I had the 300 F2.8 VR II - like your 400, it’s focus motor was beyond acceptable. I loved the colors and sharpness from that lens. So I have no doubt that your 400 is even better given its price point. Since I don’t have the ability to spend 4+ hours daily chasing wildlife (not a sports shooter), for me this type of lens is a destination lens. I would only pull it out of my bag when I get to a workshop or to a stationary place where I can let it do it’s magic. Yes, it’s still legendary.
This is THE BEST time to become a wildlife photographer in the last twenty years. People are running for $14,000 Z lenses, and these older DSLR lenses are dropping hugely in price, and they shoot similar quality. I bought a 600 f4 VII prime that was close to brand new for $3,000 about 12 years ago it was $12,000. The deals on pro-quality DSLR lenses today are unparalleled to anything we have ever seen.
I agree, I picked up the 200-400 f4 and 300mm f2.8 for $2000 each in like new condition. Combined, they would be $12,500 new. Quality F-mount lenses are a steal right now.
Hi Matt. This is valuable direction for you to explore and to help us understand the value inherent in some of the DSLR optics and other equipment. It probably won't "tick the algorithms" on TH-cam like reviewing the "latest and greatest" will, but many of us understand that "improving our craft" can be done with heritage cameras and lenses and is at least as important as improving our equipment.
Elite tier Nikon teles from the F mount are insanely good options thanks to how good FTZ is. Especially as the used market floods with people selling their F-mount kit to move to Z. I was super excited when Nikon announced the 600 f/6.3 and wanted one until I saw the price. Its an AMAZING lens, but boy does that price tag sting. But when it came out I noticed suddenly my local used market had a ton of 500 5.6 PFs for sale. I ended up getting one for half of MSRP. I'm seeing a ton of this sort of thing lately. I also got the 300 F4 for a third of MSRP. A friend of mine recently picked up the 28mm F1.4 also for a third of MSRP. Nikon F lenses were wonderful lenses that totally hold up. If you pixel peep to the max, then the new Z lenses do edge them out, but when we are talking about spending 25-40% of the price for 98% of the performance, it sounds like a spectacular deal. :)
I do have the Z400mm f/2.8 TC S lens and I love it. It is a little heavy for myself to hold up for very long but it's still the best lens I have ever had. You are correct...that's for sure. I would love to see more videos on these lenses and I must say I LOVE watching your videos. I thank you very much for your time cause every one of your videos are very well done. Keep up the great work and I will keep watching and learning. Peace
Been using the 400 'VR' for almost a decade in total and just sold it for a 300/4 PF (more convenient for my current use case). I've used it on a ton of bodies for motorsport and (as my name suggests) aviation, with having it mounted to my Nikon Z8 in the last year. What I can say now: If weight doesn't matter and you're using a tripod or monopod and you DO need the range or 2.8, pick up a used one. Here in NL they go for as low as 3K and it's one of THE BEST lenses i've ever used. Lovely comparison Matt!
I had this lens over a year ago and used it with my Z9 and it was fantastic. I sold it because an FL one cropped up and the weight saving was a blessing. I can actually hand hold the FL and pan with it down to really slow shutter speeds for motorsport photography and it gives stunning results.
I had this lens and loved it for it's low light capability, however, it is big and heavy, and once I switched over to Z mount, I bought the Z 400 f/4.5 to compliment it and found that I almost never took the big 400mm out because of the convenience of the small and light Z400 f/4.5. I eventually sold it as it just wasn't getting used, and the used prices were dropping fast for F mount lenses. Ideally I would love to have the Z 400 f/2.8 TC, but just can't justify spending the big bucks.
I've had a 400mm f/2.8G ED VR for 8 years now and its still a fantastic lens but the weight is an issue, I used it with a D5 and D850, When i bought a Z9 there is definitely an improvment on AF. I can't justify a Z 400 mm f2.8, but thinking of getting the 400mm f/2.8G ED FL secondhand as a bit lighter but half the cost of the new Z version.
Great review of this beast Matt! I had the 400E FL f/2.8 and loved it and had it glued to either my D4, then D5 for my African wildlife. I waited for the Z9 to emerge and then sold all my F mount gear and waited even longer here in OZ for the Z400TC to be made available, that lens has remained glued to one of my Z9's and love the handhold ability combined with the built in 1.4TC. This has been me best ever combination in over 40 years of wildlife photography.
I just ran across your video... I have that lens paired up with my Nikon D5 & D6. It's a beast,but if I'm lazy using my Nikkor 500PF. I look the comparisons. Makes me want to put it on my gimbal-head. The photos are sharp! Even with the Nikkor 1.4 teleconverter.Thanks for the video..
I owned one for years for soccer photography, I finally sold it after I stopped with sports photography to get a 600mm f/4 G ED VR II for birding. The 400mm lens is really worth every penny.
I've been using Nikkor glass for the last 4+ decades and the "big gun" IF-ED versions (200-800mm) have always been fantastic! Early on I started customizing those lenses to gear up for cinema use, as the Nikkor glass produced the best contrast of the Japanese glass I had tested. It certainly made the matching of Zeiss, Leitz (Panavision,) Cooke, etc much easier for the directors and editors.
Several Arri models including the 35 III (second unit shots) and the SR II & III S16, along with an Aaton XTR PROD. BTW, I really enjoy your wonderful shows :)
@@jjcahill8934 ah wonderful, I worked on tv commercials in the 1990's, and camera assisted on an ARRI SR II, back in the day when we had to 'check the gate'. Amazing, was their other Nikon glass you also adapted?
I love it, those ARRI film cameras were built like battleships! I only had the longer Nikon lenses adapted (200, 300, 400, 500, 600 & 800) as the wide to medium tele ranges were covered by Zeiss (or rented Panavision,) with Cooke (and Angenieux) making the nice specialized primes/zooms, as well. The Nikons were certainly the kings of the squeeze and distant action shots (not to forget the lunar and sunset shots , too:))
I recently bought a 400mm for my Z9 to shoot motorsport and aviation stuff. It was a toss up between an f-mount 2.8 and a Z mount f4.5. After lots of internal debate I went for the Z f4.5 S. What won me over was the extra stabilisation you get (which is actually incredible - I can shoot hand held at 1/8th) and the incredibly light weight of it making it dead easy to run from position to position without having a heart-attack. Bottom line - I'm very pleased with my decision.
My 400 f2.8 has transitioned with me from F to Z mount and I have no intention or need to replace it. I use it mostly for editorial cricket work in the UK
I have the 200-400 F4 vr and on the D850 i was having some issues with it but on the Z8 it works like a charm. so many good f mount lenses on the cheap that you can get.
