal lengths from a good front row shooting position.
In practice with a 200mm prime I would shoot full figure shots at distances approximately shown with the 200mm line up to the 400mm line; I try not to shoot at further distances to avoid getting images where the quality might not be satisfactory. I do shoot some close-ups where the whole body is not included when the skater is nearby. With a 400mm prime one could get half-body shots from approximately the 200mm to 300mm line. With a 180-400 one could cover almost the whole ice in terms of full figure images and a large section could be shot where the photographer can choose to get a tighter, e.g. half body, framing. But, one would be shooting at a higher ISO and slower shutter speed and using a more challenging-to-operate long lens probably on a monopod or a tripod.
I think for variety in my shots, having a 400mm option would permit more shooting of tight close-ups and perhaps by positioning the long lens at a low level closer to the ice (if such a position is available), one could shoot upper body close ups and avoid the ads by pointing the lens slightly upwards. On the other hand shorter lenses are easier to handle and can be hand held.
-
It's difficult to shoot identical scenarios with two different settings when the event doesn't repeat itself. I can try make a comparison of 200mm shots at f/2, f/2.8, and f/4 at the next skating event I shoot.
In my experience the competition lighting in different arenas is within about one stop of each other. I don't know how it is in the US; perhaps arenas are lit brighter there. In practice with an f/4 tele I have to be at ISO 5000-6400 if I want to moderately well freeze the action (1/800s or similar). With the 200/2 I can be at ISO 1250 to 2500 depending on the venue and what shutter speed I use (1/1250s or 1/1600s typically with that lens). ISO 1600 shots are cleaner than ISO 6400 but of course if the 200mm shots are cropped significantly, the appearance of noise increases.
Theatrical lighting during show performances (i.e. during opening and closing ceremonies) can be significantly dimmer than competition lighting and is very difficult to shoot in because of moving spot lights and very high contrast.
As to the distances involved, I made a rough drawing of the approximate distances that I can get a full figure shot of an athlete at different focal lengths from a good front row shooting position.
In practice with a 200mm prime I would shoot full figure shots at distances approximately shown with the 200mm line up to the 400mm line; I try not to shoot at further distances to avoid getting images where the quality might not be satisfactory. I do shoot some close-ups where the whole body is not included when the skater is nearby. With a 400mm prime one could get half-body shots from approximately the 200mm to 300mm line. With a 180-400 one could cover almost the whole ice in terms of full figure images and a large section could be shot where the photographer can choose to get a tighter, e.g. half body, framing. But, one would be shooting at a higher ISO and slower shutter speed and using a more challenging-to-operate long lens probably on a monopod or a tripod.
I think for variety in my shots, having a 400mm option would permit more shooting of tight close-ups and perhaps by positioning the long lens at a low level closer to the ice (if such a position is available), one could shoot upper body close ups and avoid the ads by pointing the lens slightly upwards. On the other hand shorter lenses are easier to handle and can be hand held.
Thanks for the very thoughtful and detailed breakdown.
There is no "one" magic silver bullet, nor will there ever be.
However, a 180-400, w/ 1.4x TC would seem to offer a more complete overall solution than would any single, prime lens.
Will be interesting to see if future primes come with built-in TCs rather than external ...
I think the 180-400 is optimal for sports; I would be much-much more interested in a 400-600 f/4 + 1.4x TC for wildlife ...
