Nikon announces the Z 28-400mm F4-8 VR

[AlanF]

Sometimes, Panamoz has a strange pricing for mostly brand-new products.
Yet, 90% of their prices are lower than those for officially imported items. And their warranty conditions sound excellent. Their internet reviews too.
FNAC France, Calumet Germany EOS R3: Euro 5700
Panamoz (including taxes and duties): Euro 4400
Or, a naked R3 vs. R3 + RF 100 macro + adapter EF-RF
No comment!

The RF 200-800mm is very back ordered here. Jessops are predicting June delivery. Panamoz is cashing in on it.

 

[mimbu]

Not impressed with these zoom lenses with very dark apertures. Not from Nikon, not from Canon. And Nikon wants $1300 for this thing? Maybe if it ended at f6.3 that would be okay but at f8? Nope. And f8 starting from 200mm? Double nope.

 

[AlanF]

Not impressed with these zoom lenses with very dark apertures. Not from Nikon, not from Canon. And Nikon wants $1300 for this thing? Maybe if it ended at f6.3 that would be okay but at f8? Nope. And f8 starting from 200mm? Double nope.

You might change your mind if you tried the RF 100-400mm. It’s very popular among its users - very sharp, small, light and cheap.

 

[Del Paso]

You might change your mind if you tried the RF 100-400mm. It’s very popular among its users - very sharp, small, light and cheap.

I also was convinced lenses with small apertures were not for me, as I believed ISO higher than 800 were "unusable". Some forum members (guess who I'm speaking of ) made me understand I was wrong. So, I learned to use Topaz Denoise, and now, use without fear ISO 3200 and higher. F 8? No worries at all as I couldn't justify buying an F 2,8 or F 4 big white for my seldom uses.

 

[AlanF]

I also was convinced lenses with small apertures were not for me, as I believed ISO higher than 800 were "unusable". Some forum members (guess who I'm speaking of ) made me understand I was wrong. So, I learned to use Topaz Denoise, and now, use without fear ISO 3200 and higher. F 8? No worries at all as I couldn't justify buying an F 2,8 or F 4 big white for my seldom uses.

I'm a Topaz fan. For noise DxO Photolab or Pure are even better at retaining detail, but Topaz is very good and I like the company as being customer friendly and quickly responsive and interactive. The narrow aperture lenses open up a new world of light weight and affordable lenses. ps, I quite often use Topaz Sharpen as part of the AI suite as it works better for some lenses than the DxO PL standard under some conditions.

 

[Del Paso]

I'm a Topaz fan. For noise DxO Photolab or Pure are even better at retaining detail, but Topaz is very good and I like the company as being customer friendly and quickly responsive and interactive. The narrow aperture lenses open up a new world of light weight and affordable lenses. ps, I quite often use Topaz Sharpen as part of the AI suite as it works better for some lenses than the DxO PL standard under some conditions.

I can confirm they are indeed responsive and friendly, even if they have to deal with a total computer dummie (me!). They adapt to the knowledge of their customers, without ever responding using pre-written useless answers. And the answers take often less than one day.
Very very satisfied with them!

 

[Exploreshootshare]

Btw I still wait for my RF 200-800... Germany and/or Europe seems to be much less attractive for Japanese camera makers than it still was a decade ago, so we are the last ones to get new lenses - okay, people living in Tierra del Fuego may have to be even more patient, I guess.

I have no idea where you live, but maybe it is worth a shot:
Media Markt in Heidelberg has a RF 200-800mm in store. It´s been there for about two weeks now and think I saw it this morning still standing in the showcase behind some thick glass.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

Yes, it makes sense. German and UK prices are decided by Canon EU, based in the Netherlands, I think. They charge what they think the market will bear.

Correct, that´s why I don't buy new Canon gear in Germany anymore. I patiently wait for great deals on used gear.

 

[Del Paso]

Correct, that´s why I don't buy new Canon gear in Germany anymore. I patiently wait for great deals on used gear.

And yet, there were some extremely interesting offers between Black Friday and New Year.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

And yet, there were some extremely interesting offers between Black Friday and New Year.

True, I almost went for the R6mkii because it 700 € off the regular price

 

[Del Paso]

True, I almost went for the R6mkii because it 700 € off the regular price

It always makes sense to wait for the right moment.
If only I could...

 

[mimbu]

You might change your mind if you tried the RF 100-400mm. It’s very popular among its users - very sharp, small, light and cheap.

