Nikon Z 28-400mm f/4-8 VR lens review
Nikon have been famous for their decent-quality superzoom lenses in the old DSLR days - let's see what they can pull out of the bag for their mirrorless cameras.
Support me on Patreon! / christopherfrost
All pictures taken by me on a Nikon Z7 cameras.
Equipment I use to make my videos (Amazon affiliate links):
Canon EOS R5: geni.us/CanonEOSR5Body
Canon EF-RF Adaptor: geni.us/CanonEFtoRF
Sigma 50mm f/1.4 'Art': geni.us/Sigma50mm14Art
Canon RF 35mm f/1.8 IS STM: geni.us/CanonRF35mm18Macro
Marumi Fit and Slim CPL Filter: geni.us/MarumiFitSlim77
AudioTechnica AT2020USB+ Microphone: geni.us/AT2020USBPlusMic
Rode Smartlav+ Microphone: geni.us/RodeSmartLavalierPlus
Rode SC3 adapter: geni.us/RodeSC3MicAdaptor
Zoom H1n Recorder: geni.us/ZoomH1nMiniRecorder
DJI Mini 2 Drone: geni.us/DJIMini2FlyMore
Music:
'Opportunity Walks', Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0
creativecommons.org/licenses/b...
Looking at the rear element of the lens, I guess this is one of the very rare occasions when Nikon actually took advantage of the large Z mount diameter compared to a Sony E mount and created something innovative.
They do that on all of their lenses
@@ych8312 Except the ones they've rebadged from Tamron that are literally E-mount lenses
Look at the rear of the 135 1.8 Plena
Can you wide my knowledge, what's the rear element give it away that they make use of the larger mount?
Nikon bad Sony good
Christopher, please don't change a thing about your videos! Your consistent testing and format is extremely useful and I'd say it's the *reference* lens review on KZhead! Some fan boys may disagree or even rant when your reviews reveals weakness in their "favorite" lenses. However, for consumers and potential buyers like me, this is what we are looking for. I trust your reviews more than anything else on the whole Internet.
The ungraceful removal of lens cap and hood at 0:07 made laugh lol
LOL I enjoyed that as well
Indeed!
Brilliant 👏👏👏( why does “Ungraceful” exist? Clumsy totally coves it!)
@@dominiclester3232 yeah and?
@@dominiclester3232we get it, you arent white
I just bought one of these. While I’ve just gotten birdfeeder pics so far, it’s amazing.
Happy with the frequent uploads 🙏
I could have used this lens on our recent nature boat ride in the Gulf of Mexico south of the tip of Everglades National Park. Changing lenses in a boat is difficult.
Well, that sharpness is quite good, except for the corners of the wide angles - which is to be expected at those massive zoom lenses. Quite a lot of money, but the zoom range is great and usually only possible on apsc or mft. No complaints from my side
Yet another brilliant review, thanks! If the best camera is the one you have with you, then this lens has the right focal length for 99% of all situations. The perfect walkabout/recce lens!
On a similar note, I have a Fuji X-S10 with the Tamron 18-300mm f/3.5-6.3 (27-450mm eq.). I LOVE IT. I got a great copy that is impressively sharp for being a 16.6x zoom and it is quite an amazing lens for the enthusiast non-professional. Everything from general travel to birding. I pair it with a Sigma 10-18mm f/2.8, and the Pro Viltrox 27mm and 75mm f/1.2 duo. These super zoom lenses are honestly a great solution for most people.
Great review!
Any flaws this lens has are immediately dismissed because it’s a 14X ZOOM. What a ridiculous lens, but I guess you would never need another one if you bought this
I had ny mother pick it up to pair with her Nikon Zfc and 12-28mm. She older and those two lenses cover everything she needs. After I dabbled with it, it's extremely impressive for the range and price. Nikon did great with this one.
That is only true when you have perfect light conditions. In many focal lengths the lens is to dark. Especially 85mm f/6 is a shame.
@@ghoststalker383 Obviously the more light the better, but f8 is way, way, more usable than DSLR days, especially so with the modern, wonderful, Nikon Z system sensors. I currently shoot a Z system lens and TC combination that is f9 minimum (f6.3 + 1.4 TC) and I hardly ever take the TC off, even in the dull overcast weather we have been having here in the UK. Before this, I used the Canon f11 800mm, and in DSLR days used a 500PF lens plus TC (f8) so considering the compact size and light weight of this amazing zoom, I'm happy.