-
More thoughts on this exotic zoom
http://www.naturalart.ca/voice/blog.html#Nikon180-400More
-
Detailed take on PL by Nasim Mansurov of the specs of this new super-zoom
https://photographylife.com/nikon-180-400mm-f-4e-tc1-4-fl-ed-vr-announcement#more-152569
to quote re TC performance: "The above MTF charts are extremely impressive. Looks like the built-in 1.4x teleconverter mostly negatively affects the wider focal lengths, where there is a visible drop in sharpness. However, if you look at the MTF charts of the Nikon 200-400mm f/4G VR II above, you will realize that the 180-400mm with the 1.4x performs as good as the 200-400mm without one! I honestly did not expect the built-in teleconverter to be this good, but as I have pointed out earlier, that’s what happens with a teleconverter is specifically made for a lens. Now take a look at the right two graphs, where performance at 400mm is shown with and without a teleconverter – this is where I was blown away when I first saw the MTF chart. With these MTF charts, Nikon is basically saying that the built-in 1.4x teleconverter will not affect contrast or sharpness, since the lines are practically unchanged! Only towards the mid-frame and edges of the frame is where we can see a slight drop in performance, but otherwise, this looks unbelievably good. To me, this looks like an invitation to stack another 1.4x on top of the lens…"
This TC is placed in the middle of the optical composition, not on the back, that's why it is so unusually good! LZ
-
Latest from Brad Hill on more affordable alternatives to 180-400 f4 Nikkor
http://www.naturalart.ca/voice/blog.html#Nikon180-400_alternatives (http://www.naturalart.ca/voice/blog.html#Nikon180-400_alternatives)
-
Latest from Brad Hill on more affordable alternatives to 18-400 f4 Nikkor
http://www.naturalart.ca/voice/blog.html#Nikon180-400_alternatives
Photography Life (https://photographylife.com/reviews/sigma-120-300mm-f2-8-dg-os-hsm) isn't as kind about the Sigma 120-300 as Hill.
(Login to see the comparison chart below compared to the 300mm VR II below:)
-
Yesterday at the Manchester Nikon Roadshow I was able to use and handle the 180-400 mounted on a D5. Unfortunately although it was tripod mounted it may as well have hung from a piece of string, the tripod head was as unstable as you can imagine. However, I did get the feel of it, one thing sticks in my mind was the smooth way the TC switches in and out, with a right finger, while maintaining a full grip of the camera. It can be locked in the on or off position.
I can't speak for the sharpness, a distant road sign which defined clearly with another D5 and a 600mm FL lens, was almost unreadable, even allowing for the floppy mount, so I can only conclude the lens and body AF systems were mis matched.
-
I can't speak for the sharpness, a distant road sign which defined clearly with another D5 and a 600mm FL lens, was almost unreadable, even allowing for the floppy mount, so I can only conclude the lens and body AF systems were mis matched.
Was the TC in place when you got that result? I'm wondering if the TC requires its own fine tuning (this is usual). A check with LV AF on a static subject would give an idea of what kind of performance can be expected in the absence of focusing errors (provided there is enough light).
While a zoom may not quite match the performance of a prime, I would expect relatively small differences here given the high cost of the zoom.
Wobbly tripod certainly doesn't help. VR might be expected to help to cope with it though.
-
The road sign was central and barely visible through the viewfinder, measured on Google Earth as 240 Metres, text 25mm high?
I tried both with and without the TC, the lack of sharpness was only visible by zooming in to 100%. It had the appearance of overall blur rather than motion blur which tends to have more effect in one direction and a semblance of a double image. The VR was doing it's stuff apparently, or could it have caused the blur? I don't have experience of modern VR lenses.
My take was the AF needed fine tuning but maybe it was down to other causes. I don't believe it was the lack of quality in the lens.
This is the road sign taken from Google street view and the line of sight from the third floor point where the camera was situated.
As I said it was clearly readable with a 600 FL on a D5? Perhaps they didn't bother calibrating the AF.
-
The road sign was central and barely visible through the viewfinder, measured on Google Earth as 240 Metres, text 25mm high?
I tried both with and without the TC, the lack of sharpness was only visible by zooming in to 100%. It had the appearance of overall blur rather than motion blur which tends to have more effect in one direction and a semblance of a double image. The VR was doing it's stuff apparently, or could it have caused the blur? I don't have experience of modern VR lenses.
My take was the AF needed fine tuning but maybe it was down to other causes. I don't believe it was the lack of quality in the lens.
This is the road sign taken from Google street view and the line of sight from the third floor point where the camera was situated.