Matt, I still have and use frequently, a 200 F2, 300 F2.8 and 400 F2.8, F mount Vr lenses, and all are fantastic on the Z9, I also have no intention of parting with any of these in the near future. Given the plummet in 2nd hand F mount glass prices, I would recommend all of these. Ps they are like the single digit D series cameras, built to last.
I'll be using my 300mm f/2.8 with my Z9 this weekend. Great combo. That said, I feel that subject recognition is better on native Z lenses, such as my 400mm f/4.5
Hello Matt, great review! I have owned the 400 f2.8G ED VR lens since August 2011, when I bought it used for $8K US. It is a beast of a lens and not for faint of heart. Unfortunately, this lens did see little use in the past 13 years due to its weight. Photographing wildlife and sports were my primary uses. I have recently bought the Nikon 180-400 f4 TC, thinking I will get more use out of it for outdoor sports like golf, football, soccer, baseball, etc. The tele-zoom is lighter by 3lbs, but also needs a monopod IMHO. I am on the lookout for the Nikon 120-300 f2.8 for indoor sports (i.e. basketball, volleyball, swimming) but have yet to find one reasonably priced. 😢 You are 100% right about the glass of yesterday being able to keep up with the Nikon Z glass; that is where the real value is!
First, I'm a wildlife photographer. so a lens matters !! In talking about a "400", you missed one....the 180-400mm F/4E TC 1.4 FL ED VR @ 7.72 lbs. Matched to the Z9 with the FTZ II, the lens is stellar in performance, and with the built in TC, I'm at 560mm.....close to a 600mm with a flip of a switch. If I wasn't getting the performance I am out of the 180-400, I'd have moved up the the Z 400mm. Thanks for the presentation Mattt, another well done video !!
Hello Matt, I have never been in the poison to own any of the extreme F mount telephoto lenses, But I do have and use lenses like my 19mm PCe and other PCe lenses with my Z9 and Z8 and they do work so well. Yes I have just or 8 weeks ago got a 600mm f6.3 which is not what you mean, But it is so good. So good to see you.
Matt what I used to use for sports was a bungee strap mounted to the camera baseplate. I held the camera away from my eye and could still see through the view finder. Sorta like holding a rifle. I always wanted to get that Nikon DOT sight, just couldn't pull the trigger on it though.
I bought the 200-400 f4 long ago and used the heck out of it shooting sports/pageantry, in fact it broke so bad I couldn’t get it fixed. I got into mirrorless in a big way so didn’t need it. But, in a dash of sanity, I took advantage of the low prices and picked up another…couldn’t be happier using it with my Z9. It’s relegated to when I’m on the sidelines (it’s still big and heavy) but, boy, the IQ is STILL off the charts.
Great to see you appreciate a dear old F mount lens! I feel all the long F mount lenses are optically excellent and I also recently bought an “old” 400mm f2.8 because I have always wanted one (the U.K. second hand prices are pretty good). Mine also has the “reverse” foot which seems brutal on the lens mount, but the Z9 is not heavier than the D4, D5 or D6 so why should I worry.
I do still own my Nikon 400mm f/2.8G VR AFS lens and I am the original owner since new, it is tack sharp as good as the new version of the Z mount,but it is heavy and it would be nice to own a newer Z mount. I've been shooting since when I was 15 years old using my fathers Praktica SLR camera. I been just an amateur back then and started to do part time professional in the mid 70's due to my other main profession untill now and I shot all them from weddings,sports,landscape's,macro,portrait's and commercial photography. I'm in my mid 70's and still lug my big ole Nikon 400mm f/2.8 G lens,but back then I used my brothers Rokinon 600mm f/8 on one of a kind monopod before no one ever heard of using them on DSLR and I shot them with film on my Nikon F3HP motordrive setup,my monopod was an old aluminum tripod leg and I would machined an adaptor to mount to an old video spring head, mounted to the monopod back then.I did shoot at the old Laguna Seca Race track back when Redman and Paul Newman Datsun 280 Z appeared and got him to autograph my photo's,yes Paul N. does not sign autographs, as a freelance for the BayLands Raceway and Custom Bike magazine with one centerfold shot of Billy Buds first V Twin Yamaha custom parts.I lived behind Arlen Ness shop in San Leandro of East 14th Street of the Bay Area graffiti strip on E.14th. I was later introduced from Arlen Ness to his brother... Terry Ness owner of BayLands Raceway and shot there in the 80's thru then END of the DragStrip got torn down due to noise from the new apartments and home's that got built in Fremont,Ca. ..Then later in the 2010 got my Nikon 400mm..So,yes I did play in a part in my days....As for my Nikon 4oomm f/2.8G VR,I love it........Thank you Matt for the coverage of the Nikon 400mm f/2.8G VR lens that still can out-shoot the newer one but with the weight too.
Fabulous Novatech, thanks so much for sharing your amazing adventures with you amazing collection of Nikon glass. Truly outstanding, and I love that you are still using this lens today. LOVE YOUR WORK !!! Cheers Matt
I have owned 4 versions of the 400/2.8 including the Z400/2.8TC - the E/FL version was a huge step up on the G/VR version, which in turn was a step up on the D/VR2 version. Step-up -- lighter, faster, built in VR and far improved optics and AF motors. The Z400/2.8TC is on a completely different level to all its predecessors. YES the built in 1.4TC makes a big difference. But this latest incarnation is so much better across the board. Yes and it costs much more as well. For Nikon mirrorless then one should only use the G or E versions of these lenses - I believe all previous version required the camera body to deliver AF motor (screw drive). The 400/2.8 is my lens of choice for lions before sunrise and after sun set. After that the 600/4 and current ZTC version is my lens of choice. Had the 600/4.0TC come out at the same time as the 400/2.8 TC then buying the 400/2.8TC would have been harder to justify but I did -- selling the 800/6.3PF as part of my maths to buy the 600. But as noted I had the previous versions and as you state these lenses were and are still great for those with a use case.
All those Gs VRs "Exotics" are more than good enough , thing is there heavy and big and understandable people are going to migrate to Z mount versions. I own the 200mm /2 VR, 300 f/2.8 VR and a 500mm f/4 G VR ll so the FTZ I got with the Z8 just a week ago with the 135 Plena will allow me to use them all.
