Nikkon 400mm f/2.8 FL ED (A Dream Lens)

John Koerner · Aug 12, 2019

I have owned this lens for several months now. It is a terrific tool, made all the more so by the fact it is sharpest wide-open.

The cool thing is, because I have my D850 glued to it, the 47mpx of the camera lets me crop-in to a 600mm DX-equivalent reach, if need be. Therefore, it is almost 2 ultra-special lenses in one.

A lot of people ask me, “Why didn’t you just go with the 600mm?” My reason is critical: MTF values.

The 400mm FL ED is not only a sharper lens than the 600mm, period, but its peak sharpness values are @ f/2.8 to f/4 , not when stopped way down to f/8. The 600mm, by contrast, has peak sharpness values @ f/8 , where I would never bother to shoot at with a lens this expensive.

Because the 400mm FL ED is sharper @ f/2.8 than the 600mm is anywhere, and most especially wide-open, to f/4, this translates to more light + more speed + more beautiful blurred backgrounds, all the while enjoying über sharpness and top-notch auto-focus. The 400 FL ED also takes tele-converters better than any other super telephoto.

While my 800mm FL ED beats them all at long distances, there are times when this extreme focal length is "too much" for closer as well as bigger targets. Together, these two Nikkor super-telephoto lenses make the finest wildlife duo team money can buy.

However, if I had to choose just one lens to deploy, by itself, the 400mm FL ED would be it. The 400mm FL ED's exquisite sharpness wide-open, its sublime rendering, its seamless handling of TCs (for extra reach), when added, losing nothing in AF performance, combined with its subject isolation, make this the overall best, most versatile "single" super-telephoto lens on the planet

Please enjoy these sample images (on both the D500 as well as the D850):

On D500 (~600mm):

American Bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus)

California Wild Rose (Rosa californica)

Mourning Dove (Zenaida macroura)

Anna's Hummingbird ♀ (Calypte anna)

California Scrub Jay (Aphelocoma californica)

On D500 + 1.4 TC (~840mm):

Northern Mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos)

California Thrasher (Toxostoma redivivum)

On D500 + 2x TC (~1200mm):

Side-Blotched Lizard ♂ (Uta stansburiana)

Gambel's Quail ♂ (Callipepla gambelii)

On D850:

Tree Swallow ♂ (Tachycineta bicolor)

Enjoy!

ormdig · Aug 13, 2019

NatureFiles said:
I appreciate the effort of your review. I think the images are nice, but for me, not 12,000 dollar nice. Im one of the poor sap's with a cheap 500pf. Yes, it does have limitations, but attentive photographers can easily work around these. I might disagree with respects to not stopping a lens down. With close subjects, I like the results from f5/.6 to f8.

I often think that a review of an exotic 10,000 plus dollar lens is a bit trite. I mean who will honestly give a bad review after spending that kind of money? You also made sure to mention your 800mm, too. It seems to me, maybe you like the "status" of owning expensive lens as much as you do shooting with them? Hey, whatever floats your boat.

Here a shot I took with the 500pf, I think the OOF transitions hold up fairly well to the exotics.

I don't see anything trite about this review. I appreciate seeing what a really good lens is capable of in the hands of someone who knows how to use it. I'm one of the "poor saps" who will never be able to afford an exotic but I like seeing what they will do. No one says anything about the myriad 200-500 or 80-400 bird shots posted with no detail in the feathers so why the snark about these beautiful images?

John Koerner · Aug 13, 2019

NatureFiles said:
Hey thanks for your honest assessment of your buying motives ;-) Enjoy!

It would be great if you would be as honest about your complaining motives

Wanchese · Aug 13, 2019

Your Pf shot is very nice. I'd love to see more of them in your review of that fine lense.

In this review and discussion however, I am hoping to discover some tips and techniques for mastering the 400e.

When your Pf review is posted, any comments I make will be about your experiences with the Pf and/or how they compare to mine.

I assuredly won't castigate you for your decision not to invest more heavily in your passion.

---YNWA

John Koerner · Aug 13, 2019

NatureFiles said:
I appreciate the effort of your review. I think the images are nice, but for me, not 12,000 dollar nice. Im one of the poor sap's with a cheap 500pf.

I disagree. It is $12,000 nice.

NatureFiles said:
Here a shot I took with the 500pf, I think the OOF transitions hold up fairly well to the exotics.

