After reading and watching tons of reviews, I decided to get the 28-400 as a travel lens. I may find I don't like it, but I think I need to give it a try to figure this out.
I used to have a 24-200, but I didn't like the IQ, or say, the feeling of the lack of clarity in the image. I used to use the 24-70 2.8S for travel, but found I didn't take advantage of the larger aperture most of the time because I would like to have a clear background for travel photos, and we usually stay at the hotel at night. The 24-120 F4 is fantastic, and it has been my default travel lens since I purchased it. However, from time to time, I did want a longer reach. I brought the 100-400 S on a road trip, but I don't want to bring it with me when traveling by airplane. So, here is the 28-400.
In my opinion, the two major drawbacks of the 28-400 are 1. the dim aperture and 2. decreased IQ beyond the DX boundary, respectively.
I have a ZF and a Z8. ZF looks like a better choice to compensate for the aperture issue, as it has better high ISO performance and better IBIS (8-stop VR), which means I could use a slower shutter speed for non-moving objects. On the other hand, the Z8's sensor has better "croppability," which allows a decent amount of pixels (19 mp) in the DX area, and thus, we can use the best part of the image circle for anything beyond the 42mm equivalent POV.
Other than compensating for the shortcomings of the 28-400, ZF is 200g lighter than Z8 (I don't need to use the add-on grip on ZF), and the smaller raw files from ZF are faster to process during the travel days. Z8 can achieve a longer equivalent FL due to the higher pixel counts, though.
And there is still a thing not clear to me: Nikon claims that the Synchro VR can allow up to 5.5 stops of image stabilization when paired with Z8/ZF. But ZF alone can achieve 8-stop image stabilization. I think the number of stops would be affected by the focal length, and in-lens VR should be more effective than IBIS at a longer focal length. That said, does ZF still have an edge over Z8 in terms of VR when the lens and focal length are the same?
What are your thoughts or experiences with these setups? I'd love to hear your opinions and suggestions on this matter. Thanks,
I used to have a 24-200, but I didn't like the IQ, or say, the feeling of the lack of clarity in the image. I used to use the 24-70 2.8S for travel, but found I didn't take advantage of the larger aperture most of the time because I would like to have a clear background for travel photos, and we usually stay at the hotel at night. The 24-120 F4 is fantastic, and it has been my default travel lens since I purchased it. However, from time to time, I did want a longer reach. I brought the 100-400 S on a road trip, but I don't want to bring it with me when traveling by airplane. So, here is the 28-400.
In my opinion, the two major drawbacks of the 28-400 are 1. the dim aperture and 2. decreased IQ beyond the DX boundary, respectively.
I have a ZF and a Z8. ZF looks like a better choice to compensate for the aperture issue, as it has better high ISO performance and better IBIS (8-stop VR), which means I could use a slower shutter speed for non-moving objects. On the other hand, the Z8's sensor has better "croppability," which allows a decent amount of pixels (19 mp) in the DX area, and thus, we can use the best part of the image circle for anything beyond the 42mm equivalent POV.
Other than compensating for the shortcomings of the 28-400, ZF is 200g lighter than Z8 (I don't need to use the add-on grip on ZF), and the smaller raw files from ZF are faster to process during the travel days. Z8 can achieve a longer equivalent FL due to the higher pixel counts, though.
And there is still a thing not clear to me: Nikon claims that the Synchro VR can allow up to 5.5 stops of image stabilization when paired with Z8/ZF. But ZF alone can achieve 8-stop image stabilization. I think the number of stops would be affected by the focal length, and in-lens VR should be more effective than IBIS at a longer focal length. That said, does ZF still have an edge over Z8 in terms of VR when the lens and focal length are the same?
What are your thoughts or experiences with these setups? I'd love to hear your opinions and suggestions on this matter. Thanks,
