Christopher Frost Nikon 28-400 review

zephxiiii said:

docmaas said:

I'm surprised there hasn't been more traffic on this lens. I think Frost is the first real post release review I've seen. Having looked at the images I'm not sorry I cancelled my order. Hope always springs eternal for a lens like this with good corners throughout the range but disappointment always raises it's ugly head for those who are not happy with less.

What do you think?

Click to expand...

Given that it's a 28-400mm full frame superzoom lens, the center was great and the corners were acceptable, I mean even Frost was happy. For what it is, that's not bad at all.

Click to expand...

I don't agree with this statement at all. Image quality is judged on the quality of the images, not the type of equipment it was taken with.

You can't say "this image quality is acceptable because it was taken with lens X, but if it was taken with lens Y, then it wouldn't be acceptable".

Zorgon2 said:

You can't say "this image quality is acceptable because it was taken with lens X, but if it was taken with lens Y, then it wouldn't be acceptable".

Click to expand...

+ 1

I am personally of the same mindset as the OP. I would have considered a Nikon with this lens had it been sharp to the corners - ben if it took f9 or f11 to get there. The fact that it never gets there makes it a no go for me.

docmaas said:

I'm surprised there hasn't been more traffic on this lens. I think Frost is the first real post release review I've seen. Having looked at the images I'm not sorry I cancelled my order. Hope always springs eternal for a lens like this with good corners throughout the range but disappointment always raises it's ugly head for those who are not happy with less.

What do you think?

Click to expand...

I remember when I was in Portugal years ago with a Nikon D300 and the 18-200 super zoom (28-300 eqv). I could take a huge variety of shots with very little effort. Perfect if you are doing some half serious travel photography. Combine the Z 28-400 with some light weight prime for low light and shallow DOF, for instance the 40 F2.

I also do quite a lot of bird/wildlife photos with my Z50 and the 50-250. Have looked at longer alternatives, but the weight often gives me second thoughts. A 400 mm at just 725 g is very attractive. The slow F8 should not be much more problematic than the F 6.3 on the 50-250.

So, for travel with my FF Z5 (28-400) and for wildlife/sports with my Z50 (42-600 eqv) this looks very attractive as a remarkably lightweight option.

But - I find the price a little on the high side compared to similar lenses in the past. Maybe it will go down.

Zorgon2 said:

zephxiiii said:

docmaas said:

I'm surprised there hasn't been more traffic on this lens. I think Frost is the first real post release review I've seen. Having looked at the images I'm not sorry I cancelled my order. Hope always springs eternal for a lens like this with good corners throughout the range but disappointment always raises it's ugly head for those who are not happy with less.

What do you think?

Click to expand...

Given that it's a 28-400mm full frame superzoom lens, the center was great and the corners were acceptable, I mean even Frost was happy. For what it is, that's not bad at all.

Click to expand...

I don't agree with this statement at all. Image quality is judged on the quality of the images, not the type of equipment it was taken with.

You can't say "this image quality is acceptable because it was taken with lens X, but if it was taken with lens Y, then it wouldn't be acceptable".

Click to expand...

Acceptable is use case specific and subjective. So for the uses of a 28-400 it could well be acceptable whereas for a 85mm T/S lens might not be.

It's better than a lot of lenses that, a few years ago, were considered more than acceptable or even really good. Not perfectly sharp in the corners at 100 percent on a 45mp sensor isn't close my definition of unacceptable but of course as I said its subjective.

Leonard Shepherd said:

While Topaz, Lightroom denoise and others can improve image quality using lower grade lenses. they can also further improve image quality from higher grade lenses.

While MTF charts and the different MTF 50 results provide useful information, I find the skill of the photographer combined with the shooting conditions have a much greater influence on whether or not a photograph is perceived as good.

This is a variation of camera equipment only being tools to do a job. Professional oil painters, professional musicians and professional photographers tend to produce results distinctly above average.

Click to expand...

I'd never realized until now that:

• Image quality is better with better lenses.
• A photog's skills are more important than the equipment used.
• Professionals do certain things better than non-professionals.

These are amazing insights, not only in photography, but in all of life. Thank you for sharing them!

--
"Ad hominem" somebody if you can't offer facts to refute theirs.

This lens appears to be a redux of the 28-300 which was wildly popular, but less impressive in its performance. Its always fun to go back and evaluate how we evolved into this lens and compare how performance has improved. The 28-300 was always one of those Love it and Hate type of lenses. Everyone had a strong opinion of it.


I can't comment on the performance of the 28-400, but only the utility of it which makes it an outstanding tool in our arsenal.