I think your image is consistent with a $3,000 lens

If I read your exif right, that 500mm @ f/5.6, kept down to ISO 1250.

Here's what you can do with a $12,000 lens ... you can get to 800 mm, while keeping that same f/5.6, and you can even double the ISO:

Unfortunately, your $3,000 lens would be up at f/11 with the 2x TC on it, not f/5.6.

What's also nice about the f/2.8 aperture is you can raise it to f/4.5, to enjoy better DOF on the subject, and yet completely remove your background in a way that an f/5.6 would find difficult to do:

This kind of flexibility might not matter to you ... but that kind of cleanness does matter to some.

Don't hate, appreciate :-D

Wanchese · Aug 13, 2019

Booya! It's outa' here!!!

John Koerner · Aug 13, 2019

ormdig said:
I don't see anything trite about this review. I appreciate seeing what a really good lens is capable of in the hands of someone who knows how to use it. I'm one of the "poor saps" who will never be able to afford an exotic but I like seeing what they will do. No one says anything about the myriad 200-500 or 80-400 bird shots posted with no detail in the feathers so why the snark about these beautiful images?

It's okay, and all in fun.

Like you, I have been drooling over this lens for a couple years now, saving and saving.

I recently have had several fortunate financial transactions that allowed me to realize my dream ... and then some.

I will be going to southeastern AZ very soon, where there is a lot of good birding, and hope to be able to share some nice images upon my return.

Cheers.

shadowfax123 · Aug 13, 2019

John Koerner said:
I have owned this lens for several months now. It is a terrific tool, made all the more so by the fact it is sharpest wide-open.

The cool thing is, because I have my D850 glued to it, the 47mpx of the camera lets me crop-in to a 600mm DX-equivalent reach, if need be. Therefore, it is almost 2 ultra-special lenses in one.

A lot of people ask me, “Why didn’t you just go with the 600mm?” My reason is critical: MTF values.

The 400mm FL ED is not only a sharper lens than the 600mm, period, but its peak sharpness values are @ f/2.8 to f/4 , not when stopped way down to f/8. The 600mm, by contrast, has peak sharpness values @ f/8 , where I would never bother to shoot at with a lens this expensive.

Because the 400mm FL ED is sharper @ f/2.8 than the 600mm is anywhere, and most especially wide-open, to f/4, this translates to more light + more speed + more beautiful blurred backgrounds, all the while enjoying über sharpness and top-notch auto-focus. The 400 FL ED also takes tele-converters better than any other super telephoto.

While my 800mm FL ED beats them all at long distances, there are times when this extreme focal length is "too much" for closer as well as bigger targets. Together, these two Nikkor super-telephoto lenses make the finest wildlife duo team money can buy.

However, if I had to choose just one lens to deploy, by itself, the 400mm FL ED would be it. The 400mm FL ED's exquisite sharpness wide-open, its sublime rendering, its seamless handling of TCs (for extra reach), when added, losing nothing in AF performance, combined with its subject isolation, make this the overall best, most versatile "single" super-telephoto lens on the planet

Please enjoy these sample images (on both the D500 as well as the D850):

On D500 (~600mm):

American Bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus)

California Wild Rose (Rosa californica)

Mourning Dove (Zenaida macroura)

Anna's Hummingbird ♀ (Calypte anna)

California Scrub Jay (Aphelocoma californica)

On D500 + 1.4 TC (~840mm):

Northern Mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos)

California Thrasher (Toxostoma redivivum)

On D500 + 2x TC (~1200mm):

Side-Blotched Lizard ♂ (Uta stansburiana)

Gambel's Quail ♂ (Callipepla gambelii)

On D850:

Tree Swallow ♂ (Tachycineta bicolor)

Enjoy!

You may want to work on your technique a bit:

A. I'm not finding any of the pictures particularly interesting. IMHO, the COMPOSITION is all wrong. There is absolutely nothing to pull your subject out from flat, or even busy, uninteresting backgrounds. Recompose so your backgrounds are not all over the place.

B. It seems like you also missed focus on quite a few of the shots. You may want to find out more of the "sweet spots" of your lens (e.g. distance, aperture) or find tune AF better. And, I agree that with the other poster who said he really didn't prefer the rather wonky bokeh.

