Im going to Kenya in October, and this is the perfect solution. I was originally going to put the huge heavy 200-500 f 5.6 on my D750 AND take my ZF with my 24-200 for walk around. This is essentially 2 lenses in one, and I can take just the ZF with this lens and use it for general images and the Safari runs. Terrific solution.
My 24-200 is on eBay this morning. NPS order placed for the 28-400. I'm traveling to Germany in July, and I think this will be great for travel. I think I can get by with this lens, plus my 20mm f1.8 for indoor tight quarters family stuff. Thanks, Nikon.
The 24-200 is my main lens on my Z6-II. I could see using something like this for hiking when birding is part of the scenery. Fully acknowledging that there are optically superior options, the flexibility could be tempting, depending on where Nikon lands price-wise.
Thanks very much, Matt, especially for the comparison to the 24-200. I've already got both the 24-200 and the 100-400, SO, for travel, especially for backpacking, I'll be taking the 24-200 and maybe throw in the 50 f/2.8 macro. For birding when a car is nearby, the 100-400, a Z mount TC, and a tripod work for me. I'll pass on the 28-400, although....... Isn't it great we're not stuck with 400 ASA film "pushed" to 1600. I love the mirrorless age.
Best review of this lens I’ve seen so far Matt! As a moto and mountain bike photographer I’m interested in this lens, although I’m also considering the 180-600 I would like to know if this holds up on the image sharpness compared to that lens?
I have a trip coming up this summer to Germany, and France including Normandy. I am planning to take my Leica Q3 and was also thinking about taking my Zf with my 24-120. This new lens has me thinking that maybe I should upgrade my travel kit.
Have my NPS order already in for 2 reasons. This will be a good second setup for my wife who complains about larger zooms shooting races. This is also a great all around travel lens for landscapes/wildlife. Otherwise the 24-200 is still my main go to for a light travel lens.
I've just changed from my D500 to a Z8 using my old 200-500 lens. This is a great combination for wildlife but heavy. My wife uses a D5600 with a Tamron 18-400 lens because of the weight. This lens would be perfect for her as she particularly likes bird photography and the bird detection of the Z8 is mind blowing. Waiting to see what the new Z6III has to offer in this regard.
Looks Great for uncompromised tourism... It'll help to get great pictures with just one lens, if the light is ok, off course... I'll take a look for one! Thank's Matt!
I've been shooting with the 24-200mm for a couple years - quite happy with it but I rarely if ever need 24mm. 28mm would be just fine for walking around. But 400mm over 200mm is a dramatic improvement. And f8 vs. f6.3 isn't a deal breaker. My only concern is that you mentioned you notice slightly less quality images with the 28-400mm compared to the 24-200mm. Hmm... My ideal zoom lens would be 35mm - 600mm, f5.6 - f10 maybe. to sure the physics would allow for that without big weight and big cost.
I returned it. After shooting with it for a few days I realized it is just not the same quality as the 24-200mm - at least not with bigger prints or cropped shots. 400mm is a very useful focal length - but the quality just has to be there. The 24-200 is a fluke. It produces nearly the same quality images as the Nikon pro lenses. Sharpness, contrast.
I'm not a long lens shooter (or Zoom), pretty much never use longer than an 85mm However, I work with some "enthusiast" photographers that are into wildlife shooting APSC and they Love the Tamron 18-300, which is for a similar market as this lens, especially where there is a long walk/trail where they can't easily carry a large heavy Faster zoom, leaving the Heavy lenses for trips that are a short walk to a hide etc from the car. I'd say that this all in one lens like the Tamron for APSC is ideal for people that would normally look at a high end bridge camera, but want to benefit from the more modern larger sensors in mirrorless cameras. They are never for everyone, and like you say the hit rate is down, and image quality is down, but it is convenient and if capturing the moment is more important that having a super sharp image, these serve a purpose, and at half of the cost and weight to a faster lens. for example the Nikon 100-400 is 1 stop faster at 400mm (F/5.6) but loses everything from 28mm-99mm costs twice as much and weighs twice as much
I feel 24-200 is better travel lens than 28-400. If we are talking about city travel. It is smaller lighter and 200-400 range is not that relevant in terms of general travel while 24mm may be more useful for tight city streets.
It will depend on your type of photography, what camera you own and where are you going. This lens is amazing for full frame but if you're on a crop sensor, 28mm is tight for street or indoor usage. That said, if you're going on a safari or planing on shooting far away subjects, the crop camera will give you a 600mm effective. I think its good to have choices!
Yep, even 200mm is plenty for casual travel. There aren't many situations you need 28mm and 400mm at the same time period. It can be suitable for somebody who doesn't want buying 2 lenses to cover the wide and long ends.
@@JaySilva88 Yes if you noticed I was talking about general city travel. But if I am spending money to go on a safari, or I am doing birding, I am taking a dedicated tele lens, not a super zoom, unless I don't care about quality of the shots I am getting. I've owned Tamron 18-400 on a crop (Fuji and Canon mounts). Thats 27-600 equivalent. Useless lens for me because, once you own any dedicated tele lenses, even a 100-400 type, you will not be able to look at at the pic quality of super zoom at the tele end, it is just not comparable. As for city travel, at least I found that 24-200 is more than enough for 95% of city travel........
@@lour7753 I always found the 28-300mm soft at 300mm on my D850 and Z9. The 28-400mm is lighter than the 28-300mm and much less when the FTZ Adapter is factored in, and one less interface to contend with
Although I switched to Z cameras a couple of years ago, my wife refuses to give up her D800. Her only lens is an F-mount 28-300mm. She loves that lens. This lens would be the ideal lens for her when I finally talk her into moving over to Z. For me, It would be ideal if I were traveling some to some place where it would be absolutely necessary to cut way back on the amount of gear I'd be taking. This one lens would allow that. Of course, I might throw my 14-30mm in just for kicks, but, as you said, this one lens would make great travel lens.
I'm just about to get this lens. I already have the 70-200, so this should fill the gaps. It's a go anywhere lens, and I'm looking forward to getting it.