Ok, if you are happy with the picture quality that is totally fine for me. I am using sony a7 iv, and still i prefer shooting with ISO as low as possible. Noise can be reduced in post but always comes with a lack of detail. Dynamic range can be reproduced in post as well but if it should look good you have to do it manually and is a time factor for me.
@@ghoststalker383 the reason you have a lack of detail in your Sony photos is because of the internal processing Sony does on their images. Use higher ISO’s on your camera, it’s not the Stone Age anymore
Looks pretty good, considering the price and zoom range. Personally, I think a cheaper 100-400 f/8 would've been the better move. There are so many great Super Telephoto options, but they're all pretty expensive, something like the affordable Canon 100-400 would benefit Z-Mount a lot, in my opinion.
I want to see something like the old AF-S 80-400 4.5-5.6... but maybe 5.6-8 to cut down on expense. I'd be willing to pay $1300 for that.
There already is the Tamron 70-300 (which can be cropped to 400) if you want something light, and then Nikon 100-400 and Tamron 150-500 if something heavier is okay.
A comparison with the 24-200 at the same focal lengths would be great!
There is a Japanese site that shows 100% crops from different areas. It looks already softer at 200mm, and it's only downhill from there.
@@USGrant21st you should watch this review then and others too
@@carlosandreviana9448 You can't be serious. You need to scour the net to find real full size test images. Reviews will come later, for now it's just informercials.
This is a good complement to the 14-30mm f/4.
I don’t shoot Nikon, but this is a solid lens to rule them all! Corner sharpness is a little disappointing, but honestly for such a zoom range, it was to be expected
agree - and very flexible, although bit more ££ can get the 180-600 Lens (although not a one lens solution) and agree with others on price - could be winner / more attractive when prices fall a bit or on Nikon rebate / cash back schemes.
For the price alone, everything is forgiven. To have VR is a bonus as well
The people who'd buy this lens probably don't really care about that too much
@@fib621Exactly and for those that do care, there are options like 24-120/4 and 24-200 that have less range but much better sharpness.
How can this lens "rule them all" when it's not particularly good at any focal length? LOL!
This kind of lenses wouldn't have been possible on dslrs because the viewfinder would have been simply too dark. Overall I'm impressed by this lens. But since I'm not a wildlife photographer, I'd probably pick the Nikon 24-120mm f4 as travel zoom anyway.
Impressive effort Nikon!
Wow! Interesting choice to make it a full-frame lens.
That zooming effect would make a nice After Effects transition 😊
On a Z5 with its lower pixel count it could make an incredible travel kit combo for a fairly good price.
I’ve only had my First Nikon Z camera a day before this & it looks seriously tempting. However I’d need to pair anything with one wide lens or compact prime.
Brutal lens!
I would echo one of the comments below; it would be interesting to see how this compares to the 24-200mm from Nikon, or even the 28-200mm from Tamron as well. Obviously a very different intention from Nikon (compared to the others) due to the 400mm, but I'd be interested in how it does at the same focal lengths.
I have the Nikkor 100-400, 24-120, 105MC, and 600mm all S lenses. But I am going to buy this lens for my daily walks through the Rocky Mtn foothills where wide to tele is often needed. Really, other than brick walls, the main subject is in focus and peripheral objects are often in different planes of focus, anyway. In practical use it will be great. Interesting you know more about optics and hood design than Nikon engineers.
Thanks!
did you happen to throw it on the Z 50 to see how image quality and focusing was ?
This lens perfectly complements my 9mm/5.6 (7Artisans) and 14-30mm/4 on the Zf. Three lenses to cover it all. And maybe the 85mm/1.8 for the bokeh. I tried before with the Sony RX10III, 24-600mm, but I all too often needed more on the wide end.
You should also do a Nikon AF-S 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR Review
Hello, would you mind testing the Canon 35-350 L lens on a sony mirrorless please? Also congrats on this being your 999th video!
Hello Chris please do review on fuji 90mm f2 please
I am into super zoom lenses since the Tamron 28-200 f2.8 - f5.6. Altough the image quality is good enough I think it is too dark in too many situations. At 85 mm it is already f 6.0 that is nearly 5 times dsrker than an good 70 - 200. And for that portrait focal length there is always the option for a f/1.4, which leads to something around 18x more light. Fully zoomed in f/8 might somehow be acceptable compared to other lenses but still it is one stop darker than its competitors. Assuming a shutter speed of 1/400 means even more ISO under imperfect light conditions.
