On March 27, 2024, the Nikon Nikkor Z 28-400mm 1:4-8 VR lens was officially presented.
Nikon Nikkor Z 28-400mm 1: 4-8 VR
Basic properties
- Designed for full-frame mirrorless mount cameras Nikon Z
- Built-in Image Stabilizer Nikon VR, compensates 5 stops (CIPA), or 5.5 stops when paired with the camera's built-in stabilizer
- Relative hole: 1: 4-8 to 1: 22-45
- Focal length: 28-400 mm (EGF for Nikon ZDX is 42-600 mm)
- The first such lens with a zoom factor greater than 14X
- MDF: 0.2 meters per 28 mm and 1.2 meters per 400 mm
- Maximum magnification ratio 1:2.86 (at 28 mm)
- Optical design: 21 elements in 15 groups, with 4 ED (Extra Low Dispersion) elements, 4 aspherical elements. Diagram drawing.
- 9 diaphragm electromagnetic diaphragm
- Focusing with a STM stepper motor
- Internal focus
- Programmable control ring and, as a result, the electronic focus ring
- Filter Diameter: 77 mm
- Zoom lock
- Protected enclosure
- Weight: 725 gram
- Price: about 1300 dollars, Aliexpress Nikon Store
- Lenses with the highest zoom ratios here
Appearance
List of all 'Nikon Nikkor Z' full-frame lenses for mirrorless cameras with Nikon Z mount
Fixes:
- Nikon Nikkor Z 20 mm 1:1.8 S [February 2020, Aliexpress Nikon Store]
- Nikon Nikkor Z 24 mm 1:1.8 S [September 2019, AliExpress]
- Nikon Nikkor Z 26 mm 1:2.8 [January 2023]
- Nikon Nikkor Z 28 mm 1:2.8 [October 2021, AliExpress]
- Nikon Nikkor Z 28 mm 1:2.8 SE [June 2021]
- Nikon Nikkor Z 35 mm 1:1.8 S [August 2018, AliExpress]
- Nikon Nikkor Z 40 mm 1:2 [September 2021, AliExpress]
- Nikon Nikkor Z 40 mm 1:2 SE [November 2022]
- Nikon Nikkor Z 50 mm 1:1.2 S [September 2020]
- Nikon Nikkor Z 50 mm 1:1.8 S [August 2018, AliExpress]
- Nikon Nikkor Z 50 mm 1:2.8 MC [June 2021]
- Nikon Nikkor Z 58 mm 1:0.95 S Nod [October 2019]
- Nikon Nikkor Z 85 mm 1:1.2 S [January 2023]
- Nikon Nikkor Z 85 mm 1:1.8 S [July 2019, AliExpress]
- Nikon Nikkor Z 105 mm 1:2.8 S VR MC [June 2021]
- Nikon Nikkor Z 135 mm 1:1.8 S full [September 2023]
- Nikon Nikkor Z 400 mm 1:2.8 S VR TC [January 2022]
- Nikon Nikkor Z 400 mm 1:4.5 S VR [June 2022, AliExpress]
- Nikon Nikkor Z 600 mm 1:4 S VR TC [November 2022]
- Nikon Nikkor Z 600 mm 1:6.3 S VR PF [October 2023]
- Nikon Nikkor Z 800 mm 1:6.3 S VR PF [April 2022]
Zuma:
- Nikon Nikkor Z 14-24 mm 1:2.8 S [September 2020, Aliexpress Nikon Store]
- Nikon Nikkor Z 14-30 mm 1:4 S [January 2019, AliExpress]
- Nikon Nikkor Z 17-28 mm 1:2.8 [September 2022, AliExpress]
- Nikon Nikkor Z 24-50 mm 1: 4-6.3 [July 2020, AliExpress]
- Nikon Nikkor Z 24-70 mm 1:4 S [August 2018, AliExpress]
- Nikon Nikkor Z 24-70 mm 1:2.8 S [February 2019, AliExpress]
- Nikon Nikkor Z 24-120 mm 1:4 S [October 2021, AliExpress]
- Nikon Nikkor Z 24-200 mm 1: 4-6.3 VR [February 2020, AliExpress]
- Nikon Nikkor Z 28-75 mm 1:2.8 [December 2021, AliExpress]
- Nikon Nikkor Z 28-400 mm 1: 4-8 VR [March 2024]
- Nikon Nikkor Z 70-180 mm 1:2.8 [June 2023]
- Nikon Nikkor Z 70-200 mm 1:2.8 S VR [January 2020, AliExpress]
- Nikon Nikkor Z 100-400 mm 1: 4.5-5.6 S VR [October 2021]
- Nikon Nikkor Z 180-600 mm 1: 5.6-6.3 VR [June 2023]