It may be a good travel kit to have 14-30 & 28-400. If I had to choose just 1 lenses then I agree 24-200 is more practical. I like to carry 2 cameras so I can see carrying ZFc 12-28 & Z6,7,8 28-400
A market for the 28-400mm lens would be parents of athletes. For the 'soccer dad' who wants to take better pictures than the phone camera, a Z6III [soon?] kit with the 24-70mm f/4 plus this 28-400mm f/4-8 would be a great option, hopefully at or under $4k USD. The 24-70 would be great for 'regular' use like family events, pulling out the longer zoom for sports and other situations which need the longer reach.
I've always loved super zoom lenses and feel (at least the fairly modern ones) give good enough IQ for typical all round amateur use. Maybe professional too as long as the photos aren't intended for really large prints. Almost bought the Tamron 18-400 when it came out but switched from Canon EF to MFT where it's not available. IMO the main problem with the largest zoom ranges is not IQ, but that the lenses get so heavy that they aren't suited for carrying around all day. Then you need a smaller lighter lens for that purpose and the advantage of a one lens solution disappear. If you carry the camera in a bag anyway then 28-400 could work fine, but personally I think a 24-105 or 24-200 + 100-400 is better for most people.
When I had my D500 the Tamron 18-400 was my go anywhere lens. Now I have the Z8, I am already covered from 24mm to 600mm. The 24-400 would be an ideal travel lens to cut down on the weight of your camera bag. Will I buy one ? I'm not sure, I might hang on for a bit to see if Tamron bring one out . It's too slow and bulky for my sports photography though.
Considering that my first lens was the Sigma 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3, I kind of of missed this zoom range. Obviously there weren't going to be shallow DoF, but the ability to change perspective is great.
I currently use a Panasonic g95 + 100-400 m43 system when I want something lightweight for birds and critters when I'm hiking. Wondering how this would compare as a lightweight option. Am leaning towards giving it a try for those scenarios.
I have the 18-300 dx f3.5-6.3 .. so i think i will pass on this one. When you are using a super zoom like these ones the versatility of the range is the priority and my old 18-300 == 28-450. quite happy with it still .. and i have the 24-200 z as well so its nice set. with my 35 and 85 primes
I always hike in the Alps, and I already love the 24-200 that I mostly take with me, instead of the 24-70 f2.8. I definitely could be tempted by the extra reach of this one, too.
So is the quality hit due to using higher ISO's or because of the Lens elements? I'm thinking of switching back to Nikon with the Z8 and thinking about getting this lens and saving up for better lens as I can afford them. This review has be on the fence now. I don't want to be stuck with a low-quality lens, but can't afford to buy two expensive lenses (i.e. 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8). What would you recommend?
I mean you pair this with a 14-30 or even the Viltrox 20mm 2.8 lens and you have a two lens travel kit that will cover pretty much all FLs you can think of from 14 or 20mm to 400. I mean in some respects I could see getting something like this for a single lens option (although I have the 24-120 and would never trade that for this or any other travel zoom) but I could see adding this to the bag. I had the 24-200 but wasn't that satisfied with it on the long end. Granted this one is longer, but it does look like sharpness might be a bit better at least to maybe 300mm, which is quite a bit better than the 24-200 despite the extra 2/3 of a stop loss after 200mm (f/8 vs f/6.3) but I think in good light for travel photography, this may not be that much of a problem (and most Z cameras can handle high ISO like 6400 quite well). But I think people who perhaps do travel and casual photography will find this lens to be useful (where they want just one lens that does it all, or most of it at least, as 28mm is not exactly what some people would call "wide" but still it would be one lens you could use that would give you reasonably wide shots to extreme telephoto and you'd never have to worry about having the wrong lens on the camera. I mean again, if you got the Viltrox 20mm that can fit in a coat pocket and you have a portable travel kit with decent IQ overall between the two lenses. I think this does fall in the middle of the (single) travel zoom lens range, which the 24-120 being the top, and the 24-200 perhaps being at the bottom (from an optical standpoint, even though the new 28-400 is slower)... at least that's how I'd probably rank the three travel zooms they have now. Although it may be a debate as to whether the 24-120 really qualifies as a true travel zoom due to its shorter focal length though, but for some 120mm may be enough for them so I guess we could include it in this list. Honestly I don't consider the others like the 100-400 personally to be travel zoom lenses, but more of a specific use-case lens. For travel zoom personally I see those as lenses that go from wide to telephoto (wide byeing say 35mm or wider and telephoto being over 100mm).
I appreciate the detailed review. But a few years ago, I bought the 28-400 zoom from Tamron. The focus breathing was horrid, barely reaching 300 mm on our backyard bird feeders, at a distance of about 20 feet. While I'm sure it would have reached 400 mm at infinity where it is usually measured, I already had a 300 mm lens for closer distances. So I traded it in for the Tamron 100-400, which had virtually no focus breathing at the same distance. Given the variability, I really don't understand why reviewers (and manufacturers) don't provide specs for focus breathing, which is often substantial for these long telephotos. Even a qualitative assessment would be helpful e.g. the viewfinder view as the focus distance decreases from infinity, which shows significant shrinkage with focus breathing.
@@mattgranger Sorry for the typo, Matt. It was the Tamron 18-400, but the point remains. Long zooms often suffer from focus breathing, though it varies a great deal even between lenses from the same manufacturer. I wasn't the only one who reported dissatisfaction with this particular model, though I was among the lucky ones who measured it before the return date had passed.
6:10 To those points, what is Nikon's hyperfixation with 400mm?? 😅 The amount of primes & zooms we now have in Z-mount that cater to this range is crazy. I personally would've liked the original rumored aperture range of F3.5-6.3 but I can see that they didn't want to undercut the Z 24-200/4-6.3 Despite that, I wish they had collaborated with Tamron again & took the aperture from their 28-200 & put it on the Z 28-400/2.8-5.6...
haha, true 400mm is well serviced. 2 things to note - a rumor of f3.5 to 6.3 means nothing. its a rumor. That doesn't mean nikon ever even considered it. And collaborating with tamron to take the aperture from a 28-200 and put it on this .. sorry that makes no sense. Going from 200 to 400mm you loose 2 stops of light. That would take the tamron to f11. These are completely unrelated lenses.