C. As I have not patience, I don't shoot a lot of birds. However, I know the appropriate glass to use for the right subjects. You can get a beautiful shot of hummingbirds, right up close, with the 70-200 E. Also, why on earth would you shoot a flower with a 400/2.8? That's a totally boring shot. Choose the glass that is suitable for your subject.

That being said, the pics of the bushtit and tree swallow were pretty good.

--
Please see profile for gear list...

shadowfax123 · Aug 13, 2019

John Koerner said:
Reilly Diefenbach said:

Showing some problematic bokeh at f2.8 near the subject as I mentioned before. I would stop down a bit. Nice lens, but not perfect :^)

Click to expand...

Thanks for your tips.

I am not sure is any lens is 100% "perfect," but you seem the type to ignore everything positive, preferring to concentrate on any "imperfection."

Curious to learn what lens you own that you feel is better than the 400 f/2.8 FL ED? ,,, or to learn what you consider to be a "perfect" lens ...

IMO, the 400 FL ED is about as close to perfection as any lens I've ever owned, and I own some pretty good ones.

Why on earth are you posting pictures, if you don't want honest feedback? Also, you don't need to diminish someone's choice of equipment (e.g. "what lens do YOU own") based on your purchase of a $10K lens. Yikes!

--
Please see profile for gear list...

DAVID MANZE · Aug 13, 2019

shadowfax123 said:
Member said:

Mourning Dove (Zenaida macroura)

Anna's Hummingbird ♀ (Calypte anna)

California Scrub Jay (Aphelocoma californica)

On D500 + 1.4 TC (~840mm):

Northern Mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos)

gambelii)

On D850:

Tree Swallow ♂ (Tachycineta bicolor)

Enjoy!

Click to expand...

You may want to work on your technique a bit:

A. I'm not finding any of the pictures particularly interesting. IMHO, the COMPOSITION is all wrong. There is absolutely nothing to pull your subject out from flat, or even busy, uninteresting backgrounds. Recompose so your backgrounds are not all over the place.

B. It seems like you also missed focus on quite a few of the shots. You may want to find out more of the "sweet spots" of your lens (e.g. distance, aperture) or find tune AF better. And, I agree that with the other poster who said he really didn't prefer the rather wonky bokeh.

C. As I have not patience,

... Oh, really?

Member said:
I don't shoot a lot of birds.

You should try it some time ...... it teaches you patience ...... it also teaches you that not every shot is a winner .......... and that you you can take a hundred shots without anything decent among them ......... most of all it teaches you to be humble ....... as you are rarely in control of a shooting situation ........

....... one thing I do know is that is that "every birder" earns every decent shot that he gets !!

Member said:
That being said, the pics of the bushtit and tree swallow were pretty good.

Give it a go ..... I just know you will benefit from it !!

https://www.flickr.com/photos/124690178@N08/

--
Dave's clichés

Tim S · Aug 13, 2019

I have to agree with Shadowfax very much work in progress here.

Tim Munsey
www.wildphotolife.co.uk

FrankG · Aug 14, 2019

….

NatureFiles said:
Im one of the poor sap's with a cheap 500pf. Yes, it does have limitations, but attentive photographers can easily work around these. I might disagree with respects to not stopping a lens down. With close subjects, I like the results from f5/.6 to f8.

I wouldn't call the 500PF "cheap", especially for an F5.6 lens: it's currently priced at £3699 at most online dealers in the UK. That translates into well over $4000!

NatureFiles said:
I often think that a review of an exotic 10,000 plus dollar lens is a bit trite. I mean who will honestly give a bad review after spending that kind of money? You also made sure to mention your 800mm, too. It seems to me, maybe you like the "status" of owning expensive lens as much as you do shooting with them? Hey, whatever floats your boat.

More of a brag-fest IMO thinly disguised as a review … and the OP more or less admits as such!

NatureFiles said:
Here a shot I took with the 500pf, I think the OOF transitions hold up fairly well to the exotics.

Excellent shot! Very well caught and very sharp on the eye (exactly where it needs to be). Lots of very nice sharp feather detail. Also the lens has, as you say, delivered nice smooth transitions to OOF areas. Only thing I might suggest would be to either crop slightly tighter or do some judicious software extra smoothing of the corners - but if you are selling the shot to a magazine for example then you best leave the cropping to the editors.

There probably won't be many better shots out there anywhere of this extremely tiny, fast moving and often extremely elusive White-eye family of birds.