As I said it was clearly readable with a 600 FL on a D5? Perhaps they didn't bother calibrating the AF.
If they wanted to sell optics in that price range they should have bothered!
-
Common for VR being an issue at certain SS. My super telephotos have ever had the VR turned on.
-
Rarely use VR as well - not too helpful on a weak tripod with short shutterspeed either.
I can imagine the setup with one of this mass- ware tripods with extended center column and 3way head frequently observed at presentations.
I dont expect the IQ of the 180-400 to equal the 600/4
-
The tripod heads have had their rotation lock screws removed. The tripods themselves were adequate, but all of the heads were floppy the rotation axis, to say the least.
The 800mm FL wasn't sharp either, on the same road sign. I am sure the 180-400 should have made that sign readable if it were set up properly. I couldn't focus manually because it was impossible to hold it steady enough.
-
If the 180-400 will be as sharp (or equally unsharp) as the 800mm E FL, I should go preorder one.
-
Its the weakest points that count, good tripods with poor heads does not bring you any further. Then it is better (but not possible in exhibition enviroment) to use the lens handheld or place it somwehere. Based on the experiences with the 200-400 it shouldbe doable with the 180-400 as well, it is possible but more difficult with the 800/5,6.
The 800 f/5,6 FL has proven that it can deliver sharp results from the 180-400 we can expect it. But the sharpness differences coming from lens design will be smaller than the effects on sharpness by external factors
-
If the 180-400 will be as sharp (or equally unsharp) as the 800mm E FL, I should go preorder one.
Me as well, but I don't think that's going to be possible...way too much glass & moving parts involved. But for sure it should be much better than the 200-400.
-
Wondering if the Stacked Teleconverter assembly is usable, Internal 1.4 TC + TC 1.4E III.
Will this give a 2.8 TC with a sharp image ?
-
f/11 won’t AF well (it may AF in live view). I think for the money a 600 would be better if you want to add further TC. With 600/4 + 2X you get f/8 so you get some AF.
-
Wondering if the Stacked Teleconverter assembly is usable, Internal 1.4 TC + TC 1.4E III.
Will this give a 2.8 TC with a sharp image ?
1.4x1.4=2, so it will give 2x TC
-
After my previous post, I read a review of a photographer using the same set up on the Canon 200 - 400 mm claiming the lens is now a
200 - 780mm f8, when a external 1.4 TC is used, the TC is a valuable addition, and the TC would be attached without a concern in good light.
-
As anticipated. 180-400 f4 TC14 at Winter Olympics
http://blog.iamnikon.com/en_GB/pyeongchang-2018/winter-sports-2018-everything-a-sports-photographer-dreams-of-behind-the-camera-with-delly-carr/ (http://blog.iamnikon.com/en_GB/pyeongchang-2018/winter-sports-2018-everything-a-sports-photographer-dreams-of-behind-the-camera-with-delly-carr/)
http://blog.iamnikon.com/en_GB/pyeongchang-2018/winter-sports-2018-challenges-and-rewards-behind-the-camera-with-joel-marklund/ (http://blog.iamnikon.com/en_GB/pyeongchang-2018/winter-sports-2018-challenges-and-rewards-behind-the-camera-with-joel-marklund/)
-
Nikon is bringing a 180-400 to a local shop March 17th...I have reserved a timeslot to check it out. :)
-
Being in London, yesterday, I visited the NPS offices of Nikon UK near Oxford Circus, mainly to handle the 400 f2.8E and 500 f4E. Well the 500 f4 is out on loan but I was able to handle a 180-400 f5.6E TC14. AF performance of the new zoom on my D850 was noticeably fast - close to the 400 prime. The balance is also appealing - not too front heavy. Unfortunately, I didn't have a 300 f2.8G handy to compare, which is the prime telephoto I'm most used to handling. And we owners know too well it's end-heavy.
Anyway both lenses pass the "handholdable" test IMHO on shorter tracks and shots but anything longer will need a monopod or tripod.