There are three ~200mm options: the 70-200mm f/2.8, 24-200mm f/4-6.3, and the 'Tamron' 70-180mm f/2.8. The hyperfixation with 400mm is that doubling that to 400mm meets the greatest needs. Going from 200mm to 300mm can be achieved with a DX 1.5x crop, so it would be a less significant benefit to most photographers. The 24mp image becomes a 10mp image, still more than adequate for most people's uses. A 2x crop makes it a 6mp image, still good enough for some but many would prefer to get to 400mm with optics. And the zoom lenses which include 400mm also include 300mm. It is a 2/3-stop difference between f/6.3 and f/8. But the front lens element might need to be as much as 25% larger. Nikon seems confident that their cameras can handle the 2/3-stop increase in ISO to avoid the larger, heavier, more expensive lens.
Actually looks like an interesting lens. I can imagine it is a great option for a person that wants a single lens, but don’t need ultra wide (I am thinking hiking where you have landscapes and a few simple wildlife options). I think city leans to wider FLs and aperture options. Also, superzooms are great and underrated!!!!
The 24-200 is good but I think there will be too much compromises in image quality for such a long zoom range. I'd like Nikon to make a smaller/lighter tele zoom like a 70-300 or similar to go with the 24-70 or 24-120.
I'm not a friend of f8, always waiting for a lens from Nikon with 24-300 or 28-300 like Tamron do for Sony. When I'm travel, I want to shoot even Lowlight pictures. I know that the quality is not the same as smaller Range or a fixed focal length, but for the time in holidays or for travel I don't want to take so many lenses with me.I think it is better for lowlight. I had the 24-200 from Nikon before, but it was too short for me at the end, and with 70-300 from Tamron, I'm even not happy as a travel lens because of the 70 mm. So I hope for some Lens in between.
It’s super versatile at midday but the images do have that ”kit lens” feel to them. Should be great if you only shoot in full sunshine and don’t want super shallow dof. Not for me. I’m happy with MFT for travel and the heavy FF stuff for work.
@@dicekolev5360 😂😂 I have an S22 Ultra with a longer Tele than S24 and it is utter crap. I can get way more detail on a distant subject with a 50mm lens on a full frame than the 230mm equivalent on S22. I'd be glad to have that 28-400mm as a just-in-case lens instead of hauling my 100-400mm everywhere just for identifying random birds when I'm not really planning to take any proper shots. And yes, binoculars might be smaller and cheaper but they can't take a picture. 28-400 is also perfect for landscapes where you'll often be at f/11 anyways
@@TheDeltaMoo all agree except I still don't get why people shoot landscapes at f/11 for example like... what makes it "understandable" or "for sure anyway" haha? I mean, leave those old understanding of lower the f-stop better the details... i mean, yiur choice but my most use lens for example is 7artisans 50mm 1.05 manual focus lens and I shoot from portraits to landscapes at 1.05 and never had an issue or whatever. It depends on the personal style and I also have z100-400 and 5.6 at 400 is bad in slight cloudy weather so I'd never waste money on Nkn S line 400mm f8 just to have some comfort of having the lens just in case 😁. Don't get me wrong, hapoy shooting if you really buy it but it's too much of a compromise. And yeah, I'm not much impressed with s24 Ultra either except the 5x Zoom 😁
No one commented on using it as a cinema lens with the Z9. Generally with cinema the need for extreme focus is less because of motion blur. Your review didn't encourage me to buy it for photography.
Wow…. What a surprise. Seems like this could be the perfect lens for someone who thinks 120 or 200 just isn’t enough. I just bought the 24-120 f4 and that’s plenty for me. Personally, I don’t think id Use the 200-400 enough to justify the aperture drop off and the extra weight. But id like to rent it every now and then.
28 mm just isn't wide enough for me; especially for travel photography. The 4 mm between 24 and 28 mm makes such a difference. Also, I would find the f/8 aperture quite limiting except in very bright light. The 24 to 200 mm f/4-6.3 makes more sense for me. If I was on Nikon gear, I would have a hard time choosing between that lens and de 24-120 f/4.
I really love your channel watching you since early times but i hate seeing animal markets i breaks my heart i know different country... But it's awful what happens there behind the scenes:/ much love to you and your photography content.
Probably not one for me. F/8 at 200mm is just too much of a sacrifice. Also it’s not cheap. My Tamron 100-400/4.5-6.3 for F-mount cost me 550 pounds (used) and it’s better quality. Not as small not as big a range as this, but much cheaper. It is kind of comparing apples (DSLR) to oranges (ML) though. Still, I could potentially get the 24-120/4, an FTZ II and my Tamron for about the same money. Much heavier, but also much more capable. If you use this lens on an FX camera, you get the equivalent of an 18-265mm f/2.7-5.3 lens on DX, and I think that’s how you have to see this lens. It’s perhaps still expensive, but it does offer something unique. I do hope this doesn’t mean that Nikon is ending Z DX though.
i think is a mstake just to make a longer end tele lens sacrifice so much with the light , at f8 .Way way too slow , like having a mirror lens . Tamron does better & sensible f stops
$1300 is a insane price to pay for F8. Most folks would be better off starting with the Nikon NIKKOR Z 24-120mm f/4 S Lens as opposed to chasing more length. And if someone really wants far more, they can get it on the cheap with the TTArtisan 500mm f/6.3 Lens (Nikon Z). Then one can actual learn about how Critical, focusing can be.
Any zoom lens with an extreme range is surely very useful ... and is also entirely impractical. Size, weight, poor image quality, the relative impossibility of a constant f/stop larger that f/4, and so forth. Better to rent that sort of lens if you need one for a while, rather than purchase one.