Frank

John Koerner · Aug 14, 2019

shadowfax123 said:
You may want to work on your technique a bit:

Always wanting to work on my technique.

You may also want to work on your tact, a lot.

Member said:
A. I'm not finding any of the pictures particularly interesting. IMHO, the COMPOSITION is all wrong. There is absolutely nothing to pull your subject out from flat, or even busy, uninteresting backgrounds. Recompose so your backgrounds are not all over the place.

That is a statement about you. You might be surprised to learn I don't take photos to please "you"; I take photos because the subjects interest me. You admit you lack experience and don't even shoot the subject of birds, and yet you give "advice" about how to go about it? ;-)

If you had any experience with the subject, you'd realize most birds don't just stand there, and allow you "to recompose" ... you pretty much take them as you can get them.

Member said:
B. It seems like you also missed focus on quite a few of the shots. You may want to find out more of the "sweet spots" of your lens (e.g. distance, aperture) or find tune AF better. And, I agree that with the other poster who said he really didn't prefer the rather wonky bokeh.

The only way to "control your distance" with bird shots is to sit by a feeder, and/or from a blind, and wait for the birds to land at designated areas. When hiking, there is simply no way to control where, or when, you will get the next opportunity—nor how far away it will be, nor the kind of background you will get.

Member said:
C. As I have not patience, I don't shoot a lot of birds. However, I know the appropriate glass to use for the right subjects. You can get a beautiful shot of hummingbirds, right up close, with the 70-200 E. Also, why on earth would you shoot a flower with a 400/2.8? That's a totally boring shot. Choose the glass that is suitable for your subject.

Again, in addition to having no patience, you have no tact nor any actual experience with the subject, either. We agree the 70-200 E is a nice lens. However, speaking of knowing your glass, for hummingbirds specifically, the 300 PF is the better choice: it has an extra 100mm of reach, and a greater reproduction ratio, from an extra foot away.

That said, while I agree the rose shot was "beneath" the capabilities of the 400 FL ED, please realize I was just experimenting with the versatility of this lens. For that matter, you probably wouldn't like this beetle shot I did with the 400 FL ED, either ... with a 2x Extender on it no less:

Again, please realize I took this shot, not because I "don't know my gear" (trust me, I have more, and better, macro lenses than you—and will compare my finest macros to yours any day), but I again was just experimenting with the versatility of the lens, as I acclimate myself to it.

Member said:
That being said, the pics of the bushtit and tree swallow were pretty good.

I am so glad to read a couple of my images achieved your "pretty good" rating ... thanks.

Krish6102 · Aug 14, 2019

John, I agree with you about the 400mm FL ED being one of the best ever lenses.

I was on a wait-list to buy the the 500 PF. Like for everyone else, the waiting period was long. During that time I started renting the 400 FL ED from the neighborhood lens rental. I was blown away the first time i used it. Now, its become my go-to lens at the rental. I like it so much that I cancelled my order of the 500PF.

Other lenses get written about so much on this forum - especially the 200-500 and the 500PF - but this fantastic lens hardly does ! I am glad you changed that.

briantilley · Aug 14, 2019

John Koerner said:
Again, please realize I took this shot, not because I "don't know my gear" (trust me, I have more, and better, macro lenses than you—and will compare my finest macros to yours any day)

That's another example of the sort of remark that seems to have got a few people's backs up in your two review threads. It's great that you are able to invest in these exotic lenses, but there is absolutely no need to belittle those who aren't in the same fortunate situation and have to manage with lesser glass.

I'm glad you're happy with your gear - and it's good to see some nice results from lenses that few people are able to own - but if you could tone down the boastfulness and sarcasm, it would be better all round

Wanchese · Aug 14, 2019

briantilley said:
John Koerner said:

Again, please realize I took this shot, not because I "don't know my gear" (trust me, I have more, and better, macro lenses than you—and will compare my finest macros to yours any day)

Click to expand...

That's another example of the sort of remark that seems to have got a few people's backs up in your two review threads. It's great that you are able to invest in these exotic lenses, but there is absolutely no need to belittle those who aren't in the same fortunate situation and have to manage with lesser glass.