The TC really is a great feature. I found one can manipulate it with the right hand - with the index and first finger. It swings in and out of the optical path with a distinct clunk. Dare I say a satisfying sound :-) And hand-holding on a sign across the London street, it's impressive to see the "instant" magnification kick in and out.... Now if only Nikon will bring the internal TC feature to primes!!!
But for my funds, I still plan to invest in a 400 f2.8E - principally because of (1) speed, (2) excellent IQ, and last but least for my needs (mobile wildlife genre) its High TC Factor and decent IQ with all three Nikkor teleconverters.
I took some test shots on my D850 but haven't had the opportunity to download.
A couple of poor cellph photos fyi - taken in too mush haste. The 400 f2.8E is on the right
-
I can understand the excitement but why post totally blurry images of a lens when there are perfectly clear, studio quality images available online elsewhere?
-
Thank you for the feed-back and the images (smartphone pictures don’t need to be “poor”). I think I will go for the 180-400mm, unless they come out with the 300mm f/2.8E FL before June. No news on the Swiss side in terms of presentation. This time I would like to test before purchasing.
-
Being in London, yesterday, I visited the NPS offices of Nikon UK near Oxford Circus, mainly to handle the 400 f2.8E and 500 f4E. Well the 500 f4 is out on loan but I was able to handle a 180-400 f5.6E TC14. AF performance of the new zoom on my D850 was noticeably fast - close to the 400 prime. The balance is also appealing - not too front heavy. Unfortunately, I didn't have a 300 f2.8G handy to compare, which is the prime telephoto I'm most used to handling. And we owners know too well it's end-heavy.
Thanks for posting! Having owned the 200-400VRI years ago I'm following this new model with some interest. The only thing that gives me pause is the price (of course) and weight. It's interesting that the Canon version seems to have fallen out of favour based on the prices used mint copies are going for...I'm thinking the smart move would be to start looking for a used 180-400 in 6-12 months or so.
-
I can understand the excitement but why post totally blurry images of a lens when there are perfectly clear, studio quality images available online elsewhere?
deleted. Won't bother sharing in future
-
deleted. Won't bother sharing in future
I didn't mean it that way, sorry if you were offended. My point is that if you're in the market for a 12k€ lens you can afford a smartphone which takes images of reasonable quality. I think we all appreciate personal observations about the new lens. I still consider posting online akin to publication and try to maintain publication quality images in my posts so that the information that is there is easy to get from the images.
-
I didn't mean it that way, sorry if you were offended. My point is that if you're in the market for a 12k€ lens you can afford a smartphone which takes images of reasonable quality. I think we all appreciate personal observations about the new lens. I still consider posting online akin to publication and try to maintain publication quality images in my posts so that the information that is there is easy to get from the images.
I don't think it was the quality of the smartphone which caused the blurriness, probably more the excitement caused handling such an exotic and currently rare lens...
I do agree about trying to maintain reasonable standards of images, we are after all, photographers. However, occasionally a poor picture of the actual thing is better than a perfect agency image of something similar, it frequently contains background pertinent to the discussion.
-
I don't think it was the quality of the smartphone which caused the blurriness, probably more the excitement caused handling such an exotic and currently rare lens...
I do agree about trying to maintain reasonable standards of images, we are after all, photographers. However, occasionally a poor picture of the actual thing is better than a perfect agency image of something similar, it frequently contains background pertinent to the discussion.
I am living out of backpacks whilst travelling in UK for business and to see family. As it turned out, the opportunity arose to visit the Nikon School, whilst passing through London. Hence the rush. Actually, I had my D850 with a 45 f2.8AIP for compactness... Haven't had the time to download the images taken on rail and road etc.
My very last priority is to waste money on a cellphone - the necessary, invasive Evil ;) I use well worn backup samsung, switching simcards travelling in Africa and UK etc. It works for what's needed
-
My very last priority is to waste money on a cellphone - the necessary, invasive Evil ;)
Totally, perfectly, enthusiastically agree!
-
I am living out of backpacks whilst travelling in UK for business and to see family. As it turned out, the opportunity arose to visit the Nikon School, whilst passing through London. Hence the rush. Actually, I had my D850 with a 45 f2.8AIP for compactness... Haven't had the time to download the images taken on rail and road etc.
My very last priority is to waste money on a cellphone - the necessary, invasive Evil ;) I use well worn backup samsung, switching simcards travelling in Africa and UK etc. It works for what's needed
Woody, I for one appreciated your 'live, impromptu, eager" cell phone shots of the new lens :D
They added realism and soul to the vapid, 'perfect,' one-dimensional images everyone and their brother has already seen on gear sites ::)
Do not let the criticism of 'one' make you forget that your images were interesting to many ... kindly re-post.
-
Woody, I for one appreciated your 'live, impromptu, eager" cell phone shots of the new lens :D
They added realism and soul to the vapid, 'perfect,' one-dimensional images everyone and their brother has already seen on gear sites ::)
Do not let the criticism of 'one' make you forget that your images were interesting to many ... kindly re-post.
So I was. Totally different than agency pictures.
-
The cellphone shots in question, as I recall, though blurry, served perfectly well to illustrate the comparative sizes of the two lenses.
-
Thanks John and Others.
I hope to pass by the Nikon School again this coming week, hopefully the 500 f4E will have been returned. And I will try spend more time there, and with a real camera :-)
Re-posted the tacky images.... note to self: examine the design of the tripod foot more closely
kind regards
woody
Woody, I for one appreciated your 'live, impromptu, eager" cell phone shots of the new lens :D
They added realism and soul to the vapid, 'perfect,' one-dimensional images everyone and their brother has already seen on gear sites ::)
Do not let the criticism of 'one' make you forget that your images were interesting to many ... kindly re-post.
-
Here you go....
https://nikonrumors.com/2018/03/09/nikkor-af-s-180-400mm-f-4-ed-tc-vr-lens-now-shipping-new-test-photos.aspx/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NikonRumors+%28NikonRumors.com%29
-
Earlier today I passed through London to pick up a decent copy of the 60 f2.8G Micro-Nikkor (its one of the first sequence Made in Japan). Then, I walked on to NPS to revisit the 3 telephotos I'm deliberating over. Here are some photos taken (thanks to the 60mm) comparing the new 180-400 f4E TC14 against the 400 f2.8E and 500 f4E.
I compared apll three lenses attached to a pair of D850s (mine and a tethered NPS camera) IMHO the 500 f4 is a pleasure to handle and its lightness really stands out compared to the 400; the 180-400 is just that much heavier than the 500, but slightly shorter. AF of the zoom struck me as distinctly slower compared to both primes but only slightly slower.
These impressions are obviously subjective. My decision? At f4, the TCF of the 180-400 is T2C0.5. This is assuming one can presumably couple an external TC14 to the zoom. Unfortunately, I didn't have mine with me to test this tantalizing possibility :-\ It's a superb lens, as are both primes (as we know they are very widely respected). The balance in the hand is really noticeable, compared to my considerable experience with the end-heavy 300 f2.8G.
But I will most likely invest in a 400 f2.8 given its versatility with TCs. Yet the 500 f4E really is a neat handful ::)
-
Comparisons of 180-400 f5.6E TC14 (L), 400 f2.8E, 500 f4E (R), and the hoods in reverse order
-
Did you note the serial number? I expect it is 20xxxx, made in Japan. That reminds me, I still haven't added this lens to my database...
-
Chambeshi, thanks for the pictures. Quite surprised that the sizes, without lens hood, are very similar.
-
Did you note the serial number? I expect it is 20xxxx, made in Japan. That reminds me, I still haven't added this lens to my database...