Leaving the not pleasant bird in cage market out would make for a better review. Birds belong in the wild not messed about with as performing monkeys by performing apes.
No idea who Nikon thought this was good for. My best guess, they’re appealing to the people who don’t know better. Want a 400mm for wildlife… at f/8…. Good luck.
canon rf 200-800 f9 according to this guy is compromise, nikon 28-400 f8 is extremely versatile. such a clear bias. and i didnt expect better. but anyway you do you.
@@mattgranger the intent of a video plays a huge role of peoples expectations and conclusions. when you title or start a video with stating compromise, people conclude its bad, regardless of the minor positives you say throughout. when you start a video with neutral or positive tone, people conclude this is a good product, regardless if you state compromise along the way. next time always analyze if youre fair to the product or just being a bias nikon fanboy. without bias, both these lenses are just as versatile or compromised in their fields of contest. dont play one as versatile and other as compromised.
I take full responsibility for what I said and how I said it. I can’t force you to listen, think or understand. Watch it again and maybe you’ll get it. 🤷♀️ I said they are masters of compromise. All design requires compromise, and they do it better than the other brands. Don’t get so lost in your fandom that you can’t actually hear what’s being said. And please stop projecting on me. You can’t claim to know my intentions
@@mattgranger everyone heard clearly what's being said and the bias is obvious to anyone critical. This video is fun and joyful that canon video is critical and stern. Even from the comments most people took this nikon video a positive review and the Canon review as a compromised lens. All because that's what you keep emphasizing. And who intentionally wants a compromise? No one. The angle a review takes or points being emphasized changes the conclusion to most people. You probably even changed the title of the Canon video to sound more positive. In the end I know when one is bias, many people may not and would be led wrongly. If you were an honest person or a critical minded person you would realize I've stated truths, instead of trying to defend yourself.
Have you gone back and watched the canon video again? The title is "Canon 200-800mm - Great Value ULTRA Telephoto Zoom" - has been since it was launched. I clearly said that 'lens design always involves compromise' and repeatedly praised that canon are leaders, and create lenses that other brands couldn't. I said they are masters at balancing this necessary compromise. I don't know if you are not native english speaker, have comprehension issues, or just argumentative and protective of your brand... But here is the link. You or anyone else can watch it. I will leave it at that. I stand by it 100%. ruclips.net/video/B50euvi2BH0/видео.html I also stand by that a 14.2x zoom range (28-400) is more versatile than a 4x range of 200-800 - I didn't compare them, but you are. ruclips.net/video/B50euvi2BH0/видео.html I hope you do watch it, and put your preconceptions aside to hear what I actually said. Either way, I think that is more than enough of my time trying to clear this up. All the best.
28-400mm is a great travel lens for Architects (we like to shoot construction details) and 200mm is not enough sometimes.
Thank you for this video.
Im going to Kenya in October, and this is the perfect solution. I was originally going to put the huge heavy 200-500 f 5.6 on my D750 AND take my ZF with my 24-200 for walk around. This is essentially 2 lenses in one, and I can take just the ZF with this lens and use it for general images and the Safari runs. Terrific solution.
Thank you for the fair initial review and especially comparison to 24-200
It's for me. Currently using D850/28-300 as my daily carry. Going over to this on a Z8 would save some weight.
My 24-200 is on eBay this morning. NPS order placed for the 28-400. I'm traveling to Germany in July, and I think this will be great for travel. I think I can get by with this lens, plus my 20mm f1.8 for indoor tight quarters family stuff. Thanks, Nikon.
Have fun!
The 24-200 is my main lens on my Z6-II. I could see using something like this for hiking when birding is part of the scenery. Fully acknowledging that there are optically superior options, the flexibility could be tempting, depending on where Nikon lands price-wise.
Thanks very much, Matt, especially for the comparison to the 24-200. I've already got both the 24-200 and the 100-400, SO, for travel, especially for backpacking, I'll be taking the 24-200 and maybe throw in the 50 f/2.8 macro. For birding when a car is nearby, the 100-400, a Z mount TC, and a tripod work for me. I'll pass on the 28-400, although....... Isn't it great we're not stuck with 400 ASA film "pushed" to 1600. I love the mirrorless age.
I received mine today! Really looking forward to this being my new hiking and travel lens!
Best review of this lens I’ve seen so far Matt! As a moto and mountain bike photographer I’m interested in this lens, although I’m also considering the 180-600 I would like to know if this holds up on the image sharpness compared to that lens?
I have a trip coming up this summer to Germany, and France including Normandy. I am planning to take my Leica Q3 and was also thinking about taking my Zf with my 24-120. This new lens has me thinking that maybe I should upgrade my travel kit.
Have my NPS order already in for 2 reasons. This will be a good second setup for my wife who complains about larger zooms shooting races. This is also a great all around travel lens for landscapes/wildlife. Otherwise the 24-200 is still my main go to for a light travel lens.
I've just changed from my D500 to a Z8 using my old 200-500 lens. This is a great combination for wildlife but heavy. My wife uses a D5600 with a Tamron 18-400 lens because of the weight. This lens would be perfect for her as she particularly likes bird photography and the bird detection of the Z8 is mind blowing. Waiting to see what the new Z6III has to offer in this regard.
Looks Great for uncompromised tourism...
It'll help to get great pictures with just one lens, if the light is ok, off course...
I'll take a look for one!
Thank's Matt!
Great to see Hong Kong again. I spent a lot of time there over 20 years
Cheers. Been living here a few years now. Fun city.
I've been shooting with the 24-200mm for a couple years - quite happy with it but I rarely if ever need 24mm. 28mm would be just fine for walking around. But 400mm over 200mm is a dramatic improvement. And f8 vs. f6.3 isn't a deal breaker. My only concern is that you mentioned you notice slightly less quality images with the 28-400mm compared to the 24-200mm. Hmm... My ideal zoom lens would be 35mm - 600mm, f5.6 - f10 maybe. to sure the physics would allow for that without big weight and big cost.
I returned it. After shooting with it for a few days I realized it is just not the same quality as the 24-200mm - at least not with bigger prints or cropped shots. 400mm is a very useful focal length - but the quality just has to be there. The 24-200 is a fluke. It produces nearly the same quality images as the Nikon pro lenses. Sharpness, contrast.
amazing range! when hiking/travelling a perfect lightweight solution
I'm not a long lens shooter (or Zoom), pretty much never use longer than an 85mm
However, I work with some "enthusiast" photographers that are into wildlife shooting APSC and they Love the Tamron 18-300, which is for a similar market as this lens, especially where there is a long walk/trail where they can't easily carry a large heavy Faster zoom, leaving the Heavy lenses for trips that are a short walk to a hide etc from the car.
I'd say that this all in one lens like the Tamron for APSC is ideal for people that would normally look at a high end bridge camera, but want to benefit from the more modern larger sensors in mirrorless cameras.
They are never for everyone, and like you say the hit rate is down, and image quality is down, but it is convenient and if capturing the moment is more important that having a super sharp image, these serve a purpose, and at half of the cost and weight to a faster lens.
for example the Nikon 100-400 is 1 stop faster at 400mm (F/5.6) but loses everything from 28mm-99mm costs twice as much and weighs twice as much
I feel 24-200 is better travel lens than 28-400. If we are talking about city travel. It is smaller lighter and 200-400 range is not that relevant in terms of general travel while 24mm may be more useful for tight city streets.
yeah and if you have more higher resolution body like z7ii, with 50% crop you'll still have a lot of resolution
It will depend on your type of photography, what camera you own and where are you going. This lens is amazing for full frame but if you're on a crop sensor, 28mm is tight for street or indoor usage. That said, if you're going on a safari or planing on shooting far away subjects, the crop camera will give you a 600mm effective. I think its good to have choices!
Yep, even 200mm is plenty for casual travel. There aren't many situations you need 28mm and 400mm at the same time period. It can be suitable for somebody who doesn't want buying 2 lenses to cover the wide and long ends.
@@JaySilva88 Yes if you noticed I was talking about general city travel. But if I am spending money to go on a safari, or I am doing birding, I am taking a dedicated tele lens, not a super zoom, unless I don't care about quality of the shots I am getting. I've owned Tamron 18-400 on a crop (Fuji and Canon mounts). Thats 27-600 equivalent. Useless lens for me because, once you own any dedicated tele lenses, even a 100-400 type, you will not be able to look at at the pic quality of super zoom at the tele end, it is just not comparable. As for city travel, at least I found that 24-200 is more than enough for 95% of city travel........
I personally didn't like the image quality of the 24-200 compared to the other Z lenses and didn't keep it long.
Glad it's working for you though!
I have the Z dx 50-250 for my Nikon Z fc, however, I’m very tempted to get this lens for my dx camera.
I miss my Walk about 28-300, so I will try one out. Whenever Nikon gets around to releasing it
I'm excited about finally having a native replacement! not to mention the weight savings (between the lens+FTZ).
April 18, 2024
I still use the 28-300mm on my Z9
@@lour7753
I always found the 28-300mm soft at 300mm on my D850 and Z9. The 28-400mm is lighter than the 28-300mm and much less when the FTZ Adapter is factored in, and one less interface to contend with
Although I switched to Z cameras a couple of years ago, my wife refuses to give up her D800. Her only lens is an F-mount 28-300mm. She loves that lens. This lens would be the ideal lens for her when I finally talk her into moving over to Z.
For me, It would be ideal if I were traveling some to some place where it would be absolutely necessary to cut way back on the amount of gear I'd be taking. This one lens would allow that. Of course, I might throw my 14-30mm in just for kicks, but, as you said, this one lens would make great travel lens.
Very interesting for a one lens travel setup. Maybe a fast prime for night.
All it needs is a good quality APSC to go with it
I'm just about to get this lens. I already have the 70-200, so this should fill the gaps.
It's a go anywhere lens, and I'm looking forward to getting it.
it is a gift for both wildlife and landscape photographers
It may be a good travel kit to have 14-30 & 28-400. If I had to choose just 1 lenses then I agree 24-200 is more practical. I like to carry 2 cameras so I can see carrying ZFc 12-28 & Z6,7,8 28-400
A market for the 28-400mm lens would be parents of athletes. For the 'soccer dad' who wants to take better pictures than the phone camera, a Z6III [soon?] kit with the 24-70mm f/4 plus this 28-400mm f/4-8 would be a great option, hopefully at or under $4k USD. The 24-70 would be great for 'regular' use like family events, pulling out the longer zoom for sports and other situations which need the longer reach.
Merci pour cette présentation et ton honnêteté
I've always loved super zoom lenses and feel (at least the fairly modern ones) give good enough IQ for typical all round amateur use. Maybe professional too as long as the photos aren't intended for really large prints. Almost bought the Tamron 18-400 when it came out but switched from Canon EF to MFT where it's not available. IMO the main problem with the largest zoom ranges is not IQ, but that the lenses get so heavy that they aren't suited for carrying around all day. Then you need a smaller lighter lens for that purpose and the advantage of a one lens solution disappear. If you carry the camera in a bag anyway then 28-400 could work fine, but personally I think a 24-105 or 24-200 + 100-400 is better for most people.
When I had my D500 the Tamron 18-400 was my go anywhere lens. Now I have the Z8,
I am already covered from 24mm to 600mm. The 24-400 would be an ideal travel lens
to cut down on the weight of your camera bag. Will I buy one ? I'm not sure, I might
hang on for a bit to see if Tamron bring one out . It's too slow and bulky for my sports
photography though.
Thanks Matt. Good simplified review👍
this is a walk-around one size fits all lens. It would be nice for it to be a bit faster on the long end but that would increase the size of it.
I think it's for someone getting their first camera. Like the 28-300mm walk around lens. One body, one lens, does it all.
Considering that my first lens was the Sigma 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3, I kind of of missed this zoom range. Obviously there weren't going to be shallow DoF, but the ability to change perspective is great.
