Nikon Z 28-400mm f/4-8 VR

[Ray]

Having taken photos during most of my life, and changing cameras and lenses dozens of times as the technology progresses, I've finally settled on the Nikon Z50 with 16-50mm and 50-250mm DX lenses.

However, carrying both lenses and changing them whilst trekking in the countryside or forest, is a negative, so I'm now considering purchasing the Nikon Z 28-400 zoom, which has an amazing range and might be the only lens I will ever need.

I'd be interested to read any comments on what appears to be an amazing zoom lens.

[Rob C]

Ray -

https://www.zsystemuser.com/z-mount-cameras/nikon-z-camera-reviews/nikon-z50-camera-review.html

I always look at his site when thinking Nikon.

[Ray]

Ray -

https://www.zsystemuser.com/z-mount-cameras/nikon-z-camera-reviews/nikon-z50-camera-review.html

I always look at his site when thinking Nikon.

Thanks for the link, Rob. It's been a while since I've seen you posting on this site. How are you?

I suspected the 28-400mm lens would not be good in the corners and edges, but it's an FX lens whereas the the Z50 I'm currently using is a DX camera, so resolution fall-off at the edges and corners will not be much of an an issue.

The total weight of the Z50 body with 28-400 lens attached will be around 1.2 kg, which is very light for a system with an effective range of 42-600mm.

Here is a summary of the review from the site you linked.

"This is a tough lens to both recommend or to dismiss. The test results are on the spotty side; better choices exist at virtually every focal length, but not necessarily "much better" choices. On the other hand, there's no other lens that has the 28-400mm's immense focal range. My guess is that most of your choice is going to come down to that last bit. As an all-around safari or travel lens, the 28-400mm f/4-8 VR has flexibility no other lens has while delivering central area results that are pretty darned good. It's really only the fast fall off of aperture and the clear optical falloff from DX to FX boundary that might concern you."

https://www.zsystemuser.com/z-mount-lenses/nikkor-lenses/nikon-z-mount-lens-reviews/nikon-28-400mm-f4-8-vr-lens.html

[Rob C]

Hi Ray,

Yeah, have been off-air for quite some time. Thing is, LuLa had become too much of a time-eater; that was my own fault, of course, but I never was one to turn my nose up at a little temptation. ;-)

Regarding your equipment quandary: might buying a second body and thus having a permanent home for both the lenses you already own not be a worthwhile option? Bythom seems to feel Nikon to be in denial about Z body dust problems, and the relatively useless shaker dust removal option provided. Never again having to remove a lens would go a long way to solving such problems.

Okay, you won’t have the longer reach, but does much photography actually happen out there in the very far distance? I wouldn’t feel happy carrying around a long lens anymore, age and inconvenience both working agin it.


Do you print? I used to, mainly in b/white, but ended up with boxes of A3+ that after a few months, never again saw the light of day. I find that my little website is, for me, the very best way of viewing my snaps when the mood takes me. I hate looking at it on my iPhone, but the iPad is perfect for that purpose.

Speaking of iPhones: trying to look at LuLa on it is a nightmare of advertising intrusion, something that, thankfully, is absent on the iPad.

[Ray]

Hi Rob,
Carrying two cameras to avoid changing lenses is an option, but in this case the total weight of the Z50 plus 16-50mm and the Z50 plus 50-250mm, is about 300gms greater than the weight of the Z50 plus 28-400mm. (1.5kg compared with 1.2kg)

Also, carrying two cameras around one's neck whilst trecking up and down sometimes steep hills, is a bit awkward.
I enjoy walking in the countryside and being 'one with nature'. I almost always take a camera with me in case I see something unusual and interesting.

The main disadvantage of the 28-400mm is the lack of the wide angle of the 16-50mm lens. However, in many situations this can be overcome by holding the camera vertically and taking 2 or 3 shots for merging together in Photoshop.

[Jonathan Cross]

What are your main interests? You mentioned being one with nature, so is it flora, fauna, landscape or a mixture? 

I am in Scotland on a trip and shooting a mixture with an APSC body (Fuji not Nikon). I just have a 100-400 lens with me. Even with that, a Dipper at 40 metres means cropping. For anything needing wider than 100 I am using my iPhone to take RAW images. The iphone is fine for  landscapes and eg closeups of the interesting fungi that are showing this autumn. I use LR for processing so can use super resolution. This works for me and 12MP iPhone images become 48MP. I am thinking of upgrading to an iPhone 16pro from my 12pro. For landscapes the iPhone gives me the choice of 4x3 or 16x9 as well as panorama. Images I took in Egypt with my iPhone I printed at 13”x19” and no one who has seen them could tell the difference from my APSC images.