Hi Roland
The serial number = 200573
And there is a second 180-400 on tethered display at the NEC, Birmingham - this weekend. S/N 200825
kind regards
woody
-
For what it’s worth, ephotozine posted imatest results from the 180-400 with a D850.
https://www.ephotozine.com/article/nikon-af-s-nikkor-180-400mm-f-4e-tc1-4-fl-ed-review-32085
-
For what it’s worth, ephotozine posted imatest results from the 180-400 with a D850.
https://www.ephotozine.com/article/nikon-af-s-nikkor-180-400mm-f-4e-tc1-4-fl-ed-review-32085
Some pretty incredible results, really.
I wonder what's up with LenScore/SenScore? They haven't posted a thing for over a year ...
Are they DOA?
-
Some pretty incredible results, really.
I wonder what's up with LenScore/SenScore? They haven't posted a thing for over a year ...
Are they DOA?
I had the same question. I was intending to write them.
-
Some pretty incredible results, really.
I wonder what's up with LenScore/SenScore? They haven't posted a thing for over a year ...
Are they DOA?
Steve Perry will post a Youtube video soon summarizing his testing of a rental unit. Early indications are it’s not perfect.
Rumor is LenScore folks have moved on to other things, which is a real loss for the photographic community.
-
I had the same question. I was intending to write them.
I've written them twice ... no response.
Richard would always respond before.
_________________
Steve Perry will post a Youtube video soon summarizing his testing of a rental unit. Early indications are it’s not perfect.
I think I would trust the charts, etc. of EPhotozine, which uses actual Imatest measurements of a subject lens, more than "Steve Perry's eyes," and subjective opinion, on a rental unit.
I believe Ephotozine's tests also indicate the lens is "not perfect," which of course no one thought it would be, but that it is spectacular without the TC ... at all focal lengths ... and somewhat less so (but still very good) with the TC engaged.
To me, it looks like everything Nikon claimed it to be. I don't think anyone seriously believed that, at maximum zoom, with a TC engaged, it would beat a 600mm prime at its native focal length.
However, from 180-400, it looks like nothing can touch it, and from 400-560 (with the TC), it has a good extra reach of good/very good quality in an immediately usable TC.
Rumor is LenScore folks have moved on to other things, which is a real loss for the photographic community.
Agreed. I hope something bad hasn't happened to anyone over there. Their FAQ indicated a whole host of lenses were forthcoming ... and then nothing posted for over a year.
Disappointing to say the least ... and no notice to anyone informing their following of any problems, disasters, or just a decision to shut down.
-
Rumor is LenScore folks have moved on to other things, which is a real loss for the photographic community.
Did they have advertisers or other source of income for the project? I guess that may be the problem: a lot of lens testing is volunteer-based activity and once you do enough of it you may get tired and want to do something else.
-
Did they have advertisers or other source of income for the project? I guess that may be the problem: a lot of lens testing is volunteer-based activity and once you do enough of it you may get tired and want to do something else.
No, their entire mantra was "strictly non-commercial," being provided with neither lenses nor funding.
Supposedly, it came from a PhD research project, where they had a 200mpx sensor developed to test all lenses across the same sensor, for more meaningful data.
Photozone, for instance, is almost meaningless ... as some lenses were tested on the Canon 350D while others on the 5D ... while others on the Nikon D810. How can such data be compared?
Maybe LenScore/SenScore got bored, or stopped being motivated without sponsors, but it would have been polite to inform the readership of what's going on ... not just walk away from the project with nary a word.
-
And DxO entered into receivership.
http://entreprises.lefigaro.fr/dxo-labs-92/entreprise-444777577
-
Photozone's FX Nikon lens tests are all done with the D3X, as far as I know. So they're comparable with each other but may not show the differences between top performers as well as a 45MP camera might. I quite like their tests actually. My main issue with photozone is that they measure at a single distance only. By contrast, Lenstip uses a number of distances for their tests and average the results. Lensrentals test at infinity focus but test multiple samples. So by combining the information from multiple sources one can get a more comprehensive picture.