I found this lens too compromising and bought the 24-200mm and the 180-600mm on my Z8. I hope you can get the Z8 as well for testing. Nikon should lend it to you for a couple of years testing.
Chris, have you thought to diversify further, into Camera body testing also? Viewers would love it @ Marry your Lenses & Date your Cameras
Thoroughly baffled at the distortion characteristics given the lens parameters. Good on Nikon for pulling this off.
I could see someone pairing this with a Z6II for a vacation. It's got a great zoom range, decent quality, and since Nikon handles high ISO really well it won't look awful when you're bumping up the ISO in low light situations. Even at ISO 3200 the Z6II is going to look good. But most people will likely be using this outdoors at places like theme parks where the aperture won't matter as much. Maybe they'll be at ISO 1250, which is nothing these days. But it WILL challenge their creativity and skill; getting the most out of a lens like this is going to require thought and planning. When you're at Disneyland you can basically forget trying to get clean images while in line at Star Tours; it's just too dark. But in other places it'll be fine. So pack it up and take it to the beach or wherever you're going and get shooting!
those hoods function more as protection for the frontal lens, the same as on large prime lenses such as 400 or 500 mm. Most of the time you use it to avoid damage, finger marks, etc.
tbh I prefer the 18-400 for apc, better zoom (400+1.5crop) and 18-400 gets more light with 6.3 f stop and similar deph of field ( 6.3 will be around f10 on apsc but we got more then 400 on apsc ). Of course its for FF not apsc but I would rather get dedicated aps camera for travel with 18-400.
Wow. Nikon actually did it...🎉😂
With fantastic Nikon Vr and even better IBIS in Z8 and Zf. I’ve shot handheld 1/25th to get that iso down. But 85mm at f6 is poor lol
I guess this lens is good if you mostly value a wide zoom range with decent sharpness. Otherwise I might be more inclined to go with something else though. This probably fits along the same lines as the 24-200 (although obviously with some different characteristics). I also feel that maybe $1300 USD is a bit much for what you're getting here and that while not necessarily sharper, a better (although not native Z) alternative might be the F-mount 28-300 which you can get much cheaper on the used market (probably about 1/4 of the price or just stick with the 24-200 which is about $400 cheaper but you do loose the extra 200mm on the long end -- as it seems the 24-200 achieves similar results, although about 2/3 stop faster, at 200mm).
Thanks for the review. I am sure lens sharpness will be more than acceptable on the less demanding 24 MP sensor of the Z6, Z6II and Z5. I am sure that this lens is aimed at the owners of those cameras. I feel that Nikon are trying to abandon APSc and move people to their entry level FF offerings.
Since corners are soft, it may be great to pair with Z50 Z30 and get 40-600mm.
Between the 24-200 and the 28-400 which one would you choose? I was thinking to get the 24-200 and then nikon made this one and I can’t make up my mind.
Hello, can you use macro?
That's seems to be the ultimate KZhead lens for hidden camera videos. If you goto crop you can shoot from really far away. I just wonder what would be my ISO on the bright day, shooting video on F8 and 1/60fps
Sunny 16 rule: f16 at ISO 100 and 1/100s Which means F8 at ISO 100 and 1/400 (if I'm not mistaken.) In other words, you might even need an ND-filter to get down to your preferred 1/125s :)
It looks like it'll do the job for its intended purpose of tourism photography. But I can't help thinking that the same people who'd benefit from this lens would benefit even more from a smaller sensor camera with a similar zoom range in a far smaller package. Or even a pair of tiny zooms in APSC or micro 4/3.
How do you think this lens stacks up against the 24-200mm? And since I can buy a 24-200mm for half the price used, do you still think the 28-400mm is worth it? Going on a family vacation soon, and I’m kinda torn between which lens I should get. I’ve even been thinking about the 24-120mm. Would love to hear your thoughts. Thanks. 😊
All three are great. My personal preference is the 24-120 for the brighter aperture, excellent image quality, wider angle. But if you anticipate doing wildlife photography or any other telephoto work go for the 28-400.