Another excellent video! Do you know if there is a Nikon lens with this kind of range with an AF motor also?
Thanks Matt! Great real world review as usual. Any comments on weather/dust resistance and filter size?
Didn’t test the weather sealing mate. Full specs at link in description.
I currently use a Panasonic g95 + 100-400 m43 system when I want something lightweight for birds and critters when I'm hiking. Wondering how this would compare as a lightweight option. Am leaning towards giving it a try for those scenarios.
Just bought one for my Z9 means I don't have to carry a huge kit bag for a holiday I have other lenses for serious shooting but on a holiday ?
Luv the Spanish/Mexican music background for Hong Kong with sweet Honey.
I have the 18-300 dx f3.5-6.3 .. so i think i will pass on this one. When you are using a super zoom like these ones the versatility of the range is the priority and my old 18-300 == 28-450. quite happy with it still .. and i have the 24-200 z as well so its nice set. with my 35 and 85 primes
I always hike in the Alps, and I already love the 24-200 that I mostly take with me, instead of the 24-70 f2.8. I definitely could be tempted by the extra reach of this one, too.
So is the quality hit due to using higher ISO's or because of the Lens elements? I'm thinking of switching back to Nikon with the Z8 and thinking about getting this lens and saving up for better lens as I can afford them. This review has be on the fence now. I don't want to be stuck with a low-quality lens, but can't afford to buy two expensive lenses (i.e. 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8). What would you recommend?
Grate pictures
Please compare the nikon z28-400mm vs tamron 50-400mm
The Tamron 18-400 is my choice. It is wider and on 400 mm it is 6.3. I use this with the FTZ adapter on my Z 7 ll. It is my favorite..
thats a dx lens no?
I mean you pair this with a 14-30 or even the Viltrox 20mm 2.8 lens and you have a two lens travel kit that will cover pretty much all FLs you can think of from 14 or 20mm to 400. I mean in some respects I could see getting something like this for a single lens option (although I have the 24-120 and would never trade that for this or any other travel zoom) but I could see adding this to the bag. I had the 24-200 but wasn't that satisfied with it on the long end. Granted this one is longer, but it does look like sharpness might be a bit better at least to maybe 300mm, which is quite a bit better than the 24-200 despite the extra 2/3 of a stop loss after 200mm (f/8 vs f/6.3) but I think in good light for travel photography, this may not be that much of a problem (and most Z cameras can handle high ISO like 6400 quite well). But I think people who perhaps do travel and casual photography will find this lens to be useful (where they want just one lens that does it all, or most of it at least, as 28mm is not exactly what some people would call "wide" but still it would be one lens you could use that would give you reasonably wide shots to extreme telephoto and you'd never have to worry about having the wrong lens on the camera. I mean again, if you got the Viltrox 20mm that can fit in a coat pocket and you have a portable travel kit with decent IQ overall between the two lenses.
I think this does fall in the middle of the (single) travel zoom lens range, which the 24-120 being the top, and the 24-200 perhaps being at the bottom (from an optical standpoint, even though the new 28-400 is slower)... at least that's how I'd probably rank the three travel zooms they have now. Although it may be a debate as to whether the 24-120 really qualifies as a true travel zoom due to its shorter focal length though, but for some 120mm may be enough for them so I guess we could include it in this list. Honestly I don't consider the others like the 100-400 personally to be travel zoom lenses, but more of a specific use-case lens. For travel zoom personally I see those as lenses that go from wide to telephoto (wide byeing say 35mm or wider and telephoto being over 100mm).
I am a fan of these travel zooms but as it's f8 at 200 onwards, I am not sure it's for me tbh.
I appreciate the detailed review. But a few years ago, I bought the 28-400 zoom from Tamron. The focus breathing was horrid, barely reaching 300 mm on our backyard bird feeders, at a distance of about 20 feet. While I'm sure it would have reached 400 mm at infinity where it is usually measured, I already had a 300 mm lens for closer distances. So I traded it in for the Tamron 100-400, which had virtually no focus breathing at the same distance. Given the variability, I really don't understand why reviewers (and manufacturers) don't provide specs for focus breathing, which is often substantial for these long telephotos. Even a qualitative assessment would be helpful e.g. the viewfinder view as the focus distance decreases from infinity, which shows significant shrinkage with focus breathing.
Cheers mate. But there wasn’t a 28-400 from tamron afaik
@@mattgranger Sorry for the typo, Matt. It was the Tamron 18-400, but the point remains. Long zooms often suffer from focus breathing, though it varies a great deal even between lenses from the same manufacturer. I wasn't the only one who reported dissatisfaction with this particular model, though I was among the lucky ones who measured it before the return date had passed.
6:10 To those points, what is Nikon's hyperfixation with 400mm?? 😅 The amount of primes & zooms we now have in Z-mount that cater to this range is crazy.
I personally would've liked the original rumored aperture range of F3.5-6.3 but I can see that they didn't want to undercut the Z 24-200/4-6.3
Despite that, I wish they had collaborated with Tamron again & took the aperture from their 28-200 & put it on the Z 28-400/2.8-5.6...
haha, true 400mm is well serviced. 2 things to note - a rumor of f3.5 to 6.3 means nothing. its a rumor. That doesn't mean nikon ever even considered it. And collaborating with tamron to take the aperture from a 28-200 and put it on this .. sorry that makes no sense. Going from 200 to 400mm you loose 2 stops of light. That would take the tamron to f11. These are completely unrelated lenses.
There are three ~200mm options: the 70-200mm f/2.8, 24-200mm f/4-6.3, and the 'Tamron' 70-180mm f/2.8. The hyperfixation with 400mm is that doubling that to 400mm meets the greatest needs. Going from 200mm to 300mm can be achieved with a DX 1.5x crop, so it would be a less significant benefit to most photographers. The 24mp image becomes a 10mp image, still more than adequate for most people's uses. A 2x crop makes it a 6mp image, still good enough for some but many would prefer to get to 400mm with optics. And the zoom lenses which include 400mm also include 300mm.
