Nikon AF-S 180-400mm f/4 announced

[MFloyd]

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]

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!

[Ilkka Nissilä]

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.

[Ilkka Nissilä]

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.

[Peter Connan]

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.

[Ilkka Nissilä]

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.

[David H. 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."

This reply doesn't address what wrote.

Dave

[chambeshi]

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…"

[Ilkka Nissilä]

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. 

[JKoerner007]

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?

[JKoerner007]

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

[JKoerner007]

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.

[Ilkka Nissilä]

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.

[JKoerner007]

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 ...

[chambeshi]

More thoughts on this exotic zoom

http://www.naturalart.ca/voice/blog.html#Nikon180-400More