Love the 400mm f2.8 and 200-400mm f4 but they are big heavy and expensive compared to lenses like the 400mm f4.5 Z lens. The new 400 TC has to be the best yet but its still too heavy...🦘
Try the manual Nikkor AIS 400mm f/3.5 IF ED lens made for the 1976 Montreal Olympics, the big daddy of all 400mm f/2.8 lenses. I acquired one for under 1000 euro, and it still has magical image quality. The trick is to get the image sharp photographing fast moving sport like in the Olympics in 1976. And with a little training you can do it, even in 2024, almost 50 years later …!
Good idea for Matt! I think it’s much lighter than some of the f2.8 lenses, despite the huge front element. It also has that clever focus marker when you can quickly return to a set distance I believe?
@@dominiclester3232 There is a mechanical marker which could set on any focal length and feel on the focal length dial when hitting that focal length again. For images with this lens find my website (Google my name) and go to the ‘equipment’ tab. There you find several Soccer images made with this lens using manual focus.
i don’t have much budget or camera gear, but i saved all my pennies and sold all my other gear to get this exact lens, the G ED VR version, and it’s been my prized possession, i have this lens instead of a car 😅 i mainly use it for wildlife and deep space astrophotography, galaxies and nebulae and such. it’s absolutely amazing, the only drawbacks are indeed the weight, and it actually gets noticeably worse in colder temperatures, even after acclimating to the temperature changes. when i’m doing astrophotography in even moderate temperatures, -10°C and below, the stars start to show a sort of spherical aberration, where you have to choose between small stars with a bright halo around them, or slightly larger defocused stars but with no halos. in daytime photography this shows up as lower microcontrast or whatever you want to call it. but still, this lens never lets me down, and the exhaustion of carrying a block of iron on your shoulder for a hike is more than worth it for the photos it provides :))
Amazing Gabe, thank you so much for sharing. Very interesting regarding the colder temperatures, and also using it for deep space photography, what sort of tripod do you use? 😀 cheers Matt.
@@MattIrwinPhotographygood question! at these focal lengths you need what’s called an equatorial mount, something that you align with earth’s axis of rotation, and then it slowly rotates your camera/telescope and a counterweight in the opposite direction at the same speed, so that it cancels out the rotation and the stars stay perfectly still. with this lens, that mount, and a D850 or D610, i can image stuff as faint as a handful of photons *per minute* reaching my camera’s sensor! using regular cameras like nikon dslr’s makes it much easier to get a final image in natural colour, too. i kept on trying to give my instagram name so you can see what this lens can do if you want, but it kept getting blocked so i guess you’ll just have to take my word for it! :)
I still have and use the last non VR version of the 400mm 2.8, which is a pretty rare lens. Gorgeous optics but weighs a ton. Hope to get a Z8 later this year and look forward to using it with that . Currently only have a D3s and mainly use the 600 FL/ED for wildlife out and about but in a hide prefer the optics on the older lens. Enjoyed this blog. Thanks.
My keeper rate went way up with my 600 f/4 attached to my Z9. No mirror slap. I used the 600 f/4 for years on my D4 and had trouble with that bloody mirror slap. And the D850 was somewhat better. Mirrorless. Now we are talking about how beautiful these pig-of lenses are.
I own this lens which I had to purchase If I wanted to get fastest shutter speeds for high school football and other sports under the lights. Generally speaking and in my experience, high school stadium lighting is a long way from professional lighting. I purchased mine used, from a ESPN photographer. There are many used for sale however the 400 2.8 G ED VR I bought was regularly serviced by Nikon, in excellent cosmetic shape, and came with the suitcase and most importantly, it didn't squeal when focusing. I had no idea how much better optically it was, just amazing sharpness. Yes, very heavy! When using this lens with my Z9 and rotating from horizontal to vertical, I feel a fair amount of drag or binding at the lens foot where it circles the lens itself. It helps to lightly lift up on the camera which allows it to rotate much easier, If any reader can speak to this issue I would appreciate it. Now I don't have any excuses for poor photos, its all me..Thanks Matt for your perspective on this amazing Nikon lens. Ted in Sebastian, Fl.
I'm saving for a 2nd hand AFS 400mmF2.8 E FL VR for use on a D850. I have a AF 300mmF2.8 screw drive AFnand an AFS 200mmF2 VR. I will pass the 400mmF2.8 G VR due to its 1 kg heavier but sharper than the newer 400mm F2.8 E FL lens. I will use it for landscape and wildlife. Will it take a Z8x 60 Mpix camera resulution? That will be my firt Zed camera else i use D700 with verical grip for wildlife, D800E for woodland and D850 for landscape and wildlife, after I get a vertical grip with the big batteries
😂 I doubt I'd ever be able to afford that but if I did have it. On a Z9, I'd skip the tele converter and just put it in DX mode, or carry a second body. Fiddling with lenses has always cost me shots when time is a primary factor. When I used to own my D3s, I'd use DX mode regularly for both speed and the zoom-crop in camera. As a professional graphic designer, I've gotten to the point where I don't want to spend all day editing.
You absolutely can shoot with them - on z mounts with success in birding. The main thing - as you noted - is the weight. The older you get the more you appreciate the lightness. I had to wait over a year and a half to get the z mount big primes. So, I had plenty of time with z bodies and f mount big primes. I don’t see any better sharpness unless I’m at low SS - which I rarely do for wildlife/birding. Ps - I thought I was watching an old video of the angry photographer when he did his camera channel.
Good day Matt, as usual you have got me excited about new possibilities! I see nice examples of these lenses at or below $1,800 US. I have the Z400/4.5 S lens which I love and brought with me to Melbourne last November. A comparison between these lenses would be appreciated. Is the Bokeh achieved with the f/2.8 make it stand apart from the 4.5 S lens and is it worth the investment? I would say that for most applications the Z400/4.5 S lens should be as good, if not better. What do you say?
The one thing I will say is that I had a 400mm f/2.8 FL EDs on loan for a superbike race I shot a couple of years ago, right after I'd gotten my Z9 and right after the Z-mount version was released (NPS told me even they didn't have any copies to loan out because the demand was so high), and I was surprised at how not-sharp it was in comparison to even my Z-mount 70-200. Not that it wasn't sharp, quite the opposite, but being a pixel-peeper, I'm obsessive about getting "perfect" sharpness, and while I can shoot the 70-200 wide open all day long and not notice any image defects whatsoever, the 400mm absolutely showed its optical weaknesses when you really scrutinized it. I suppose that's more of an indication that the Z glass is just on a different planet optically, but either way, I was very surprised that a $12,000 specialty lens reserved for a select few seemed to be getting outdone by one that just about every professional owns.