It is a 2/3-stop difference between f/6.3 and f/8. But the front lens element might need to be as much as 25% larger. Nikon seems confident that their cameras can handle the 2/3-stop increase in ISO to avoid the larger, heavier, more expensive lens.
Actually looks like an interesting lens. I can imagine it is a great option for a person that wants a single lens, but don’t need ultra wide (I am thinking hiking where you have landscapes and a few simple wildlife options). I think city leans to wider FLs and aperture options. Also, superzooms are great and underrated!!!!
The 24-200 is good but I think there will be too much compromises in image quality for such a long zoom range. I'd like Nikon to make a smaller/lighter tele zoom like a 70-300 or similar to go with the 24-70 or 24-120.
I'm not a friend of f8, always waiting for a lens from Nikon with 24-300 or 28-300 like Tamron do for Sony. When I'm travel, I want to shoot even Lowlight pictures. I know that the quality is not the same as smaller Range or a fixed focal length, but for the time in holidays or for travel I don't want to take so many lenses with me.I think it is better for lowlight. I had the 24-200 from Nikon before, but it was too short for me at the end, and with 70-300 from Tamron, I'm even not happy as a travel lens because of the 70 mm. So I hope for some Lens in between.
It is useful for wildlife shots but the combo is over 1Kg, a bit too heavy for my walks
hi. how is the image quality compared to the sony rx10 iv?
Yeah nice question!
It’s super versatile at midday but the images do have that ”kit lens” feel to them. Should be great if you only shoot in full sunshine and don’t want super shallow dof. Not for me. I’m happy with MFT for travel and the heavy FF stuff for work.
Maaaaan... That's super tempting. I'd be way more likely to have that in my backpack than my 100-400 if I ran across some wildlife.
At f8 I'd rather use Samsung s24 Ultra where the aperture is actually f/3.4, lol
@@dicekolev5360 1/1.3”
@@dicekolev5360I hope you don’t think that’s in any way comparable. Smartphone companies are the biggest liars when it comes to camera specs.
@@dicekolev5360 😂😂 I have an S22 Ultra with a longer Tele than S24 and it is utter crap. I can get way more detail on a distant subject with a 50mm lens on a full frame than the 230mm equivalent on S22.
I'd be glad to have that 28-400mm as a just-in-case lens instead of hauling my 100-400mm everywhere just for identifying random birds when I'm not really planning to take any proper shots. And yes, binoculars might be smaller and cheaper but they can't take a picture.
28-400 is also perfect for landscapes where you'll often be at f/11 anyways
@@TheDeltaMoo all agree except I still don't get why people shoot landscapes at f/11 for example like... what makes it "understandable" or "for sure anyway" haha? I mean, leave those old understanding of lower the f-stop better the details... i mean, yiur choice but my most use lens for example is 7artisans 50mm 1.05 manual focus lens and I shoot from portraits to landscapes at 1.05 and never had an issue or whatever. It depends on the personal style and I also have z100-400 and 5.6 at 400 is bad in slight cloudy weather so I'd never waste money on Nkn S line 400mm f8 just to have some comfort of having the lens just in case 😁. Don't get me wrong, hapoy shooting if you really buy it but it's too much of a compromise. And yeah, I'm not much impressed with s24 Ultra either except the 5x Zoom 😁
Jack of all focal lengths, master of none...
You'll be paying 2x to 10x for a master of 400mm. So I'd say it's a master of focal lengths that one might use only occasionally
Please ompare the nikon z28-400mm vs tamron 50-400mm
No one commented on using it as a cinema lens with the Z9. Generally with cinema the need for extreme focus is less because of motion blur. Your review didn't encourage me to buy it for photography.
Christian Slater reviewing Nikon lens
Hello, can you use macro?
Wow…. What a surprise. Seems like this could be the perfect lens for someone who thinks 120 or 200 just isn’t enough. I just bought the 24-120 f4 and that’s plenty for me. Personally, I don’t think id
Use the 200-400 enough to justify the aperture drop off and the extra weight. But id like to rent it every now and then.
it all comes down to versatility (as you indicated) for the price (!) - how much does this 28-400mm lens cost???
Link in description 👍🏼
28 mm just isn't wide enough for me; especially for travel photography. The 4 mm between 24 and 28 mm makes such a difference. Also, I would find the f/8 aperture quite limiting except in very bright light. The 24 to 200 mm f/4-6.3 makes more sense for me. If I was on Nikon gear, I would have a hard time choosing between that lens and de 24-120 f/4.
I guess many will share your POV
Maybe I missed it in the Video, but how Well, does the VR in the Lens work in conjunction with the IBS, at less than Ideal Shutter Speeds?
They claim 5.5 stops
It seems like they've adapted the Tamron 28-400 F mount to the Z mount
Tamron didn’t make such a lens.
@@mattgranger Yeah… sorry. Meant the 18-400
That wasn’t full frame
This lens is pure Z mount. The rear element is too far back for any other mount, I think.
How it does in video?
Have you got a setup guide for the Z8 with firmware 2.X ?
Yes mate, the guide includes firmware updates, and it was updated for z8 v2.0 the day the firmware went public. learn.mattgranger.com/courses/zsetup
Soon we will have f11?
Canon already make an 800mm f11
I really love your channel watching you since early times but i hate seeing animal markets i breaks my heart i know different country... But it's awful what happens there behind the scenes:/ much love to you and your photography content.
Seems like it would be a good 'travel lens', but does it feel solid or like flimsy plastic in your hands?
As you might expect. Its not a kit lens, but it isn't as sturdy feeling as the 24-70 or 24-140. Similar to 24-200 I guess
Surprised you were allowed to take photos at the bird market in HK - when we were there in November last year the store owners really didn't like it!
I’ve been going enough now that I know who is ok, and when they won’t like it (like when gambling) 😂
I have the 24-200 and 70-180 and think I’m selling them for this 28-400.