Third party autofocus full-frame lenses for Nikon Z mount
- felttrox: 20/2.8, 24/1.8, 28/1.8, 35/1.8, 40/2.5, 50/1.8, 85/1.8
- Tamron: 28-75/2.8G2, 35-150/2-2.8, 70-300/4.5-6.3, 150-500/5-6.7
- yongnuo: 35/2, 50/1.8, 85/1.8
- Meike: 50/1.8, 85/1.8, 85/1.4
- TTArtisan: 32/2.8
- 7Artisans: 50/1.8
- AstrHori: 85/1.8
- laowa: 10/2.8
Materials on the topic
- Full frame mirrorless systems... Discussion, choice, recommendations.
- Cropped mirrorless systems... Discussion, choice, recommendations.
- Cropped mirrorless systems that have stopped or are no longer developing
- Digital SLR systems that have stopped or are no longer developing
- JVI or EVI (an important article that answers the question 'DSLR or mirrorless')
- About mirrorless batteries
- Simple and clear medium format
- High-speed solutions from Chinese brands
- All fastest autofocus zoom lenses
- All fastest AF prime lenses
- Mirrored full frame on mirrorless medium format
- Autofocus Speed Boosters
- One lens to rule the world
- The impact of smartphones on the photography market
- What's next (smartphone supremacy)?
- All announcements and novelties of lenses and cameras
Comments on this post do not require registration. Anyone can leave a comment. Many different photographic equipment can be found on AliExpress.
Material prepared Arkady Shapoval. Training/Consultations | Youtube | Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | Telegram
Hmm ...
On the one hand, it’s game, but on the other – nothing surprising, after all, “The first such lens with a zoom factor greater than 14X.” A very interesting option for a typical trip to the mountains without the awkward juggling of lenses on the go. But, yes, 8 on the long end causes unpleasant feelings, but this is a price to pay for the relatively small size and weight, I think.
But the cropped mirror Tamron 16-300/3.5-6.3 AF Di II VC PZD Macro for Nikon F in terms of EGF and “wider” (24mm VS 28mm), and “longer” (450mm VS 400mm), and “lighter” (F/3.5 VS F/4 + F/6.3 VS F/8)
You're right! For some reason I didn't come across it before
Arkady, a strange comparison between the focal length on crop and full frame. If you put this Nikon on a crop top, it will be longer than the Tamron. Or am I missing something?
On a crop top it will be longer, but not wider. The multiplicity will still be less than Tamron.
If you don’t like the example with Tamron 16-300/3.5-6.3 AF Di II VC PZD Macro, you can give an example with Tamron 18-400/3.5-6.3 Di II VC HLD Model B028, again, it will be longer and wider, and lighter in terms of EGF.
Once again, Tamron 18-400 / 3.5-6.3 Di II VC HLD Model B028 on crop (where it should work) will give an EGF of 27-600 mm, and Nikon Nikkor Z 28-400mm 1: 4-8 VR at full frame (where it should work) will give an EGF of 28-400 mm.
Therefore, for example, if pure versatility is important, both Tamrons will benefit from a larger zoom ratio (greater range of focal lengths).
Thanks for the clarification Arkady. The only thing that confuses me is comparing lenses for crop and full frame. Because if you put the tamron on a micro, the focal length will be even longer.