I'm glad you're happy with your gear - and it's good to see some nice results from lenses that few people are able to own - but if you could tone down the boastfulness and sarcasm, it would be better all round

The OP didn't start the snark fest. He had his ability to acquire dream glass turned into a cudgel against him. If he got his back up and put the sarcasm game into full swing, he was just playing defense.

briantilley · Aug 14, 2019

Wanchese said:
briantilley said:

John Koerner said:

Again, please realize I took this shot, not because I "don't know my gear" (trust me, I have more, and better, macro lenses than you—and will compare my finest macros to yours any day)

Click to expand...

That's another example of the sort of remark that seems to have got a few people's backs up in your two review threads. It's great that you are able to invest in these exotic lenses, but there is absolutely no need to belittle those who aren't in the same fortunate situation and have to manage with lesser glass.

I'm glad you're happy with your gear - and it's good to see some nice results from lenses that few people are able to own - but if you could tone down the boastfulness and sarcasm, it would be better all round

Click to expand...

The OP didn't start the snark fest.

We'll have to differ on that one.

Wanchese said:
He had his ability to acquire dream glass turned into a cudgel against him. If he got his back up and put the sarcasm game into full swing, he was just playing defense.

FingerPainter · Aug 14, 2019

John Koerner said:
...

The cool thing is, because I have my D850 glued to it, the 47mpx of the camera lets me crop-in to a 600mm DX-equivalent reach, if need be. Therefore, it is almost 2 ultra-special lenses in one.

A lot of people ask me, “Why didn’t you just go with the 600mm?” My reason is critical: MTF values.

The 400mm FL ED is not only a sharper lens than the 600mm, period, but its peak sharpness values are @ f/2.8 to f/4 , not when stopped way down to f/8. The 600mm, by contrast, has peak sharpness values @ f/8 , where I would never bother to shoot at with a lens this expensive.

Because the 400mm FL ED is sharper @ f/2.8 than the 600mm is anywhere, and most especially wide-open, to f/4, this translates to more light + more speed + more beautiful blurred backgrounds, all the while enjoying über sharpness and top-notch auto-focus. The 400 FL ED also takes tele-converters better than any other super telephoto.

Shooting your 400 mm wide open and then cropping to a 600mm FOV puts only 4/9 as many pixels on target, increases noisiness by more than a stop but increases blur.

For this result to be sharper than a 600mm image, the 400mm would have to resolve 50% more LP/PH @ f/2.8 than the 600mm does at f/8. Does it? That's not what the reviews I've seen say.

Even after cropping you will get close to twice the SNR though, which will help.

John Koerner · Aug 14, 2019

Wanchese said:
The OP didn't start the snark fest. He had his ability to acquire dream glass turned into a cudgel against him. If he got his back up and put the sarcasm game into full swing, he was just playing defense.

Thank you. That is exactly as I see it.

I was just stoked about getting a new lens, and dude comes out with non-constructive, pure ill-intended criticism ... from a guy who doesn't even shoot birds.

Anyway, thanks again, Nice to know some can see straight.

I actually welcome criticism, provided it's respectful and intended to be helpful. Ray Charles could see that wasn't the case here.

Raziel Orlando · Aug 14, 2019

Maybe some day I will able to afford a $12,000 lens. Meanwhile my dream lens right now is the 400mm f/2.8 Ai-s manual focus lens, mainly because the $1500 price is achievable for me.

John Koerner · Aug 14, 2019

Raziel Orlando said:
Maybe some day I will able to afford a $12,000 lens. Meanwhile my dream lens right now is the 400mm f/2.8 Ai-s manual focus lens, mainly because the $1500 price is achievable for me.

Those are some beautiful lenses, actually.

I had an AI-S collection, not too long ago. Never a super-telephoto though. Just standard focal lengths. I wound up getting rid of them, upgrading to Zeiss Classics, but I still miss the AI-S optics ... they are really neat. Some of my favorite images have come through AI-S glass.

I have considered getting a 400 or 600 AI-S, just to collect and try out. Might not be optimal for either hand-holding, or hiking, due to the weight and lack of AF. However, set up on a tripod/gimball, it should deliver excellent results from a blind or stationary spot.

One photographer I remember (unfortunately, not his name) swore by MF only ... even for birds in flight. His images were astounding.

There is also something to be said for the experience of manual-focusing: it makes you feel more "connected" to the experience than AF-ing.

Hope you get a great copy ... would love to see photos of it and would also love to see the images!

Nikkon 400mm f/2.8 FL ED (A Dream Lens)

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

shadowfax123

Guest

shadowfax123

Guest

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Well-known member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Well-known member

Leading Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts