Thom Hogan

With the announcement of the 400mm f/4.5 VR S lens today, Nikon has provided yet another way to get to 400mm. I think we need to deal with that before we get to the specifics of the lens:

• 400mm f/2.8 VR S
• 400mm f/4.5 VR S
• 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S
• 70-200mm f/2.8 with 2.x teleconverter

So, 400mm f/2.8, f/4.5, and f/5.6, all S: take your choice in the Z-mount. In the meantime, we have no 70-300mm lens, nor has the 200-600mm that's long been on the road map and was originally promised by April 2022 shown up. Instead, we keep getting 400mm solutions.

Not that I have a problem with 400mm. In many ways it's my preferred focal length for much of my work, as I don't want to be too close or too far from subjects. But I already have the f/2.8 and the zoom, so do I need the lens just announced?

That's a question a lot of you should be asking, but I suspect you'll be asking it a different way: "I already have the 100-400mm, so I really need two-thirds of a stop benefit?" Good question. Which brings us to the actual specifics of the new lens.

At 44 ounces (1245g) with the tripod collar attached and 9.3" (235mm) in length, once again we have a lens that's similar to the 70-200mm/100-400mm sizes and weights. Yes, the 400mm is 4 ounces lighter than the 100-400mm, but that's not enough for me to make that a clearcut thing to tilt my decision. Just as I see a lot of people opting for a compact bag with the 70-200mm and 100-400mm, I could see another group opting for the 70-200mm and 400mm. Group one is going for flexibility, while the latter group is going for aperture speed. Moreover, a 1.4x teleconverter nets you 560mm f/6.3 with the new lens, too.

As usual, Nikon is going with what they know in terms of the tripod collar and foot. Same style as a number of previous lenses, still no Arca-Swiss compatible plate, and still with the same removable foot feature that's triggered a lot of angst (and prompts me to put a security clip on the lens; hmm, product idea: a Kensington compatible drop prevention cable). 

Given that virtually every 70-200mm and 100-400mm user is already subbing in a third party foot, it seems that Nikon hasn't actually seen what is happening in the field, or has specifically chosen to ignore user demand. Either way is a problem. That said, the lens is small and light enough that many will be tempted to just remove the foot and photograph with it "naked." The problem with that is carrying the camera/lens combo. As light as it is, you still don't want that much weight hanging off the front of the camera supported only by straps on the camera. 

The US3299 price is a further confusion in this 400mm log-jam. Ironically, no matter how Nikon had priced the 400mm, I'm pretty sure there were going to be people who were surprised. Pre-announcement, I saw many believing it would be less than US$2000 because it's a "simpler" lens than the 100-400mm, others who thought it would be more like US$4000. (Disclosure: I was betting US$3500 from the beginning.)

Nikon now has 300mm and 500mm PF lenses (very good DX focal lengths) and 400mm PF-like and 800mm PF lenses (more FX-friendly focal lengths). So, in one sense, I'm all for the new lens: it rounds out a set of choices. Yes, I know the 300mm and 500mm require the FTZ adapter, but I haven't found that to be a problem. Indeed, the 500mm with the FTZ II seems to focus faster in some cases on my Z9 than it does on my D6. (I still hope Nikon eventually transfers the 300mm and 500mm designs over to the Z-mount, as not dealing with an adapter and having the same controls/locations would be nice.)

Next up: several of you asked me the following question in the run-up to the f/4.5 and it's time to answer it: do you really need the out of focus blur the f/2.8 lens is capable of, or is f/4.5 going to be okay? You're probably not going to like my answer ;~).

Most of us using 400mm lenses don't have a lot of control over what's in the background and how far it is from the subject we're photographing. I noticed that one introductory preview was trying to say that the background blur between the f/2.8 and f/4.5 for his baseball position didn't differ enough for him to be concerned about it. Well, his examples told a bit of a different story, IMHO, but the problem is that sometimes you're in a position where you have a nearer, busy background, sometimes you aren't. There's a pretty good variation between stadia and photography access points, particularly at the college level. His example was more what I'd call a mid-deep background (and the stadium wasn't full of people wearing distracting things and colors, either). 

The primary reason I use a 400mm f/2.8 is not simply for lower light work and higher shutter speeds, it's as much to give me an extra stop of flexibility when I need to restrict depth of field to take a background out of contention with my subject. Couple that with something I've noticed with the zooms—that mid-deep detail can get VR artifacts—and yes, Virginia, f/2.8 is for lovers. Wait. Uh... where's my metaphor book when I need it? 

The only thing I didn't like about the 100-400mm at 400mm f/5.6—which I need to add to my review since it appears I didn't get that in—is that in close-in and busy backgrounds with VR active, I sometimes saw a busy-ness that was distracting. This has more to do with the position and movement of the in-lens VR elements than the bokeh. Couple those VR artifacts with something that's not totally out of focus, and it results in a background I'd rather not have, if I could avoid it. 

So. f/2.8 is better than f/4.5 is better than f/5.6 in that respect, I believe. Of course, I don't know how the VR behaves in the 400mm f/4.5 yet, so can't say for sure how it fits into what I just wrote. The VR in the f/2.8 behaves very well, the 100-400mm considerably less so in the out of focus light rays. A lot of that has to do with the positioning of the VR element(s). 

Finally, we get to this: when will you get yours? 

Here we go again. The 400mm f/4.5 is going to be a very popular lens, and Nikon marketing is still managing to stir up plenty of pre-release interest with their pre-production loaner activity and social media teasing. If you're not at your dealer's loading dock when the UPS truck shows up from Nikon, you probably won't see one in person for quite some time. By the time your dealer checks that box in at his dock, it will be going right out the door the other direction.

So we're back to the same old, same old:

• If you're an NPS member, put in an NPS Priority Purchase request immediately after reading this. Use the turbo feature on the NikonPro Web site. 
• If you're not an NPS member, your reputable local dealer is your best friend. Get on their list, stat. Promise to bring them a bagel or donut of their choice when your 400mm eventually shows up. 
• If you're a gambler, you can constantly check the Amazon or Best Buy inventory to see if they suddenly have an available unit pop up. You'll have to be faster-to-click than the other 1000 people doing this, though.

______________________

Bonus: one oddity of every new interesting Z-mount lens introduction is the "will Nikon make a Z-mount to F-mount converter" question that suddenly starts showing up in my In Box (and in online fora). The answer is still "no." It'll always be no. But the question also shows that a lot of DSLR users aren't understanding some of the benefits of mirrorless cameras and their implications. Nikon did a terrible job of describing why a new mount was necessary and what benefits it provided when they introduced the Z System, and that hasn't really ever been fixed in their marketing. So people hear about new, better lenses, and then believe that they could be converted to work on their old DSLR. This produces a friction with an existing customer who believes that Nikon is intentionally neglecting them. Well, Nikon is, but not for the reason they think. 

My position with those folk is increasingly becoming "be happy with the DSLR products available and enjoy the declining costs of adding used lenses, or get with the new Z System program if you want better products." There's absolutely nothing wrong with a D500, D780, D850, or D6, and they'll still produce excellent pictures for about as far as we can see forward clearly. Personally, I'm seeing benefits in moving to mirrorless, though I should caution anyone reading too much into that to remember that I have to live on the front edge of what's possible, or else risk becoming non-competitive with my professional peers.