The D850 180-400 ephotozine test shows a notable drop in sharpness at 400mm, so this was perhaps a bit unexpected, but tests at multiple distances are needed to confirm if this is an issue specific to the test distance (it might also be an error in the testing or a peculiarity of the test unit). Stopping down to f/5.6 appears to improve 400mm results a bit. The built in TC by contrast seems to cause very little further drop in sharpness and CA is very low. It seems 400mm is not the sweet spot of the lens, and that one should engage the TC whenever needed rather than stop at 400mm and crop.
-
And DxO entered into receivership.
http://entreprises.lefigaro.fr/dxo-labs-92/entreprise-444777577
But isn't it so that DxO Labs is the company that make the software whereas DxOMark is the test site and they were separated into two companies
https://www.thephoblographer.com/2018/01/11/dxomark-and-dxo-labs-split/
so this would suggest the software company is in financial difficulties, and not the company running the sensor and lens test site? Or both?
-
You are right. But I wonder if this split will be acceptable in a court case. Cooking the books and putting all rotten assets into one entity, while preserving the « good apples » in another one, might give rise to many questions. If it’s proven to be true.
https://www.taj.fr/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Cibles-en-RJ-12-mars-2018.pdf
-
IMO the DxO software is the good bit and the test site is just entertainment. Of course, entertainment sells, but ...
-
Steve Perry already has his video up:
https://backcountrygallery.com/nikon-180-400mm-first-test-and-sharpness-comparison
Appears to be balanced and unbiased ... but a little quickly-done.
He briefly touches on the contrast, but I thought the 180-400 f/4 blew all the other lenses away in micro-contrast and 'pop' to its rendering of the colors on the map test.
Only the 600mm compared, barely, though the 600 f/4 was much sharper in the corners.
(The 180-400 was sharper than all the others zooms in the corners, by a wide margin, but was not as sharp as the 300 f/4 PF in the corners.)
Interestingly, the 300 f/4 PF was slightly superior, sharpness-wise, @ 300 (naturally), but the 300 FP was also equivalent sharpness-wise @ ~420 with a TC, compared to the 180-400 @ 400.
To me, what this test really showed was the value of the 300 f/4 PF ... especially for the price and with the manageable weight factored-in.
Still, the color-rendering and micro-contrast of the 180-400 was considerably better.
Edit: My takeaway, aside from splitting hairs on sharpness, if you click on each of the provided images, and zoom-in full-size, was how superb the 180-400 was in its micro-contrast & colors, as well as an utter lack of CA on the letters.
-
Brad Hill just announced he's begun comparative testing of the 180-400 f4E TC.
http://www.naturalart.ca/voice/blog.html (http://www.naturalart.ca/voice/blog.html)
This promises to be interesting. The results etc will be posted here http://www.naturalart.ca/artist/fieldtests/ (http://www.naturalart.ca/artist/fieldtests/)
-
Hi guys, this may be of interest.
Morten Hilmer(Danish wildlife photographer) has just received this lens to play with from Nikon, here is the link to his youtube channel so you can watch his findings.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gqAkq5IiPU&t=46s
cheers
tony.
-
Another field test from Roy Mangersnes
https://roymangersnes.wordpress.com/2018/04/24/field-test-af-s-nikkor-180-400-mm-f-4e-tc1-4-fl-ed-vr/ (https://roymangersnes.wordpress.com/2018/04/24/field-test-af-s-nikkor-180-400-mm-f-4e-tc1-4-fl-ed-vr/)
-
First impressions by Brad Hill.
http://www.naturalart.ca/voice/blog.html#180-400_FirstImpressions (http://www.naturalart.ca/voice/blog.html#180-400_FirstImpressions)
-
First field tests of the 180-400 TC by Brad Hill. Mostly shot on the D5 in what he describes as challenging conditions on the NW Pacific coast
http://www.naturalart.ca/voice/blog.html#180-400_ShootKhutz (http://www.naturalart.ca/voice/blog.html#180-400_ShootKhutz)
I faced the hard choice between this new zoom or the tried & tested 400 f2.8E FL. The short answer is I have a 400 f2.8E after 3+ years wait and planning! The latter's excellence on all fronts is v well known: not to overlook the MFD of 2.6m. Plus this fast 400 prime has the flexibility to extend to not only a 560 f4, but to 680 f4.8 and 800 f5.6 for subjects such as small birds. Coupling with a TC1.4E to 560 f4 exhibits remarkably sharp acuity and rendering edge to edge on the D850. Albeit, the 400 f2.8E is over 700g heavier than the 500 f4E FL.