I agree with your assessment. To me it is interesting, and I anxiously watched for it's release. But the pricing caught me off guard. I suppose this day and age there are plenty of takers at the price, but it is just not in my interesting corner at this price. I suppose I was hoping for something in the under $1,000 at worst and $750 at best. I believe I will have to pass and if I get to the point that I feel like I have to have a fairly compact lens that goes to 400mm will be looking at the Tamron 18-400 at 1/2 the price as I am a died in the wool DX shooter. And as a plus, the Tamron would work on all of my ILC cameras, instead of just 1.

I'm interested in this lens for my spouse's Z50. It's not too large or heavy.
We'll check it out when our local store has one we can get hands-on with.

With this 28-400 VR on a Z50 and the DX 12-28mm PZ VR on a Z30, my spouse will have a small, light, and very versatile two-camera/two-lens kit -- smaller and lighter (3.7 lbs total) than my Z9+24-70mm f/2.8 alone (4.8 lbs) , much less my full travel kit of Z9+14-24mm f/2.8 + 24-70mm f/2.6 + 100-400mm + TC 1.4X (9.6 lbs).

Yes, my kit is better, but that doesn't mean I take better pictures.

madecov said:

This lens will be popular. Especially for soccer ️ and T ball .trips to Disney and other tourist attractions. I'm more torn over the f/8 than how the corners are.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't want to be carrying a full frame camera and 28-400 lens around Disney on my vacation or visit. Too much/heavy. latest iPhone/smartphone for that. Diff strokes for diff folks...

pcgeekesq said:

I'm interested in this lens for my spouse's Z50. It's not too large or heavy.
We'll check it out when our local store has one we can get hands-on with.

With this 28-400 VR on a Z50 and the DX 12-28mm PZ VR on a Z30, my spouse will have a small, light, and very versatile two-camera/two-lens kit -- smaller and lighter (3.7 lbs total) than my Z9+24-70mm f/2.8 alone (4.8 lbs) , much less my full travel kit of Z9+14-24mm f/2.8 + 24-70mm f/2.6 + 100-400mm + TC 1.4X (9.6 lbs).

Yes, my kit is better, but that doesn't mean I take better pictures.

Click to expand...

If you're using it on an APS-C you may want to consider a 24-200 instead (36-300mm FF equivalent versus 50-600mm equivalent unless you want the longer telephoto range on that camera and don't mind giving up the wide end).

pcgeekesq said:

I'm interested in this lens for my spouse's Z50. It's not too large or heavy.
We'll check it out when our local store has one we can get hands-on with.

Click to expand...

It's still fairly large/heavy lens. 726 grams and 5.6 inches retracted. Almost same weight, 90% and actually slightly longer than the 24-70 F2.8Z S zoom 4.96 inches retracted, (that some people here we're saying is too large and heavy, LOL)

Member said:

With this 28-400 VR on a Z50

Click to expand...

Member said:

and the DX 12-28mm PZ VR on a Z30, my spouse will have a small, light

Click to expand...

It's all relative, but a 28-400 is not a small, light kit on any body. On the Z50 that lens will be horribly unbalanced to use. Nose heavy... Z50 body is half weight of the lens, LOL.

Member said:

, and very versatile two-camera/two-lens kit -- smaller and lighter (3.7 lbs total) than my

Click to expand...

But a lot slower. of a kit.. Your kit at least has F2.8 glass mostly..

Member said:

Z9+24-70mm f/2.8 alone (4.8 lbs) , much less my full travel kit of Z9+14-24mm f/2.8 + 24-70mm f/2.6 + 100-400mm + TC 1.4X (9.6 lbs).

Yes, my kit is better, but that doesn't mean I take better pictures.

Click to expand...

B727 said:

B727

I'm not a pro. I don't care about corners or superb imagine quality. I try my best to get good shots As long as the pictures are decent enough, I want to be out there having a good time and bring home good memories for the future.

On my DX I used and still use a 18-300 sigma, which was all I took in many trips. Sure, at 300mm the images were just "meh", but that's fine, I've got those pictures to remember and revive good times.

Can't wait to get mine!

Click to expand...

This is exactly it. The images from the 28-400 are 100% better

than the images from the 400 2.8 which was left at home because it’s ridiculously heavy and impractical to walk around with.



Expecting a 28-400 super zoom to show the corner quality of an 85mm F2 is bizarre

kbrkr said:

This lens appears to be a redux of the 28-300 which was wildly popular, but less impressive in its performance. Its always fun to go back and evaluate how we evolved into this lens and compare how performance has improved. The 28-300 was always one of those Love it and Hate type of lenses. Everyone had a strong opinion of it.

https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-28-300mm-vr/4

I can't comment on the performance of the 28-400, but only the utility of it which makes it an outstanding tool in our arsenal.

Click to expand...

And yet you did.

I took an 18-200 to Greenland years ago and it was tremendous despite being a suboptimal lens. A few years ago I picked up a 28-300 and it has become one of my most used lenses, simply because it’s always able to capture the moment.