@@christopherfrost thanks for the response, I appreciate it. I’m not planning on doing any wildlife photography, so I’m gonna go with the 24-120mm. Thanks again.
That will make a great travel lens for some. Not a cheap lens though.
The kind of people attracted to a long range zoom like this would maybe be better off with a micro four thirds body with the much cheaper but well performing Panasonic 14-140mm ( =28-nearly300mm). That lens is lighter and more compact than the Nikon reviewed here and the body to hang it on may well be lighter too. People often seem to pick a camera body and then try to find a lens they want to hang on it which doesn't seem the best way. A serious Nikon shooter would probably dismiss this lens to take on the holiday of a lifetime and opt for optically better ones - maybe the M4/3 may do so too. Horses for courses I guess and yes I have Nikon and MFT kit........
Full frame superzoom lens is a rare thing
Comparing maximum reach of the Canon 100-400f8 vs Nikon 28-400f8: kzhead.info/sun/g9KLYpuHboR6ips/bejne.htmlfeature=shared&t=308 Nikon at 400mm 6:20 At first it's tempting to say the Canon lens has more resolution but I actually don't think it does, in fact the Canon lens looks like it has astigmatism (lower resolution in one orientation), though arguably both lenses are close enough that sharpness comparisons will swing either way according to sample variation. Where the Canon design firmly does a better job is higher contrast and controlling chromatic aberration. Then considering the Canon 100-400 costs half as much, you'd better really enjoy using the entire zoom range to justify purchasing the Nikon 28-400.
One is a 4x zoom. The other is a 14x. I don’t think anyone considering a 28-400 do everything lens would be cross shopping a 100-400 which is essentially just a tele lens that’s not in the do everything category. Just my opinion but most users of the 28-400 will utilize it in the wider range.
If I got this for my Z fc and paired it with the handy 12-28 DX zoom I'd have in two lenses optically stabilized coverage from 12-400mm! That's 18 to 600mm in FF-speak. Definitely one to check out.
Don't forget that you pay a price in aperture as well. That means an f/6 to f/12 equivalent. That's not impossible to work with but you will notice the ISO bumping up. Interestingly, when I pair my Canon 100-500 L with my R7 I get an 800 MM f/11 on the long end, which is a lens that Canon sells by itself.
@@swistedfilms If I thought of the APSC sensor of the Z fc as a physically cropped, chipped away full frame sensor, clearly the amount of light hitting the Z fc sensor area is The Same as before. The sensor is simply intercepting a smaller portion of the lens' projected image. I will not get an exposure hit, though neither lens can be considered "fast." If I wanted to retain the image framing compared to before the sensor chipping I definitely will get a hit in shallowness of focus depth. But at 600mm there's little I might want to photograph where I'd want a blurry background. (I'm not a birder. The sidewalk birds here in NYC can be gotten with the 12-28. I exaggerate only a little.)
This lens is not blowing anyone away but honestly for a all in one travel lens or for hobbiysts that want to have and can afford the convenience of not having to lug around and switch lenses it's really decent! It is expected to not be the sharpest in the corners and the aperture limits its usecase and performance but I'd have expected a worse performance overall.
I'll stay perfectly happy with my Tamron 50-400
Definitely one for affluent casual snappers and people on holiday rather than serious photography, but nothing wrong with that. I'd rather have a 24-120mm f/4 and another zoom - the Tamron 70-300mm looks like a better option for a much lower price: you lose 100 mm but gain some light, and the IQ looks better than this. Or the 24-200mm and crop in a bit.
One case where I would prefer micro four thirds superzooms that are faster and end up with similar quality in a smaller package. (I said similar. FF will always have advantages due to physics)
I normally shoot MFT and I agree about the smaller and faster. The zoomiest MFT lens has for some time been the Olympus 12-200mm f/3.5-6.3 (FF equiv FOV of 24-400mm). It goes wider than the Nikon and is slightly faster at both ends (less than a stop). It is also substantially smaller, lighter and cheaper, especially if bought used. But after what Christopher has shown in his review I think the Nikon might have an edge in basic image quality. I hope to compare them myself, having recently started slowly branching out from MFT to the E-mount (A6700) and Z-mount universes (Z fc).
Will you be reviewing Panasonic lenses in the future?
If it is PZ lens made primarily for video. That would be great lens.