Nevertheless, it is likely many will find this 180-400 the ideal solution for shooting sports and wildlife. Trying out the lens indoors earlier this year, I found the accessible built-in bespoke TC14 of the 180-400 is just superb. It will be interesting to see if any future Nikkors will have an integral TC. But, phew, the prices of these exotics do smack the wallet really hard!
-
Latest report (No 3) by Brad Hill comparing the 180-400 f4E TC against Sigma 500mm f/4 Sport and Sigma 150-600mm Sport. His interesting result places the 180-400 with TC Engaged on parity with the 500mm f4 Sport. An impressive result, given that his previous comparisons of the best available Nikon-fit primes at 500mm (500 f4E Nikkor and Sigma Sport) placed them at parity.
http://www.naturalart.ca/voice/blog.html#Optical500 (http://www.naturalart.ca/voice/blog.html#Optical500)
Brad Hill's next installment promises to report on optical performance of this new 180-400 Nikkor at 400mm - a 4-way comparison "between the Nikkor 180-400mm vs. the Nikkor 400mm f2.8E vs. the Nikkor 200-400mm f4 vs. the Sigma Sport 150-600mm f5-6.3."
I would be as interested, if not more, to see how the 180-400 compares with & without its bespoke TC at 400, given the 400 f2.8E Nikkor sets a formidable standard in optics and AF performance :-)
-
Nikon Switzerland put a 180-400 mm at my disposal; main purpose photographing the oncoming 24h of Le Mans with this lens and the D6.
I just received the beast by post, this morning:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50319376822_411ce98536_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2jExXCs)
IMG_2990.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2jExXCs)
here mounted with the D5.
This afternoon, lens calibration i.e. 4 calibrations, 180; 400; 252; and 560 mm; times 3: D6, D5 and D850.
-
Nikon Switzerland put a 180-400 mm at my disposal; main purpose photographing the oncoming 24h of Le Mans with this lens and the D6.
Did you notice D6 FW 1.1 is now available for download? They mention fixing the following issue in the previous FW: "The AF fine-tuning options item could be used to store only one set of fine-tuning values for AF-S NIKKOR 180-400mm f/4E TC1.4 FL ED VR lenses: users could store either values for use with the built-in teleconverter or values for use without, but not both."
-
Very nice of them! I like the lens hood design ;)
Do enjoy! Hope you get some good locations where it makes sense
-
Did you notice D6 FW 1.1 is now available for download? They mention fixing the following issue in the previous FW: "The AF fine-tuning options item could be used to store only one set of fine-tuning values for AF-S NIKKOR 180-400mm f/4E TC1.4 FL ED VR lenses: users could store either values for use with the built-in teleconverter or values for use without, but not both."
This afternoon, I could only store one set of corrections (wide, tele), which I found rather strange. I downloaded the new firmware. So, tomorrow, a new complete session is planned, as I don’t know which corrections I stored (without or with TC) :)
Very nice of them! I like the lens hood design ;)
Do enjoy! Hope you get some good locations where it makes sense
Thank you Erik. The location is well known. The question is that, presently, I’m using a combination of 70-200mm f/2.8E FL, TC-2.0, and 500mm f/5.6E PF, to cover the range of the 180-400 mm TC 1.4, and which worked out in a lighter and more affordable package. While now, I will have a f/4 aperture to cover the 200-400 mm range i.e. 1 stop better for a race which will 50% of the time during the night. Not entirely convinced by the solution for the time being, but we shall see :) And I can still fall back on the “old” solution.
-
One of the test pictures I took this afternoon:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50327165812_e792b3df19_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2jFeT2o)
_D620078.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2jFeT2o)