I’ll be getting one of these, but I do think the price is high but I guess everything is dearer these days

sirhawkeye64 said:

pcgeekesq said:

I'm interested in this lens for my spouse's Z50. It's not too large or heavy.
We'll check it out when our local store has one we can get hands-on with.

With this 28-400 VR on a Z50 and the DX 12-28mm PZ VR on a Z30, my spouse will have a small, light, and very versatile two-camera/two-lens kit

Click to expand...

If you're using it on an APS-C you may want to consider a 24-200 instead (36-300mm FF equivalent versus 50-600mm equivalent unless you want the longer telephoto range on that camera and don't mind giving up the wide end).

Click to expand...

The Z30 + DX 12-28mm covers the wide end. My spouse typically carries both cameras. We have the DX 50-250mm already, the 28-400 is longer+wider (and bigger+heavier).

Fullframer said:

pcgeekesq said:

I'm interested in this lens for my spouse's Z50. It's not too large or heavy.
We'll check it out when our local store has one we can get hands-on with.

Click to expand...

It's still fairly large/heavy lens. 726 grams and 5.6 inches retracted. Almost same weight, 90% and actually slightly longer than the 24-70 F2.8Z S zoom 4.96 inches retracted, (that some people here we're saying is too large and heavy, LOL) .. On the Z50 that lens will be horribly unbalanced to use. Nose heavy... Z50 body is half weight of the lens, LOL.

Click to expand...

We actually used my 24-70 F2.8Z to mock-up a 28-400 on the Z50, and my spouse tentatively found it an acceptable. A little tight between the grip and the lens for my taste, but I have fatter fingers. As I wrote before, we'll make the final call after we can try the lens out at our local camera store.

As to balance, the lens is 750g, the Z50 with battery is 450g. By way of comparison, near the other end of the size spectrum, the 180-600mm lens is 1995g and the Z8 is 910g. So I think the balance issue will be manageable.

Cameras will undoubtedly get lighter going forward, as advances in electronic and battery technology allow. Lenses, on the other hand, are not so easy to shrink without losing performance. So a big lens on a small camera may be the norm in a decade.

The top end may even swing to non-ILC once sensor and processor technology hit a practical plateau: top-end lenses costing US$14,000 today may integrate the sensor, processor, battery, viewscreens and grip for the obvious advantages in you get from eliminating the mount.

Vince P said:

Bob A L said:

That would vary according to the final use of the image. A huge portion of digital images are never viewed by anyone at resolutions over 12mp. The only exception being really large prints.

Click to expand...

Cropping isn't the same as downscaling though. as well as resolution you are giving up dynamic range whilst increasing visible noise for the same output.

Anyway unscientific test handheld here is the 24-200 cropped to a 400mm FOV alongside the 28-400 at 400. followed by a couple of comparisons of them both at 200mm centre and edges. I am happy enough with them both. For me the 24-200 will get more use as it's more compact and lighter whilst most times I would prefer to have 24mm rather than 400.

View attachment b7d8236ccba44cc4818c6365adad7ba8.jpg

View attachment 05f2626fd5ba4be28e19c9d620f20923.jpg

Click to expand...

I would say the difference is minimal, but it misses the fact that the 28-400, cropped in the same way, can provide a 600mm FOV. I have used the 28-300 extensively, and have often benefited from having essentially a wildlife/bird focal length on a walk around, reasonably wide, lens. On many occasions I have captured usable images I’d have missed if I stopped to put on my 600mm

Vince P said:

Bob A L said:

That would vary according to the final use of the image. A huge portion of digital images are never viewed by anyone at resolutions over 12mp. The only exception being really large prints.

Click to expand...

Cropping isn't the same as downscaling though. as well as resolution you are giving up dynamic range whilst increasing visible noise for the same output.

Anyway unscientific test handheld here is the 24-200 cropped to a 400mm FOV alongside the 28-400 at 400. followed by a couple of comparisons of them both at 200mm centre and edges. I am happy enough with them both. For me the 24-200 will get more use as it's more compact and lighter whilst most times I would prefer to have 24mm rather than 400.

View attachment b7d8236ccba44cc4818c6365adad7ba8.jpg

View attachment 05f2626fd5ba4be28e19c9d620f20923.jpg

Click to expand...

Are the first two images mislabeled? I think the one that says 24-200 cropped to 400 was actually taken with the 28-400 and not cropped. And the one that says 28-400 was taken with the 24-200 and cropped.

Also, has anyone tested how much focal length breathing there is with close subjects with this 28-400 lens? If you pick a subject that is 20 or 30 feet away, are you really getting the same field of view or reach as you do with a 400mm prime lens? The Sigma and Tamron superzoom DSLR lenses had massive focal length breathing and I'm curious if that has been solved.

--
My Flickr Page: https://flic.kr/ps/22miQH
My Instagram Page: https://www.instagram.com/leejmarkowitz/
(@leejmarkowitz)