Probably not one for me. F/8 at 200mm is just too much of a sacrifice. Also it’s not cheap. My Tamron 100-400/4.5-6.3 for F-mount cost me 550 pounds (used) and it’s better quality. Not as small not as big a range as this, but much cheaper. It is kind of comparing apples (DSLR) to oranges (ML) though.
Still, I could potentially get the 24-120/4, an FTZ II and my Tamron for about the same money. Much heavier, but also much more capable.
If you use this lens on an FX camera, you get the equivalent of an 18-265mm f/2.7-5.3 lens on DX, and I think that’s how you have to see this lens. It’s perhaps still expensive, but it does offer something unique. I do hope this doesn’t mean that Nikon is ending Z DX though.
Good review, I like your realistic summary.
I love it when people judge a product before actually having used it……..thank you.
RUclipsr: APSC lenses are smaller than full frame.
NIKON: Hold my beer.
F8 ?
i think is a mstake just to make a longer end tele lens sacrifice so much with the light , at f8 .Way way too slow , like having a mirror lens . Tamron does better & sensible f stops
I'd get it, but that "early" F8 is killing me. So IDK.
0:41 I thought you did skin softening too much😊 but it was old clip..
Just purchased one, Matt. Not sure I like it….
This lens is for photo journalists, the old adage, “F8 and be there”. Cheers
$1300 is a insane price to pay for F8. Most folks would be better off starting with the Nikon NIKKOR Z 24-120mm f/4 S Lens as opposed to chasing more length. And if someone really wants far more, they can get it on the cheap with the TTArtisan 500mm f/6.3 Lens (Nikon Z). Then one can actual learn about how Critical, focusing can be.
2024 and we cant still do portrait video on the Nikon app
Any zoom lens with an extreme range is surely very useful ... and is also entirely impractical. Size, weight, poor image quality, the relative impossibility of a constant f/stop larger that f/4, and so forth. Better to rent that sort of lens if you need one for a while, rather than purchase one.
Leaving the not pleasant bird in cage market out would make for a better review. Birds belong in the wild not messed about with as performing monkeys by performing apes.
Matt fails to appreciate the value of an ultra zoom range when shooting video, both street and wildlife videos.
Perhaps I didn’t emphasize it to the level you’d like in this video. I certainly do long video myself for wildlife, not street though.
Honey is sweet as always.
Would you buy an f4-f8 zoom??
Nikon Z Setup Guide: learn.mattgranger.com/courses/zsetup
Check it out at B&H: geni.us/28400z
ProTip: don't make jokes about being a 's p y' in that red state. It's not a joke anymore. We don't want you to suddenly disappear
f/8 is too slow for me.
But f4 😅
No idea who Nikon thought this was good for. My best guess, they’re appealing to the people who don’t know better. Want a 400mm for wildlife… at f/8…. Good luck.
Reading the comments, it seems there are a lot of people who can see value in it for themselves.
@@mattgranger I think they’ll be disappointed.
Let me know your thoughts once you have tried one for yourself 👍🏼
Lens has a very mediocre performance for such price too.
There is nothing insane about this lens. Compare the range with APS-C 18-400 or 16-300 lens. Also Olympus 12-200.
Key word for those lenses is APS-C
@@llpqazz the focal length range is still there, regardless of format. Especially for the aps lenses.
No thanks.
canon rf 200-800 f9 according to this guy is compromise, nikon 28-400 f8 is extremely versatile. such a clear bias. and i didnt expect better. but anyway you do you.
I’m sure you know I said canon are great at getting the compromise right. You’ll also note 4x zoom and 14x zoom are not the same… right?
@@mattgranger the intent of a video plays a huge role of peoples expectations and conclusions. when you title or start a video with stating compromise, people conclude its bad, regardless of the minor positives you say throughout. when you start a video with neutral or positive tone, people conclude this is a good product, regardless if you state compromise along the way.
next time always analyze if youre fair to the product or just being a bias nikon fanboy.
without bias, both these lenses are just as versatile or compromised in their fields of contest. dont play one as versatile and other as compromised.
I take full responsibility for what I said and how I said it. I can’t force you to listen, think or understand.
Watch it again and maybe you’ll get it. 🤷♀️
I said they are masters of compromise. All design requires compromise, and they do it better than the other brands.
Don’t get so lost in your fandom that you can’t actually hear what’s being said. And please stop projecting on me. You can’t claim to know my intentions
@@mattgranger everyone heard clearly what's being said and the bias is obvious to anyone critical. This video is fun and joyful that canon video is critical and stern. Even from the comments most people took this nikon video a positive review and the Canon review as a compromised lens. All because that's what you keep emphasizing. And who intentionally wants a compromise? No one. The angle a review takes or points being emphasized changes the conclusion to most people. You probably even changed the title of the Canon video to sound more positive.
In the end I know when one is bias, many people may not and would be led wrongly. If you were an honest person or a critical minded person you would realize I've stated truths, instead of trying to defend yourself.
Have you gone back and watched the canon video again?
The title is "Canon 200-800mm - Great Value ULTRA Telephoto Zoom" - has been since it was launched.
I clearly said that 'lens design always involves compromise' and repeatedly praised that canon are leaders, and create lenses that other brands couldn't. I said they are masters at balancing this necessary compromise.
I don't know if you are not native english speaker, have comprehension issues, or just argumentative and protective of your brand...
But here is the link. You or anyone else can watch it. I will leave it at that. I stand by it 100%. ruclips.net/video/B50euvi2BH0/видео.html
I also stand by that a 14.2x zoom range (28-400) is more versatile than a 4x range of 200-800 - I didn't compare them, but you are.
ruclips.net/video/B50euvi2BH0/видео.html
I hope you do watch it, and put your preconceptions aside to hear what I actually said. Either way, I think that is more than enough of my time trying to clear this up. All the best.
Sorry but bird places like that should be banned…
I’ll be glad when Nikon quits screwing around with these stupid snapshot lenses and get around to making more useful professional S-Line lenses.