I wonder if you've tested whether it's better to switch off the lens stabilisation and just use the in-body? I have a 500mm f4 older lens, which was amazing on my D4, but it's AF stopped working and I've not had it repaired yet, so I've not tested it on my Z9. Btw, your "Sydney a Love Affair" book just arrived and it's fantastic!
Cheers Duncan. Glad your Sydney book arrived. 😀😀😀 it seems that whether VR is on or off on the lens, control is greyed out on the camera. Thus it feels like the lens is leading the way. I will see if I can find out more info. 😀
Yup I have a 500 f4 f mount. On an Fmount camera the stabilizer only runs when focusing. When it’s mounted to a z mount body - the stabilization runs constantly. I no longer worry about that as I’ve gone fully z mount with a 400 and 600. I never sold the 500 since I still have an 850 and a D6. With the f mount used price drops I just keep them around for “vintage day” where I get the old noisy gear out and have some fun.
I've owned the 200 f2 VR, the 300 f2.8 VR and the 200-400 f4 VR among many other Nikkors. The 300 2.8 was fabulous but heavy and the 200 f2 was the best lens I've ever used, especially for portraits but it too is so big and heavy , especially compared to the new Z lenses. The 200-400 was a dog, not good at far distances.🙈🙈🙈
Matt, great video - while newer is often better, is it that much better? I'd love to see a similar comparison of the Z (PF) 800mm and the absolutely legendary F-mount 800mm. Aside from being a (generally trivial) half or so stop faster, I believe that the image quality of the original F-mount 800mm is better - so much so that I sold the Z 800mm! Maybe I have a great AF-S 800 f/5.6 and a meh version of the Z mount, but side-by-side, I felt there was a non pixel-peeking difference in image quality (sharpness, flare, bokeh) between the lenses - at least when shooting low-light sporting events. Curious if anyone else feels the same way.
The lab test differences between long lenses may not be noticeable in the field. Long lens shooting is often limited by the air quality, heat (or cold) shimmers, tripod and lens handling technique. F lenses perform better on Z bodies. The improved autofocus is noticeable. Nicer glass is always nicer. My wife has a new Z camera, is learning lenses, and loves wildlife photography.
Agree Matt, a great lens. On a down side, mine did not survive the 2022 Rochester, Australia floods. Staying under water for two days. Not covered by flood insurance, it will now be used as a door-stop when my home is finally repaired. Am looking for a replacement if anyone can assist?
Who would have thought the best part about the mirrorless cameras would be the huge deals on DSLRs? Im buying all the pro glass I can get while the pricing is low!
Logic would suggest, don't buy now, as it will only get cheaper next year, then the year after ..., and then at some point they will become rare, I do think that is a while off.
IMO, like anything being retired, there will be an influx of availability then a drought then possible resurgence (at higher collector prices). Vinyl records are a great example. Also, the condition of the gear will get progressively worse as time rolls on. There may still be pristine examples but there will be a premium. Right now there is a glut of DSLR gear in great condition being sold off at pennies on the dollar due to the high interest in mirrorless. I'm buying while I know I can get what I want for great prices. Best wishes!
This is a little bit of a rant, so I apologise in advance. I am sick to death of Nikon not providing for a up and coming sports photographers who want to be good and perhaps one day work for the likes of Getty etc. The lenses that a produced these days are over priced and are more aimed at birders and wildlife photographers where aperture does not matter so much. If you are a sports photographer, to get the quality that you need to be professional, you have to get a second hand F mount like the one that you are using and use an adapter because who starting out is going to fork out $24K AU for a new 400 2.8. Nikon needs to replace their 200-400 f4 and possibly the 120-300mm 2.8. If Sigma and Tamron came up with an affordable stella sports zoom telephoto that does not cost the earth then I would be 100% on board. Who wouldn't? The new sports photographers I feel are not being looked after with the crap amateur lenses that Nikon are producing like the 180-600 that is slow and sharp some of the time during a sports game.
Didn't know that you shot the symphony, very cool! Great review Matt! only concern I have is Nikon lenses that employ "Silent Wave Motor" eventually... because I had that happen on my 70-200mm AF-S G VRII version die and it cost me $800 to have Nikon repair, that was 2 years ago and now I understand Nikon doesn't repair "Silent Wave" motors any longer. I hope I'm wrong. Otherwise, I might consider the AF-S version of 400mm f2.8.
One downside to all of those switches on the old lenses, I once had geese fly over and poop right onto those switches on the lens I was packing on my shoulder on the tripod. Wiped it right out and cost me a lot to have it fixed. I pitied the tech who had to work on it. I sold my 600mm f4 because of the weight. The young man I sold it to is thrilled with it. I am at 500mm PF speed now that I've aged.
This is the rare TH-cam channel that discusses gear in a way that is practical and professional without all the razzmatazz nonsense. Much appreciated.
@@dicekolev5360 Did I ask you?
I had the 300 F2.8 VR II - like your 400, it’s focus motor was beyond acceptable. I loved the colors and sharpness from that lens. So I have no doubt that your 400 is even better given its price point. Since I don’t have the ability to spend 4+ hours daily chasing wildlife (not a sports shooter), for me this type of lens is a destination lens. I would only pull it out of my bag when I get to a workshop or to a stationary place where I can let it do it’s magic. Yes, it’s still legendary.
I have the same 300, use it all the time shooting motorsports and aviation on my Z9, it is still phenomenal.
This is THE BEST time to become a wildlife photographer in the last twenty years. People are running for $14,000 Z lenses, and these older DSLR lenses are dropping hugely in price, and they shoot similar quality. I bought a 600 f4 VII prime that was close to brand new for $3,000 about 12 years ago it was $12,000. The deals on pro-quality DSLR lenses today are unparalleled to anything we have ever seen.
I agree, I picked up the 200-400 f4 and 300mm f2.8 for $2000 each in like new condition. Combined, they would be $12,500 new. Quality F-mount lenses are a steal right now.
Hi Matt. This is valuable direction for you to explore and to help us understand the value inherent in some of the DSLR optics and other equipment. It probably won't "tick the algorithms" on TH-cam like reviewing the "latest and greatest" will, but many of us understand that "improving our craft" can be done with heritage cameras and lenses and is at least as important as improving our equipment.
Elite tier Nikon teles from the F mount are insanely good options thanks to how good FTZ is. Especially as the used market floods with people selling their F-mount kit to move to Z.
I was super excited when Nikon announced the 600 f/6.3 and wanted one until I saw the price. Its an AMAZING lens, but boy does that price tag sting. But when it came out I noticed suddenly my local used market had a ton of 500 5.6 PFs for sale. I ended up getting one for half of MSRP. I'm seeing a ton of this sort of thing lately. I also got the 300 F4 for a third of MSRP. A friend of mine recently picked up the 28mm F1.4 also for a third of MSRP.
Nikon F lenses were wonderful lenses that totally hold up. If you pixel peep to the max, then the new Z lenses do edge them out, but when we are talking about spending 25-40% of the price for 98% of the performance, it sounds like a spectacular deal. :)
I do have the Z400mm f/2.8 TC S lens and I love it. It is a little heavy for myself to hold up for very long but it's still the best lens I have ever had. You are correct...that's for sure. I would love to see more videos on these lenses and I must say I LOVE watching your videos. I thank you very much for your time cause every one of your videos are very well done. Keep up the great work and I will keep watching and learning. Peace
Been using the 400 'VR' for almost a decade in total and just sold it for a 300/4 PF (more convenient for my current use case).
I've used it on a ton of bodies for motorsport and (as my name suggests) aviation, with having it mounted to my Nikon Z8 in the last year.
What I can say now: If weight doesn't matter and you're using a tripod or monopod and you DO need the range or 2.8, pick up a used one.
Here in NL they go for as low as 3K and it's one of THE BEST lenses i've ever used.
Lovely comparison Matt!
Thanks so much for sharing 😀
I had this lens over a year ago and used it with my Z9 and it was fantastic. I sold it because an FL one cropped up and the weight saving was a blessing. I can actually hand hold the FL and pan with it down to really slow shutter speeds for motorsport photography and it gives stunning results.
I had this lens and loved it for it's low light capability, however, it is big and heavy, and once I switched over to Z mount, I bought the Z 400 f/4.5 to compliment it and found that I almost never took the big 400mm out because of the convenience of the small and light Z400 f/4.5. I eventually sold it as it just wasn't getting used, and the used prices were dropping fast for F mount lenses. Ideally I would love to have the Z 400 f/2.8 TC, but just can't justify spending the big bucks.
I bought an older 600mm f/4 and it's fabulous optically...built like a tank and heavy.... love it !!! :)
Cant go wrong with these older version lenses.....love my 400 f2,8....paired with all 3 converters as you mentioned one has the best of all worlds.
I've had a 400mm f/2.8G ED VR for 8 years now and its still a fantastic lens but the weight is an issue, I used it with a D5 and D850, When i bought a Z9 there is definitely an improvment on AF. I can't justify a Z 400 mm f2.8, but thinking of getting the 400mm f/2.8G ED FL secondhand as a bit lighter but half the cost of the new Z version.
Great review of this beast Matt!
I had the 400E FL f/2.8 and loved it and had it glued to either my D4, then D5 for my African wildlife. I waited for the Z9 to emerge and then sold all my F mount gear and waited even longer here in OZ for the Z400TC to be made available, that lens has remained glued to one of my Z9's and love the handhold ability combined with the built in 1.4TC. This has been me best ever combination in over 40 years of wildlife photography.
I just ran across your video... I have that lens paired up with my Nikon D5 & D6. It's a beast,but if I'm lazy using my Nikkor 500PF. I look the comparisons. Makes me want to put it on my gimbal-head. The photos are sharp! Even with the Nikkor 1.4 teleconverter.Thanks for the video..
Love the “AS” and “BS” terminology! So appropriate
I owned one for years for soccer photography, I finally sold it after I stopped with sports photography to get a 600mm f/4 G ED VR II for birding.
The 400mm lens is really worth every penny.
I've been using Nikkor glass for the last 4+ decades and the "big gun" IF-ED versions (200-800mm) have always been fantastic! Early on I started customizing those lenses to gear up for cinema use, as the Nikkor glass produced the best contrast of the Japanese glass I had tested. It certainly made the matching of Zeiss, Leitz (Panavision,) Cooke, etc much easier for the directors and editors.
Wow, very interesting JJ, I would love to hear more about the cinema use. What sort of cameras did you mount them on? Cheers Matt 😀
Several Arri models including the 35 III (second unit shots) and the SR II & III S16, along with an Aaton XTR PROD.
BTW, I really enjoy your wonderful shows :)
@@jjcahill8934 ah wonderful, I worked on tv commercials in the 1990's, and camera assisted on an ARRI SR II, back in the day when we had to 'check the gate'. Amazing, was their other Nikon glass you also adapted?
I love it, those ARRI film cameras were built like battleships! I only had the longer Nikon lenses adapted (200, 300, 400, 500, 600 & 800) as the wide to medium tele ranges were covered by Zeiss (or rented Panavision,) with Cooke (and Angenieux) making the nice specialized primes/zooms, as well. The Nikons were certainly the kings of the squeeze and distant action shots (not to forget the lunar and sunset shots , too:))
I recently bought a 400mm for my Z9 to shoot motorsport and aviation stuff. It was a toss up between an f-mount 2.8 and a Z mount f4.5. After lots of internal debate I went for the Z f4.5 S. What won me over was the extra stabilisation you get (which is actually incredible - I can shoot hand held at 1/8th) and the incredibly light weight of it making it dead easy to run from position to position without having a heart-attack. Bottom line - I'm very pleased with my decision.
The Z Tele primes are amazing. All of them. 😀 The 400 4.5 is a stunner in a small package.
My 400 f2.8 has transitioned with me from F to Z mount and I have no intention or need to replace it. I use it mostly for editorial cricket work in the UK
I have the 200-400 F4 vr and on the D850 i was having some issues with it but on the Z8 it works like a charm. so many good f mount lenses on the cheap that you can get.
The orchestra images were tops!
Nice video Matt, some 30 years ago I had a 300 f2,8 with screwdrive af. It was a great lens
Matt, I still have and use frequently, a 200 F2, 300 F2.8 and 400 F2.8, F mount Vr lenses, and all are fantastic on the Z9, I also have no intention of parting with any of these in the near future. Given the plummet in 2nd hand F mount glass prices, I would recommend all of these. Ps they are like the single digit D series cameras, built to last.
Cheers Dave.