It will be larger, but this will not make it more universal (the wide angle will be lost). But what is required from universality is precisely this “universality”. And it turns out that on a cropped lens it is one and a half times larger (zoom ratio 22.22 versus 14.29).
Arkady, what is the versatility when one person has a crop camera and another has a ff camera, you won’t put a crop lens on a ff camera?
A strange question - after all, there is versatility in the range of focal lengths.
The bottom line is that the cropped Tamron gives more “versatility” on the crop than this Nikkor on the full frame. Then a logical question arises - is full frame really not so universal?
And yes - on an FF camera there are no problems at all with using cropped lenses; resolution is sacrificed for convenience.
We were talking about something else altogether. You're talking about the zoom ratio (range of the zoom range), and you're talking about who has the longer one. But everything is simple - Tamron 16-300 has almost 19x zoom, and 28-400 has 14x zoom. And no matter where you put what, this indicator will not change.
Apparently the user looks at situations solely through the prism of “crop versus full frame,” and not through discussing the specific capabilities of specific lenses. By the way, the Tamron 18-400 generally has a 22x zoom, which is one and a half times more than this Nikkor (22/14=1.57)
In my opinion, versatility is when there are both options and when leaving home you choose what you need for your task. And it’s strange to compare different form factors, each of which has its own technical characteristics and tasks. It's like comparing a sedan and an SUV, you can, but why? The universal will be worse than the special in each of the tasks. You won’t argue that a macro lens won’t do photo hunting for birds and vice versa?
Not weird at all. Both lenses have the same task. Your passage about cars is hackneyed, but is inappropriate here. Your comments here about macro lenses and photo hunting are also inappropriate. We are talking about universal zoom lenses, and the tasks of the Tamron 16-300 and Nikkor 28-400 are the same. Apparently, it’s difficult to come to terms with the fact that the old Tamron on crop provides more opportunities than the new, very, very, full-frame, hence the attempts to shift the conversation from capabilities to the well-worn topic of crop VS full frame discussion
I generally like Nikons and Tamrons. I have micra, crop, and ff. Therefore, I choose what interests me at the moment. And why are my comparisons wrong or inappropriate here? Maybe I didn’t put it that way, but all my thoughts were that there is no point in comparing the incomparable. Universality cannot be general, only in a small interval, so as not to lose quality, for example, 24-70, 80-200. But you will have to pay well for them.
“comparing the incomparable” - what are you talking about? That is, you can’t compare the zoom ratio of lenses? I have never seen such a religion before
And who knows what you meant when you didn’t express it that way? And the remark here is very relevant, it was 5.6, but now it’s 8
Arkady, if you look at my first message, it was about the fact that comparing crop and ff lenses is strange. You compared this full-frame lens from Nikon with a crop lens from Tamron. Do you still continue to insist that it is correct to compare lenses for different systems? Then I wash my hands, the meaning of such a comparison eludes me.
But we compare only some of their capabilities, isn’t it possible?
I would say that zoom ratio is not just some feature, but it is their main feature. The rest is already fading into the background. With these lenses, recalculation of the depth of field due to different formats will worry few people, for example.
Another example of such lenses, where the zoom factor is the main thing, is TV optics. The EGFs are practically the same, sometimes even the range is wider. The aperture is higher, but the format is 1″-4/3″ or even less. These Lab lenses have similar dimensions. And this is obvious: after all, there are graphs of equal-parametric lens curves that show, for example, the relationship between aperture and frame format of lenses with equal field of view angles and a proportional level of quality. There are also graphs of equal quality curves, showing a clear relationship between the possible angle and aperture ratio at the same quality level. So there is no problem in or to compare lenses of different formats that have a common property. This comparison has a very specific and clear meaning. Read “Photographic Optics” by Volosov.
Arkady, comparing “specific parameters” and universality are two different things. If this tamron could be installed on any system without crutches and losses, then it could be called completely universal. And you compared a universal lens for crop with a not so universal lens for FF. They are not interchangeable without crutches. And so, yes, Tamron is the best zoom lens for crop.