For a superzoom lens you need zoomable lens hood 😉
Yeah, I find my the lens hood on my 24-200 totally inadequate when zooming in, it can only be worse on this one.
Love your reviews Chris. But I do think it's time to upgrade to a Z8 for these lens reviews, the focusing speed/ability of the newer Z cameras are night and day when compared to the first gen.
Glad you enjoy the reviews - great idea about the Z8 but I need to find £3,800 first...!
This lens has similar/same construction, look and features as 24-200 4-6.3 Z.
What about sports for my grandchildren?
It will be good for outdoor sports, not for indoor due to limited light
The lens performed way better than what I was expecting. The F mount 28-300 was horrid. The Z mount really working its magic here given how large the rear element of this lens is.
Since when this channel introduces not SONY
f8 aaarrgh! only usable at noon on sunny days lol!
What are you even talking about? My big boy birding lens has just one stop more light at 600mm and I've been shooting birds and squirrels both on mornings and evenings. This is a much lighter, stabilized lens made for travel, not for high speeds. F8 is more than fine for that.
@@PiTdeLyX Man, what are YOU talking about 😅... Full stop is enormous difference when you need it and that full stops is worth like 15k if we takl about 600f4 while if you talk about 180-600mm, still brighter than f8. Different people, different tastes after all. I'd never give so much money for 400mm f8 but I'm sure many people will be happy with it.
Do you always shoot at lowest ISO?
No worse than f/5.3 on APS-C, f/4 on MFT, or f/3 on a 1 inch sensor.
I understand your frustration, and Nikon has always handled higher ISO better than Canon. So if you have to bump up the ISO on this a little then it's not as much of a penalty as you might think. But I get it. But you also get what you pay for. I'm reminded of a skateboarding magazine back in the 80s who got a letter from a reader who complained that his trucks were destroyed when doing high impact tricks. The editor wrote back: if you want to run with the big dogs, you can't piss like a pup.
this aint just a superzoom, its a turbozoom
hyperzoom
Noooice. :) Especially the fact that it doesn't breathe.
The version 2 better comes with f/2.8. Screw the weights. We can handle that.
Atleast a 35-105 f2-f4 will also do in small size.
Nikon has great lenses. They just are heavy as shit. Once Nikon gets the auto focus better, they will be the best.
Their primes (non telephoto) yes. But I think Nikon zooms are quite light and compact.
I will never understand the appeal of such a product. It's USD1,300 but doesn't deliver really image quality at any focal length and/or aperture. For something that is not great at anything but costs USD1,300 I don't understand who would make that purchase decision...
hi
already not up to date 😂 many others have already tested it
I can't believe Nikon is charging $1300 for a lens that is f8 from 200mm. The image quality is okay for beginners, I guess, but that price is not beginner-friendly. At $800 this would be a fair deal.
Lens is expensive. For third party it might be $800 but for major brand it is expensive.
tell me a term of comparison
Why can't Nikon release a regular lightweight and inexpensive 70-300 or 100-400 telephoto lens in addition to the excellent 24-70 and 24-120? Why do they release a blurry and dark ultrazoom for such a huge price? The only Tamron 70-300 on the Z system has a curved field of sharpness and poor macro performance, while for F system there is excellent AF-P 70-300. Imbecilic marketing and lens roadmap from Nikon....
and it is already selling a lot. Can you imagine that? 🤣
Perhaps consider the dx lineup. Nikon already has a 100-400 fx lens
Can it be rebranded Tamron 28-200 with a teleconverter?!
No, because the minimum focal length is still 28mm
those Z series lenses are UGLY - where are those slick n good lookin DSLR ones alike? Cant belive where nikon is right now
at the top of the market
What hide Nikon has of offering a 400 zoom with an F8 aperture! The auto focus won't work. They conned everybody by thinking that high ISO will fix everything. It will not. It's a heap of expensive junk and should be tossed in the bin.
This is for a mirrorless camera. Autofocus at 400mm/f8 is really quick. I received mine yesterday and have been testing it. Results & conclusions the same as Christopher Frost's. I currently shoot wildlife with the Nikon Z system often at very high ISOs, much, much higher than would have been thought acceptable on DSLRs.
Didn't you watch the video? Autofocus works fine. It was only back on the days of DSLRs that AF didn't work on darker lenses.
Just replaced my D7500 and Tamron 18-400 with this lens and a Z5 great package