I'll be using my 300mm f/2.8 with my Z9 this weekend. Great combo. That said, I feel that subject recognition is better on native Z lenses, such as my 400mm f/4.5
Hello Matt, great review! I have owned the 400 f2.8G ED VR lens since August 2011, when I bought it used for $8K US. It is a beast of a lens and not for faint of heart. Unfortunately, this lens did see little use in the past 13 years due to its weight. Photographing wildlife and sports were my primary uses. I have recently bought the Nikon 180-400 f4 TC, thinking I will get more use out of it for outdoor sports like golf, football, soccer, baseball, etc. The tele-zoom is lighter by 3lbs, but also needs a monopod IMHO. I am on the lookout for the Nikon 120-300 f2.8 for indoor sports (i.e. basketball, volleyball, swimming) but have yet to find one reasonably priced. 😢 You are 100% right about the glass of yesterday being able to keep up with the Nikon Z glass; that is where the real value is!
First, I'm a wildlife photographer. so a lens matters !! In talking about a "400", you missed one....the 180-400mm F/4E TC 1.4 FL ED VR @ 7.72 lbs. Matched to the Z9 with the FTZ II, the lens is stellar in performance, and with the built in TC, I'm at 560mm.....close to a 600mm with a flip of a switch. If I wasn't getting the performance I am out of the 180-400, I'd have moved up the the Z 400mm. Thanks for the presentation Mattt, another well done video !!
Hello Matt, I have never been in the poison to own any of the extreme F mount telephoto lenses, But I do have and use lenses like my 19mm PCe and other PCe lenses with my Z9 and Z8 and they do work so well. Yes I have just or 8 weeks ago got a 600mm f6.3 which is not what you mean, But it is so good. So good to see you.
Any of the Nikkor fast glass (200, 300, 400, 600) are fantastic lenses!
Have one since the day it was available and use it as often as possible. It is a great big beast of a lens.
Matt what I used to use for sports was a bungee strap mounted to the camera baseplate. I held the camera away from my eye and could still see through the view finder. Sorta like holding a rifle. I always wanted to get that Nikon DOT sight, just couldn't pull the trigger on it though.
I bought the 200-400 f4 long ago and used the heck out of it shooting sports/pageantry, in fact it broke so bad I couldn’t get it fixed. I got into mirrorless in a big way so didn’t need it. But, in a dash of sanity, I took advantage of the low prices and picked up another…couldn’t be happier using it with my Z9. It’s relegated to when I’m on the sidelines (it’s still big and heavy) but, boy, the IQ is STILL off the charts.
I have owned 600f4g love it
I use the 500mm f4 afs ed vr on my Z8 and it's absolutely amazing.
Great to see you appreciate a dear old F mount lens! I feel all the long F mount lenses are optically excellent and I also recently bought an “old” 400mm f2.8 because I have always wanted one (the U.K. second hand prices are pretty good). Mine also has the “reverse” foot which seems brutal on the lens mount, but the Z9 is not heavier than the D4, D5 or D6 so why should I worry.
I do still own my Nikon 400mm f/2.8G VR AFS lens and I am the original owner since new, it is tack sharp as good as the new version of the Z mount,but it is heavy and it would be nice to own a newer Z mount. I've been shooting since when I was 15 years old using my fathers Praktica SLR camera. I been just an amateur back then and started to do part time professional in the mid 70's due to my other main profession untill now and I shot all them from weddings,sports,landscape's,macro,portrait's and commercial photography. I'm in my mid 70's and still lug my big ole Nikon 400mm f/2.8 G lens,but back then I used my brothers Rokinon 600mm f/8 on one of a kind monopod before no one ever heard of using them on DSLR and I shot them with film on my Nikon F3HP motordrive setup,my monopod was an old aluminum tripod leg and I would machined an adaptor to mount to an old video spring head, mounted to the monopod back then.I did shoot at the old Laguna Seca Race track back when Redman and Paul Newman Datsun 280 Z appeared and got him to autograph my photo's,yes Paul N. does not sign autographs, as a freelance for the BayLands Raceway and Custom Bike magazine with one centerfold shot of Billy Buds first V Twin Yamaha custom parts.I lived behind Arlen Ness shop in San Leandro of East 14th Street of the Bay Area graffiti strip on E.14th. I was later introduced from Arlen Ness to his brother... Terry Ness owner of BayLands Raceway and shot there in the 80's thru then END of the DragStrip got torn down due to noise from the new apartments and home's that got built in Fremont,Ca. ..Then later in the 2010 got my Nikon 400mm..So,yes I did play in a part in my days....As for my Nikon 4oomm f/2.8G VR,I love it........Thank you Matt for the coverage of the Nikon 400mm f/2.8G VR lens that still can out-shoot the newer one but with the weight too.
Fabulous Novatech, thanks so much for sharing your amazing adventures with you amazing collection of Nikon glass. Truly outstanding, and I love that you are still using this lens today. LOVE YOUR WORK !!! Cheers Matt
@@MattIrwinPhotography........You inspired me again with your great video's/ photo's and reviews on all phase's of cameras too......
I have owned 4 versions of the 400/2.8 including the Z400/2.8TC - the E/FL version was a huge step up on the G/VR version, which in turn was a step up on the D/VR2 version. Step-up -- lighter, faster, built in VR and far improved optics and AF motors. The Z400/2.8TC is on a completely different level to all its predecessors. YES the built in 1.4TC makes a big difference. But this latest incarnation is so much better across the board. Yes and it costs much more as well.
For Nikon mirrorless then one should only use the G or E versions of these lenses - I believe all previous version required the camera body to deliver AF motor (screw drive).
The 400/2.8 is my lens of choice for lions before sunrise and after sun set. After that the 600/4 and current ZTC version is my lens of choice. Had the 600/4.0TC come out at the same time as the 400/2.8 TC then buying the 400/2.8TC would have been harder to justify but I did -- selling the 800/6.3PF as part of my maths to buy the 600. But as noted I had the previous versions and as you state these lenses were and are still great for those with a use case.
Thanks for sharing Andy, great intel. 😀
All those Gs VRs "Exotics" are more than good enough , thing is there heavy and big and understandable people are going to migrate to Z mount versions. I own the 200mm /2 VR, 300 f/2.8 VR and a 500mm f/4 G VR ll so the FTZ I got with the Z8 just a week ago with the 135 Plena will allow me to use them all.
Love the 400mm f2.8 and 200-400mm f4 but they are big heavy and expensive compared to lenses like the 400mm f4.5 Z lens.
The new 400 TC has to be the best yet but its still too heavy...🦘
I also have the 200 - 400 4 lens from back then the first version it's fab
I am thinking z8 one day....
Try the manual Nikkor AIS 400mm f/3.5 IF ED lens made for the 1976 Montreal Olympics, the big daddy of all 400mm f/2.8 lenses. I acquired one for under 1000 euro, and it still has magical image quality. The trick is to get the image sharp photographing fast moving sport like in the Olympics in 1976. And with a little training you can do it, even in 2024, almost 50 years later …!
Good idea for Matt! I think it’s much lighter than some of the f2.8 lenses, despite the huge front element. It also has that clever focus marker when you can quickly return to a set distance I believe?
@@dominiclester3232 There is a mechanical marker which could set on any focal length and feel on the focal length dial when hitting that focal length again. For images with this lens find my website (Google my name) and go to the ‘equipment’ tab. There you find several Soccer images made with this lens using manual focus.
i don’t have much budget or camera gear, but i saved all my pennies and sold all my other gear to get this exact lens, the G ED VR version, and it’s been my prized possession, i have this lens instead of a car 😅 i mainly use it for wildlife and deep space astrophotography, galaxies and nebulae and such. it’s absolutely amazing, the only drawbacks are indeed the weight, and it actually gets noticeably worse in colder temperatures, even after acclimating to the temperature changes. when i’m doing astrophotography in even moderate temperatures, -10°C and below, the stars start to show a sort of spherical aberration, where you have to choose between small stars with a bright halo around them, or slightly larger defocused stars but with no halos. in daytime photography this shows up as lower microcontrast or whatever you want to call it. but still, this lens never lets me down, and the exhaustion of carrying a block of iron on your shoulder for a hike is more than worth it for the photos it provides :))
Amazing Gabe, thank you so much for sharing. Very interesting regarding the colder temperatures, and also using it for deep space photography, what sort of tripod do you use? 😀 cheers Matt.
@@MattIrwinPhotographygood question! at these focal lengths you need what’s called an equatorial mount, something that you align with earth’s axis of rotation, and then it slowly rotates your camera/telescope and a counterweight in the opposite direction at the same speed, so that it cancels out the rotation and the stars stay perfectly still. with this lens, that mount, and a D850 or D610, i can image stuff as faint as a handful of photons *per minute* reaching my camera’s sensor! using regular cameras like nikon dslr’s makes it much easier to get a final image in natural colour, too. i kept on trying to give my instagram name so you can see what this lens can do if you want, but it kept getting blocked so i guess you’ll just have to take my word for it! :)
Ah Gabe, send me an email, you can find the link above, I would love to see your work :)
@@MattIrwinPhotography cheers Matt, just sent it! have a great day
I still have and use the last non VR version of the 400mm 2.8, which is a pretty rare lens. Gorgeous optics but weighs a ton. Hope to get a Z8 later this year and look forward to using it with that . Currently only have a D3s and mainly use the 600 FL/ED for wildlife out and about but in a hide prefer the optics on the older lens. Enjoyed this blog. Thanks.
I use the 400 non vr for American football on D5. Great lens but injured my wrists moving that thing around. So heavy.
I have the Nikon AF-S 400mm f/2.8 D ED II (no VR), the mother of all 400mm AFS. Even today, at 20 years old, it is truly spectacular 🤩
I just bought a mint one today!!
@@Dyfiwildlifephotography The Nikon AF-S 400mm f/2.8 D ED II (no VR) ?
@@elettroman3972 yes
Definitely one I want
I have one. ‘Nuff said. Even hand held, a joy. Sharp. Sharp. Sharp. Now always on a Jobo gimbal.
Hell, even the 1980s ais version is superb ❤
My keeper rate went way up with my 600 f/4 attached to my Z9. No mirror slap. I used the 600 f/4 for years on my D4 and had trouble with that bloody mirror slap. And the D850 was somewhat better. Mirrorless. Now we are talking about how beautiful these pig-of lenses are.
I own this lens which I had to purchase If I wanted to get fastest shutter speeds for high school football and other sports under the lights. Generally speaking and in my experience, high school stadium lighting is a long way from professional lighting. I purchased mine used, from a ESPN photographer. There are many used for sale however the 400 2.8 G ED VR I bought was regularly serviced by Nikon, in excellent cosmetic shape, and came with the suitcase and most importantly, it didn't squeal when focusing. I had no idea how much better optically it was, just amazing sharpness. Yes, very heavy! When using this lens with my Z9 and rotating from horizontal to vertical, I feel a fair amount of drag or binding at the lens foot where it circles the lens itself. It helps to lightly lift up on the camera which allows it to rotate much easier, If any reader can speak to this issue I would appreciate it. Now I don't have any excuses for poor photos, its all me..Thanks Matt for your perspective on this amazing Nikon lens. Ted in Sebastian, Fl.
I'm saving for a 2nd hand AFS 400mmF2.8 E FL VR for use on a D850. I have a AF 300mmF2.8 screw drive AFnand an AFS 200mmF2 VR. I will pass the 400mmF2.8 G VR due to its 1 kg heavier but sharper than the newer 400mm F2.8 E FL lens. I will use it for landscape and wildlife. Will it take a Z8x 60 Mpix camera resulution? That will be my firt Zed camera else i use D700 with verical grip for wildlife, D800E for woodland and D850 for landscape and wildlife, after I get a vertical grip with the big batteries
This is vintage Matt,most enjoyable.
😂 I doubt I'd ever be able to afford that but if I did have it. On a Z9, I'd skip the tele converter and just put it in DX mode, or carry a second body. Fiddling with lenses has always cost me shots when time is a primary factor. When I used to own my D3s, I'd use DX mode regularly for both speed and the zoom-crop in camera. As a professional graphic designer, I've gotten to the point where I don't want to spend all day editing.
Need this for my rugby shoots
You absolutely can shoot with them - on z mounts with success in birding. The main thing - as you noted - is the weight. The older you get the more you appreciate the lightness. I had to wait over a year and a half to get the z mount big primes. So, I had plenty of time with z bodies and f mount big primes. I don’t see any better sharpness unless I’m at low SS - which I rarely do for wildlife/birding. Ps - I thought I was watching an old video of the angry photographer when he did his camera channel.
Why Angry Photographer ... we don't look or sound the same .... ? :)
Good day Matt, as usual you have got me excited about new possibilities! I see nice examples of these lenses at or below $1,800 US. I have the Z400/4.5 S lens which I love and brought with me to Melbourne last November. A comparison between these lenses would be appreciated. Is the Bokeh achieved with the f/2.8 make it stand apart from the 4.5 S lens and is it worth the investment? I would say that for most applications the Z400/4.5 S lens should be as good, if not better. What do you say?
The one thing I will say is that I had a 400mm f/2.8 FL EDs on loan for a superbike race I shot a couple of years ago, right after I'd gotten my Z9 and right after the Z-mount version was released (NPS told me even they didn't have any copies to loan out because the demand was so high), and I was surprised at how not-sharp it was in comparison to even my Z-mount 70-200. Not that it wasn't sharp, quite the opposite, but being a pixel-peeper, I'm obsessive about getting "perfect" sharpness, and while I can shoot the 70-200 wide open all day long and not notice any image defects whatsoever, the 400mm absolutely showed its optical weaknesses when you really scrutinized it. I suppose that's more of an indication that the Z glass is just on a different planet optically, but either way, I was very surprised that a $12,000 specialty lens reserved for a select few seemed to be getting outdone by one that just about every professional owns.
You were probably seeing the effects of atmospheric distortion.
I wonder if you've tested whether it's better to switch off the lens stabilisation and just use the in-body? I have a 500mm f4 older lens, which was amazing on my D4, but it's AF stopped working and I've not had it repaired yet, so I've not tested it on my Z9. Btw, your "Sydney a Love Affair" book just arrived and it's fantastic!
Cheers Duncan. Glad your Sydney book arrived. 😀😀😀 it seems that whether VR is on or off on the lens, control is greyed out on the camera. Thus it feels like the lens is leading the way. I will see if I can find out more info. 😀
Yup I have a 500 f4 f mount. On an Fmount camera the stabilizer only runs when focusing. When it’s mounted to a z mount body - the stabilization runs constantly. I no longer worry about that as I’ve gone fully z mount with a 400 and 600. I never sold the 500 since I still have an 850 and a D6. With the f mount used price drops I just keep them around for “vintage day” where I get the old noisy gear out and have some fun.
Great lens
Maybe one day I can obtain one.
I hope so 😀
I've owned the 200 f2 VR, the 300 f2.8 VR and the 200-400 f4 VR among many other Nikkors. The 300 2.8 was fabulous but heavy and the 200 f2 was the best lens I've ever used, especially for portraits but it too is so big and heavy , especially compared to the new Z lenses. The 200-400 was a dog, not good at far distances.🙈🙈🙈
I was hoping to see a direct comparison in images from both these lenses. I’m sad you didn’t have the zTC version at the same time.
I'm sad I don't have it as well, unfortunately I can't afford it, and it is in very high demand from NPS. :)
Matt, great video - while newer is often better, is it that much better? I'd love to see a similar comparison of the Z (PF) 800mm and the absolutely legendary F-mount 800mm. Aside from being a (generally trivial) half or so stop faster, I believe that the image quality of the original F-mount 800mm is better - so much so that I sold the Z 800mm! Maybe I have a great AF-S 800 f/5.6 and a meh version of the Z mount, but side-by-side, I felt there was a non pixel-peeking difference in image quality (sharpness, flare, bokeh) between the lenses - at least when shooting low-light sporting events. Curious if anyone else feels the same way.
The lab test differences between long lenses may not be noticeable in the field. Long lens shooting is often limited by the air quality, heat (or cold) shimmers, tripod and lens handling technique. F lenses perform better on Z bodies. The improved autofocus is noticeable. Nicer glass is always nicer. My wife has a new Z camera, is learning lenses, and loves wildlife photography.
Agree Matt, a great lens. On a down side, mine did not survive the 2022 Rochester, Australia floods. Staying under water for two days. Not covered by flood insurance, it will now be used as a door-stop when my home is finally repaired. Am looking for a replacement if anyone can assist?
Ah Bruce, I am so sorry to hear that. Totally brutal.
Thanks Matt!
I've the 500 4 from that time unfortunately it's not as sharp as yours but still excellent
I bought it back when it was out and still have it
I have the newest 500 f/4E, it is phenomenal on the Z9. I shoot motorsports and aviation with it.
Who would have thought the best part about the mirrorless cameras would be the huge deals on DSLRs? Im buying all the pro glass I can get while the pricing is low!
Logic would suggest, don't buy now, as it will only get cheaper next year, then the year after ..., and then at some point they will become rare, I do think that is a while off.
IMO, like anything being retired, there will be an influx of availability then a drought then possible resurgence (at higher collector prices). Vinyl records are a great example. Also, the condition of the gear will get progressively worse as time rolls on. There may still be pristine examples but there will be a premium. Right now there is a glut of DSLR gear in great condition being sold off at pennies on the dollar due to the high interest in mirrorless. I'm buying while I know I can get what I want for great prices. Best wishes!
i had 200 F2 vr 1 ~
7:30 what does a lens "running faster" mean?
The G version has special rendering. That’s something I don’t think you really talked about.
Yes I agree, and I agree, many of the lenses from this era have a similar rendering I feel.
This is a little bit of a rant, so I apologise in advance. I am sick to death of Nikon not providing for a up and coming sports photographers who want to be good and perhaps one day work for the likes of Getty etc. The lenses that a produced these days are over priced and are more aimed at birders and wildlife photographers where aperture does not matter so much. If you are a sports photographer, to get the quality that you need to be professional, you have to get a second hand F mount like the one that you are using and use an adapter because who starting out is going to fork out $24K AU for a new 400 2.8. Nikon needs to replace their 200-400 f4 and possibly the 120-300mm 2.8. If Sigma and Tamron came up with an affordable stella sports zoom telephoto that does not cost the earth then I would be 100% on board. Who wouldn't? The new sports photographers I feel are not being looked after with the crap amateur lenses that Nikon are producing like the 180-600 that is slow and sharp some of the time during a sports game.
Didn't know that you shot the symphony, very cool! Great review Matt! only concern I have is Nikon lenses that employ "Silent Wave Motor" eventually... because I had that happen on my 70-200mm AF-S G VRII version die and it cost me $800 to have Nikon repair, that was 2 years ago and now I understand Nikon doesn't repair "Silent Wave" motors any longer. I hope I'm wrong. Otherwise, I might consider the AF-S version of 400mm f2.8.
All the FL glass is still exceptional glass in 2024.
I'm just going To buy one 2300€ here In Finland, its very cheap
...also is no telling how long Nikon are continue to support this lens.
I think it will always be supported through the FTZ. Or do you mean repair?
@@MattIrwinPhotography yeah repairs
@@migueltrujillo5932 yeah for sure, there are third party repair shops.
@@MattIrwinPhotography in time I be on the Z side of things😀
One downside to all of those switches on the old lenses, I once had geese fly over and poop right onto those switches on the lens I was packing on my shoulder on the tripod. Wiped it right out and cost me a lot to have it fixed. I pitied the tech who had to work on it. I sold my 600mm f4 because of the weight. The young man I sold it to is thrilled with it. I am at 500mm PF speed now that I've aged.