So you are not talking about versatility in use, but about compatibility with systems, it turns out?
This is complete nonsense. Universality for a zoom lens is, first of all, a set of focal lengths (viewing angles) and not the ability to be used on different cameras. You’re just moving again from the topic of universal zoom lenses, as such, to the topic of different systems and compatibility
Arkady, Rodion. Does Nikon have a P1000 with its 24-3000 mm, or can it not be compared with Tamron because it’s different?
Of course you can. And here compacts, due to their smaller sensor, significantly crowd out bulky system cameras
Arkady your versatility is a spherical horse in a vacuum
. If the Nikon P1000 is so versatile, why isn’t it used everywhere?
It seems to me that she is not “mine”, but your comments are not valid, I am not the only one pointing this out
Arkady, what is wrong with my comments? Your comments are simply to isolate one property and use it to measure lenses of different classes and systems, regardless of other characteristics (aperture/quality/sharpness/weight/security/form factor/other) are divorced from reality. If you were comparing lenses in the same system, then no questions would arise. Just because two people have the same thoughts does not mean they are right)
You were initially confused by the “strange comparison between the focal length on the crop and the full frame.” Figure out what is strange here (or there is nothing strange), and everything will fall into place
Arkady, you still haven’t answered my questions (they’ll just destroy your illusions). There is nothing to understand there, everything is extremely clear.
Why answer already? “They don’t argue with heretics, they burn them”))
Faust, re-read the thread again. You arrive in some kind of frenzy, they write to you about universal focal lengths, and you talk about some kind of rubbish, and even demand something
It’s difficult for me to answer accusations against me to which I am not involved, for example, along the lines of “one property and use it to measure lenses of different classes and systems, regardless of other characteristics (aperture/quality/sharpness/weight/security/form factor/other ) divorced from reality”
Arkady, I don't blame you for anything! Let's all stay with our own opinion and leave it at that.
I don’t know how to answer this to others except Arkady. The answer button is only on it.
Rodion, as always, you give lengthy, long speeches with some distractions. What does this have to do with heretics, do you know who they are?
resist
The universal focal length is a spherical horse in a vacuum, separated from other characteristics, do you understand this? Here on this site there is some kind of attitude towards abstract examples that I personally do not understand, but God bless him. Nikon p1000 has an even more universal focal length, but for some reason Arkady does not write about it. Because it goes beyond individual lenses. Then you have to come up with a framework for universality, and then universality disappears.
Arkady, of course, sometimes includes Sharikov (“I don’t agree, we need to divide everything”), but this comparison with the Nikon P1000 is also not appropriate: have you seen him live? This is an iron thing, sorry, which is larger than the D850 and one and a half times heavier. There are lenses like Zoom-Nikkor 1200-1700mm f/5.6~f/8.0s P ED IF and no one in their right mind would mention it in comparison, because the cost of a new one can reach 2 million dollars, and the weight is 16 kg. They can also probably take a photo of a map of the moon. But the efficiency of a camera like the P1000 is very low due to its small sensor, very slow lens and heavy weight, despite a wide range of photons. It is unlikely that you will walk around Europe with such a camera, photographing tourist attractions. But in Africa you can probably monitor lions from a closed car. In short, the P1000 is too specific a camera to mention for comparison, at the level of childish maximalism.
I note that I cited P1000 as an exaggerated maxim, but Arkady writes that yes, it can be compared.
The point is that Arkady’s versatility is in a narrow range of crop cameras. To be completely precise, this tamron will be less versatile than this Nikon if you put it on a Canon with a 1.6x crop factor, it will be narrower by 0,8 mm.
What about 16-300? This will be 25.6-480, again we will get both wider and longer. I can repeat myself a million times, it’s not difficult for me. 16-300 will provide a more convenient set of focal lengths than this 28-400, and as a result, will be a more universal solution
Look, he explains to you that purely in terms of FR in terms of EGF, Tamron with its 24-450 (on Nikon) is more universal than Nikon 28-400, because: 1) 28 is actually kind of undersized in comparison with 24 (IMHO), 2) Well, at the long end 450 is more than 400mm.