It is at least $650 and not $1300. You are getting what you pay for, which is fair. It's not for me, but it's fair.

If Nikon was selling this 28-400 for $650, or even $799, it would be a lot more acceptable. But $1300? For a lens that is f8 from 200mm? Ridiculous pricing.

 

[neuroanatomist]

But $1300? For a lens that is f8 from 200mm? Ridiculous pricing.

Only if it doesn’t sell.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

Only if it doesn’t sell.

Even it doesn’t sell, they can advertise it later with $400 cashback or other discounts and people will buy because they think they got a great deal. If worse comes to worse, there’ll be a cashback bonus plus a „xy holiday“ discount…

 

[EricN]

It is at least $650 and not $1300. You are getting what you pay for, which is fair. It's not for me, but it's fair.

If Nikon was selling this 28-400 for $650, or even $799, it would be a lot more acceptable. But $1300? For a lens that is f8 from 200mm? Ridiculous pricing.

If I knew I was going into an environment where changing lenses was a no go, it's a viable option for me. As far as I know, EF 28–300mm f/3.5–5.6L IS USM is Canon's best option. There is only one stop difference from 5.6 and 8. Assuming it's image quality is about equal to that old Canon (which was not great), I think the extra 100mm outweighs the increased noise. I'm guessing over 20 years, Nikon can make the image quality better...

 

[mimbu]

Only if it doesn’t sell.

From Nikon's standpoint, sure. From a user standpoint, $1300 for lens that is f8 from 200mm is a rip-off, bordering on a scam.

 

[neuroanatomist]

From Nikon's standpoint, sure. From a user standpoint, $1300 for lens that is f8 from 200mm is a rip-off, bordering on a scam.

It’s great we have people who can speak for all users. Probably no one will ever buy the lens, because anyone gullible enough to be scammed by Nikon into buying this weather-sealed one-lens solution covering a huge focal range will already have given all their money to help a Nigerian prince.

 

[Flip'n flippy]

Are all Nikon customers going to go to Sony now?

I can't answer right now since I am leaving Canon for Nikon.

 

[SwissFrank]

Such "rubber" zoom lenses never come w/o strong distortion, either on short or long focal lengths (most probably at the wide angle end). I think all manufacturers of such extreme wide angle to tele zooms rely on a heavy-sided in-camera correction of all sorts of distortion, vignetting, and aberrations to keep weight, size, and price within tolerable limits. Personally, I therefore prefer dedicated tele or wide angle zooms (if not primes anyway) with much more properly designed optics.

I keep asking people to show me an example of how in-camera correction of distortion hurts a photo or is even detectable. No-one EVER supplies an example. If you have an example I'd be very thankful.

"Properly designed optics" are ones that make enough customers happy that the firm benefits. My 16/2.8 and 14-35/4 both have, I'm told a lot of distortion correction but I have never seen anything specific that is a problem.

Basically, optics design is a N-way tradeoff between size, weight, price, reliability, focus speed, center sharpness, corner sharpness, contrast, distortion, vignetting, bokeh quality, and aberrations that cannot be corrected in software. A traditional lens design that tries to improve distortion, will have to get worse on at least one or two of the other factors. But if we let the software fix what the software can fix--distortion and in most cases vignetting--then we can actually improve EVERYTHING else: make it a bit smaller and let distortion suffer. Improve sharpness and let distortion suffer more. Improve contrast and let vignetting increase. We can make ALL other factors better, and just let these two go to he11. Then... we can fix those two in software so well that... I think, though I'm happy to find out otherwise... the fix is literally invisible and undetectable. And yet you're saying such an optic would be improperly designed??

Note that for some astrophotography, I HAVE seen some cases where vignetting slightly hurts image quality. Since the corners are darker, they need a bit more boost in brightness... and since the sky's supposed to be near black, most of the signal there is noise... so it ends up being noise that's boosted. And yet even then, it's not complicated to minimize, and I haven't seen any other subject matter where it's detectable.

So, thanks to some members of this forum, I learned that in some very special cases, software correction of vignetting can be detected. But I still haven't seen evidence of detectable issues with distortion correction. Again, I would love to find out I'm wrong. Please share any relevant images you have and I'm actually quite ready to admit I'm wrong and you're right. But please share the images. (And if you don't have such images, maybe you might want to rethink your basic assumption here.)