I shot with this lens all weekend, and I absolutely love it. I also bought this lens to replace the 28-300 f-mount... and I'm not looking back at all. It's noticeably lighter than the 28-300. This is going to be an incredible travel lens. It's pretty much an outside-only lens unless you're working with flash. It's really dark indoors, even on the wide end (Using a Z7). I shot my nieces horse show this weekend, as well as my wife's work event, and I thought the images were excellent. Granted, I'm not a professional photographer, and I don't do this for a living... so many will likely have more stringent requirements than I do for their images. But, I thought it performed really well. Auto focus was more than sufficient to capture action shots, and even at f/8 you can get some nice subject separation.
I am also getting this lens. Let's face it, with maybe a few exceptions, Z lenses are much superior to their F mount counterparts, even non S line are excellent. I used to have the 28-300mm F mount when I still had my DSLRs and to be fair, it was actually pretty good. Primarily it was my holiday / travel lens, but, in spite of possessing all the F mount pro lens we were 'supposed' to shoot with, I also used it for paid event photography, at 300mm you could get superb close up portraits with great compression and yes, even decent background bokeh. So to me, this 28-400mm is a very exciting addition to the Z range, whilst I bought the Z 24-200mm to replace F 28-300mm, I do miss that extra reach. Nice channel you got going here, it's good to see young and enthusiastic photographers coming through!
Long flange distance is very restrictive to wide angle and super zoom design. That's why the long telephoto primes from the DSLR days are quite competitive compared to mirrorless counterparts, but the wide angle and super zoom lenses aren't remotely comparable.
@@shang-hsienyang1284 I would say that the exception to that would be the 70-200ml f2.8 FL ED. It’s the only lens I kept from my F Mount kit. I couldn’t see any major optical improvement to make it worth the investment to change.
Plan on taking mine out for the first time tomorrow. It's only a little heavier than the 24-120mm f/4 but not near as heavy as the Tamron 35-150mm. Got some trips coming up shortly so hoping it fills the one lens for travel role. I will admit I saved all the packaging just in case it needs to go back. Good luck with yours!!!
I was thinking very few people would be ordering this very expensive "soccer mom" lens. I was wrong. Amazing, the lens is on backorder everywhere, everybody preordered even before seeing any serious testing. From all available information right now it's obviously softer (and slower) than 24-200. And the latter isn't particularly sharp (nor fast), I personally don't like it. And one can be sure 28-400 is going to be worse. I might be wrong again, but I expect people will be returning their orders, and there will be a glut of used lenses, in which case Nikon will have to offer serious rebates.
Compared to what? Sure, it's not as sharp as the 28mm f/1.8 nor the 400mm f/2.8. But based on the sample images it's sharp enough for most practical applications such as publishing images online.
@@shang-hsienyang1284 from the reviews it is better than the 24-200. And I have a lot of assignments made with it. So, more happy customers I hope, when I get one
The first tests show it's rather soft at the long end, and even 28mm corners are bad. The MTF published by Nikon also indicate it's worse than 24-200, which is already quite mediocre lens.
I shot with this lens all weekend, and I absolutely love it. I also bought this lens to replace the 28-300 f-mount... and I'm not looking back at all. It's noticeably lighter than the 28-300. This is going to be an incredible travel lens. It's pretty much an outside-only lens unless you're working with flash. It's really dark indoors, even on the wide end (Using a Z7). I shot my nieces horse show this weekend, as well as my wife's work event, and I thought the images were excellent. Granted, I'm not a professional photographer, and I don't do this for a living... so many will likely have more stringent requirements than I do for their images. But, I thought it performed really well. Auto focus was more than sufficient to capture action shots, and even at f/8 you can get some nice subject separation.
I think I read somewhere that it goes to f/8 at 200mm so that’s my only hesitation but I’m really excited to hear what you think!
I am also getting this lens. Let's face it, with maybe a few exceptions, Z lenses are much superior to their F mount counterparts, even non S line are excellent.
I used to have the 28-300mm F mount when I still had my DSLRs and to be fair, it was actually pretty good. Primarily it was my holiday / travel lens, but, in spite of possessing all the F mount pro lens we were 'supposed' to shoot with, I also used it for paid event photography, at 300mm you could get superb close up portraits with great compression and yes, even decent background bokeh.
So to me, this 28-400mm is a very exciting addition to the Z range, whilst I bought the Z 24-200mm to replace F 28-300mm, I do miss that extra reach.
Nice channel you got going here, it's good to see young and enthusiastic photographers coming through!
Long flange distance is very restrictive to wide angle and super zoom design. That's why the long telephoto primes from the DSLR days are quite competitive compared to mirrorless counterparts, but the wide angle and super zoom lenses aren't remotely comparable.
@@shang-hsienyang1284 I would say that the exception to that would be the 70-200ml f2.8 FL ED. It’s the only lens I kept from my F Mount kit. I couldn’t see any major optical improvement to make it worth the investment to change.
Plan on taking mine out for the first time tomorrow. It's only a little heavier than the 24-120mm f/4 but not near as heavy as the Tamron 35-150mm. Got some trips coming up shortly so hoping it fills the one lens for travel role. I will admit I saved all the packaging just in case it needs to go back. Good luck with yours!!!
Yes brilliant lens
looking forward to the review
Hey, is there any chance you could review the Nikon NIKKOR Z DX 18-140mm VR Lens? I'm curious what your thoughts would be on it
Yeah I like it, but I'd still choose the 24-120mm for anything in that range, but it looks nice and sharp on my big screen in the reviews I've seen.
Let's go!!!
I was thinking very few people would be ordering this very expensive "soccer mom" lens. I was wrong. Amazing, the lens is on backorder everywhere, everybody preordered even before seeing any serious testing. From all available information right now it's obviously softer (and slower) than 24-200. And the latter isn't particularly sharp (nor fast), I personally don't like it. And one can be sure 28-400 is going to be worse. I might be wrong again, but I expect people will be returning their orders, and there will be a glut of used lenses, in which case Nikon will have to offer serious rebates.
Not sharp lens
Says who?
Compared to what? Sure, it's not as sharp as the 28mm f/1.8 nor the 400mm f/2.8. But based on the sample images it's sharp enough for most practical applications such as publishing images online.
@@shang-hsienyang1284 from the reviews it is better than the 24-200. And I have a lot of assignments made with it. So, more happy customers I hope, when I get one
The first tests show it's rather soft at the long end, and even 28mm corners are bad. The MTF published by Nikon also indicate it's worse than 24-200, which is already quite mediocre lens.
@@USGrant21st I guess you don't own a 24-200, so you don't know what you are talking about