Off Brand: Nikon Announces the AF-S Nikkor 180-400mm f/4E TC1.4 FL ED VR

ethanz

1DX II
CR Pro
Apr 12, 2016
1,188
507
ethanzentz.com
rwvaughn said:
This lens does not make sense from a financial standpoint when you consider it's retail price as opposed to the 200-500mm f/5.6. When the TC feature of this new lens is kicked in the lens duplicates the 200-500 in focal range and f stop. Would anyone pay full retail for this lens when the 200-500 would save them nearly 10 grand? I'd be putting the money towards a D500 body and 200-500mm if I were a Nikonian.

You could say that in Canon-land too. The 100-400 is great for a lot of people. But the 200-400 is still better, even though the 100-400 is a great lens.
 

psolberg

EOS RP
Feb 8, 2012
619
17
jolyonralph said:
9VIII said:
If Nikon makes a proper short flange mount it could very well surpass their existing mount.
Sony already made the mistake of adapting a crop body mount for Full Frame, Canon is equally gimped on EF-M.

Both the Sony and EF-M mounts are pretty much identical in diameter to the Nikon F mount!

he's talking about a short flange mount. outside of the F, nikon only has the CX mount which is pretty much dead as it was made for sensors even smaller than micro four thirds. The new rumored Z mount is alleged to be 49mm (so a bit bigger than EF-M) and 2mm closer to the sensor. This is based on patents which may not even make it to production off course.
 
Both the Canon and Nikon version are soooo expensive, I have a hard time figuring why anyone would buy one (as opposed to say a 500 f4 or 400 f4 DO or even a 300 f2.8 with external extender). I have only seen it in person one time myself, by the San Diego Zoo staff photographer (at their sister facility San Diego Safari Park).
 

Talys

Canon R5
CR Pro
Feb 16, 2017
2,109
407
Vancouver, BC
MrFotoFool said:
Both the Canon and Nikon version are soooo expensive, I have a hard time figuring why anyone would buy one (as opposed to say a 500 f4 or 400 f4 DO or even a 300 f2.8 with external extender). I have only seen it in person one time myself, by the San Diego Zoo staff photographer (at their sister facility San Diego Safari Park).

The Canon 200-400 with internal extender is the lens I dream of :)

It is a perfect telephoto zoom, because if you wear two bodies, 70-200 and a 200-400 + internal extender, you can shoot any telephoto FL you need without a lens swap. The alternative would be to take a 100-400 on one body, and a big white on another. But a 100-400 is not nearly as good as a 70-200 at the short telephoto end, and some big prime with or without an extender is not nearly as flexible as a zoom that can cover that whole range, and also probably leaves you with a gap, for example, between 400 and 600 (which is a big gap).

Also, not being a super pro, the one (and only) time I've used a big white prime, I had trouble finding, tracking, and composing my subject at 600mm. Sometimes, it's just easier to zoom out a little and rely on cropping in post, in order to capture the subject, if it's moving, especially when the movement is erratic (a hockey player, for example, as opposed to a race car). I'm sure this would be less of an issue for someone who uses super telephotos day in and out though.

But yes, the price is prohibitively high for me -- or at least impossible to justify, for taking pictures of birdies that nobody except me will ever care about. It's hard to imagine a time when there won't be something that's a higher priority for me to spend $10,000+ on. Then again, there are years where I've spent more than that on photography, or other hobbies (though not on a single item).

It is possible, I suppose, that I end up buying one, one day, just to cross it off my bucket list :D Then I can sleep with it curled in my arms... my preciousssssss.
 

ethanz

1DX II
CR Pro
Apr 12, 2016
1,188
507
ethanzentz.com
Talys said:
MrFotoFool said:
Both the Canon and Nikon version are soooo expensive, I have a hard time figuring why anyone would buy one (as opposed to say a 500 f4 or 400 f4 DO or even a 300 f2.8 with external extender). I have only seen it in person one time myself, by the San Diego Zoo staff photographer (at their sister facility San Diego Safari Park).

The Canon 200-400 with internal extender is the lens I dream of :)

It is a perfect telephoto zoom, because if you wear two bodies, 70-200 and a 200-400 + internal extender, you can shoot any telephoto FL you need without a lens swap. The alternative would be to take a 100-400 on one body, and a big white on another. But a 100-400 is not nearly as good as a 70-200 at the short telephoto end, and some big prime with or without an extender is not nearly as flexible as a zoom that can cover that whole range, and also probably leaves you with a gap, for example, between 400 and 600 (which is a big gap).

Also, not being a super pro, the one (and only) time I've used a big white prime, I had trouble finding, tracking, and composing my subject at 600mm. Sometimes, it's just easier to zoom out a little and rely on cropping in post, in order to capture the subject, if it's moving, especially when the movement is erratic (a hockey player, for example, as opposed to a race car). I'm sure this would be less of an issue for someone who uses super telephotos day in and out though.

But yes, the price is prohibitively high for me -- or at least impossible to justify, for taking pictures of birdies that nobody except me will ever care about. It's hard to imagine a time when there won't be something that's a higher priority for me to spend $10,000+ on. Then again, there are years where I've spent more than that on photography, or other hobbies (though not on a single item).

It is possible, I suppose, that I end up buying one, one day, just to cross it off my bucket list :D Then I can sleep with it curled in my arms... my preciousssssss.

Yes for all the reasons you said. I like to cradle it in my arms like a baby. While I probably didn't NEED it, it is certainly a great addition. You could consider buying it used. I got it for about 3K off the list price from a guy on birdsasart. For that price its really a good deal.
 

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
8,899
12,213
If you own or drool over the 200-400mm then I would certainly not dispute your right so to do. But, personally, if I were to carry such weight, I would prefer to go for the 1lb lighter 500mm/f4 II as without or with a 1.4xTC it would give better resolution.