But IMHO, in fact, I assume that some soapy crap will fly out of Tamron on the crop, especially in the range of 200-300mm, which most likely cannot be said about the FF 28-400. I haven’t held such a tamron in my hands, but on my 17-50f2,8 at some focal lengths (especially 50mm and f2,8) soapy soap flies out. And it seems to me that before it was not so noticeable, it probably damaged the colors in the lens block. IMHO Nikon lenses are more reliable and better quality than Tamron lenses.
Again, the f8 aperture at the long end is like spitting in the soul of Nikonists.
I shot on those Tamrons - they will be better than the native 18-300. As for quality, today's Nikons are Tamrons, here is my video on this matter.
Sergio, and where did I include “Sharikov” here?
The guy who's an expert started a shitstorm, and you're like, “I don't agree...”
Sergio, “But IMHO, in fact, I assume that some soapy crap will fly out of Tamron on the crop, especially in the range of 200-300mm, …”
Exactly. Only those who have never held anything else in their hands can be satisfied with this lens.
Well, well, try your native 18-300, and then Sigmu 18-300 or Tamron 16-300. Of course, these are not fixes, but the original ones turned out worse, even though the original had 3,5-5,6, and the rest are 3,5-6,3.
Arkady, I believe you as a person who touched all these lenses personally. In principle, I did not intend to deprive superzooms of their right to exist.
But for myself personally, after getting acquainted with the Tamron LD II 28-200 mm/3,8-5,6 and Tamron 16-300mm F/3,5-6,3 DI II AF PZD, I made a decision - no more superzooms experiment.
I believe everyone has their own instrument. But don’t flatter yourself that this 28-400 will be significantly better
They're on their way Canon Lens RF 24-105mm F4-7.1 IS STM, where F/7.1 is already 105mm
I had a Nikon 28-300. At first it seemed wildly convenient and all that.
But then you get tired of carrying it around (yes, it’s hard in combination with d3s, being a skinny guy). But even if using the d610 is a bit heavy IMHO, but here the subject weighs similarly... IMHO, the lens is for strong people or not for long forays/hikes)
It seems that due to the low RO on the BZK, the fixes “lightened”, and the television range, on the contrary, “darkened”. I’m not strong in optical engineering, but all three leaders have this tendency. And no one is especially trying to produce a television range like that of DSLRs with at least f/5.6
If anyone understands this, please correct me, it was interesting to learn about this, because the manufacturers are stubbornly silent.
They compensate for the “darkness” with stabilization built into the lens - I assume it is cheaper (in development and production) than squeezing out the aperture from such an insane focal range.
SLR cameras also had a stub. For example, the focal spread of the same Tamron 18-400/3.5-6.3 Di II VC HLD Model B028 is greater than that of this 28-400
Focusing systems do not limit themselves to 5.6 or 6.3. For SLR cameras, this was the limit for the phase sensors of most cameras. Second mirror only about 1/3 of the light was sent towards them. And here phase, hybrid and contrast focusing can focus even with F/40 (example - Canon Lens RF 600mm F11 IS STM).
After looking at the central control circuit diagram, I became interested: you take a regular camera, take out the battery and the viewfinder goes dark. Why does this happen if the eyepiece, mirror and pentaprism are absolutely independent of the battery?
Recently, one guy looked at a D600 with the following defect: its viewfinder is dark, the autofocus sensors are not visible. Only shoots through the viewfinder in the manual. Works great in Lifeview. He was selling the camera for $350 in new condition. 5 thousand frames were clicked. I suggested that he try to repair it, but he refused. It is obvious that the autofocus module is not powered.
Already described here.
Here's what the Nikon D80 camera manual says (page 18)
'If the battery is completely discharged or not installed, the viewfinder screen becomes dim. When a fully charged battery is inserted, the viewfinder screen returns to normal. '
This is not a defect.