Having super resolution available, would the 70-180 possibly with a teleconvertor be a choice? That would give you a long full frame equivalent and be at f2.8 without the convertor. For anything wider, an iPhone?

Just a thought.

Jonathan

[Ray]

What are your main interests? You mentioned being one with nature, so is it flora, fauna, landscape or a mixture? 

Hi Jonathan,
I photograph anything that looks beautiful, strange, captivating, unusual, or interesting, as I take my daily walks. That includes flora, fauna, landscapes, sunsets, and so on.

I use my Z50 with 16-50mm lens most of the time because it's so light and easy to use, although not as light as an iPhone. 

I sometimes take my 50-250mm lens in my pocket, or when it's attached to the camera, the 16-50mm lens in my pocket. However, I don't like changing lenses when trekking in the countryside. If I notice a bird in the distance, it could fly away by the time I've changed lenses. Also, 250mm is often not long enough for bird shots. 400mm is significantly more useful.

I still prefer to take photos whilst looking through the viewfinder. A 28-400mm zoom should enable me to find a much greater range of interesting views, wherever I am.

[Rob C]

Hi Rob,
Carrying two cameras to avoid changing lenses is an option, but in this case the total weight of the Z50 plus 16-50mm and the Z50 plus 50-250mm, is about 300gms greater than the weight of the Z50 plus 28-400mm. (1.5kg compared with 1.2kg)

Also, carrying two cameras around one's neck whilst trecking up and down sometimes steep hills, is a bit awkward.
I enjoy walking in the countryside and being 'one with nature'. I almost always take a camera with me in case I see something unusual and interesting.

The main disadvantage of the 28-400mm is the lack of the wide angle of the 16-50mm lens. However, in many situations this can be overcome by holding the camera vertically and taking 2 or 3 shots for merging together in Photoshop.

Ray, there are techniques for suspending cameras à la pistol holster, from the waist; keeps the centre of gravity low, with no strain on shoulders, arms or backs. I hate a camera hanging around my neck; I prefer to shorten the old-style, thinnish Nikon leatherettte straps and wind them around my wrist, holding the camera in my hand. Makes it more likely to get used… but then again, I don’t scramble across hills or fields.

[Ray]

Rob, I don't think there'd be any strain on my shoulders with just a 1.2Kg weight, but I do tend to place my hand on the camera to stop it swinging around as I walk along rough terrain.

Perhaps one of the reasons I'm interested in this 28-400mm zoom is due to the amazing results of my recent cataract operation. I'd been reluctant for some time to have the operation because I didn't like the idea of an artificial lens being implanted in my eye, especially a lens with a fixed focus, such as a 'distance-focused IOL' in one eye and a 'near-focused lens' in the other eye.
However, after doing some research I found that the latest IOL (intraocular lens) technology seemed to suit my purposes. They are called 'Extended Depth Of Focus' (EDOF) intraocular lenses.

The improved vision I now experience, at every stage from far distance to intermediate distance, seems to be as good as it has ever been in my entire life, although that's perhaps impossible to confirm. I'm 82 by the way.

In addition to the improved detail, I now see greatly improved contrast and more subtle shades of colour. When walking in the countryside, I can now detect the presence of distant features which I would have not have been aware of before my cataract operation, such as a small group of birds in the shade on the opposite side of a lake, which is an example I recently came across, and was disappointed I was carrying only my Z50 with the 16-50mm zoom.

[Rob C]

Hi Ray,

Yeah, the cataract op is wonderful; I had both eyes done a few years ago, and came to a similar conclusion: better vision than ever! That said, I suspect that my “ever” is only true for the year or so prior to the ops. I boast Hoya lenses in both eyes now. But, slowly, I developed capsulatoma, which is another type of clouding, which requires a five-minute laser job with only two drops in the eye. Don’t even have to put on special clothing, as was the opposite with the cataract jobs. Sit in the chair with your chin and forehead agains the machine supports, and walk away a crisper man. All the laser does is cut a hole through the new membrane, or whatever it is, opening again a direct route from front to rear of eye. Amazing stuff. Black floaters for a couple of weeks, then okay.