Today at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas, Nikon announced their newest lens: the AF-S Nikkor 180-400mm f/4E TC1.4 FL ED VR super-telephoto. But what makes it worth its $12,396.95 price tag?
This new lens features Nikon's freshest technology: a built-in teleconverter. Like the Canon EF 200-400mm f/4 L, the Nikkor 180-400mm will be able to extend its focal range to a whopping 252-560mm f/5.6 on a full-frame camera. On a DX camera this lens' focal length is equivalent to 270-600mm f/4, with a 378-840mm focal range and f/4 aperture equivalent once the teleconverter switch is flipped.
As stated in Nikon's press release, the new lens uses a fluorite element "which contributes to improved balance while minimizing weight." Additionally, Nikon outfitted the 180-400mm with a "new ball-bearing tripod collar ring to create a seamless transition from shooting horizontal to vertical compositions."
Compare the 180-400mm to the older Nikon 200-400mm, and you'll notice it has double the amount of ED elements; eight to be exact. ED elements help reduce chromatic aberration, or color fringing, when taking a picture, and increase a lens' sharpness.
So who is this lens for? If the price tag doesn't give it away, I could realistically see professional nature and sports photographers adding this to their camera bag. It's perfect for a photographer who can set up a spot and stick to it for a while, as its 7.7 pounds weight might slow down someone on the go.
Before purchasing, it might be important to consider buying the lighter Nikon 200-500mm f/5.6 at just a fraction of the cost ($1,396.95). If you value portability and slightly more natural reach, you may opt for the 200-500mm, but keep in mind you'll also loose a stop of light.
The Nikkor 180-400mm f/4 is set to release in March 2018. Once photographers get their hands on it, I'm curious to see how its quality competes with older models and with models from competing companies.
Sports journalists and nature photographers who have $12K lying around would probably be better served putting $11k in an IRA and picking up the Nikon 200-500mm f/5.6.
This lens sounds great, but the ROI doesn't seem to be there for the target user.
hahaha I agree. This lens targets a very specific user group. I'm curious to see if Nikon even sells enough to justify the production of this lens. Most semi-pro or serious amateur photographers will have to mortgage their house or sell their car to purchase this one.
A field test of the two lenses would be interesting. I'm curious if there's an appreciable difference that could possibly justify the cost.
I totally agree. I'm thinking there must be. With double the amount of ED elements and that integrated teleconverter, it might end up worth it. I'd love to test one and and see for myself!
Mortgage seems to be the better solution as they may need their car to lug this thing around ;-)
hahaha didn't think of that one - you're probably right! :)
I'm not sure the target user gives a damn about ROI. :-/
Good point. But think ... how much will it cost just to rent a $12,000 lens? Plus insurance? Might end up coming close to the original cost.
I recently rented a $2400 lens for $59 for six days. That works out to a little over $300 for this lens. Admittedly, I got a good deal but still...
Oh, that's awesome! I've honestly only rented a lens once, but it was a $400 lens a few years back. I wasn't too sure how the prices were nowadays. I think you got a sweet deal, and renting this definitely wouldn't be too too bad! :)
Very good to know for future reference! Thank you for sharing!! :)
In Vancouver we can rent a lens of similar quality aka 400f2.8 for $160 CAD for 3 days Friday, Sat,Sun so I do not see a reason to buy beast like this unless your work allows you to make $$$ and have it paid back within first month of buying it... here is coupe rental prices for super telelenses in local store :) these are single day prices and weekend counts as 1 day rental :) great for sport events...
Well said. However, the sad reality is that there are many with mixed up priorities.
That's probably true but they might question your priorities as well. Just sayin'.
I for one, could not imagine question one's planning for the future (the actual planning not the methods). But hey, we are all different :-).
Not sure what you mean here, Motti. Care to elaborate?
Brian said that smart photographers will buy Nikon's cheaper version and will be left with $11k for their retirement savings. I agree, that's what I would do (and do). However, some have different priorities. Or lots of cash to burn.
I have the 200-500 and shoot it on my D810. It's a great lens, amazing for the price actually. I wouldn't say it's super sharp at 500mm though. Very good through 400mm especially stopped down a little. While I agree that the 180-400 carries a steep price jump, the stop of light, increased focal length, and potentially increased image quality would justify the cost. Same thing for any exotics, expensive but unparalleled in quality.
Hmmm...I used the Nikkor 200-500mm 5.6 on a Nikon D500 and Nikon D850 as well. Yes, it is not bad and sharp (except on the long end). But...the Autofocus is really, really slow. I personally don't like it. And the 5.6 is another issue, I take most of my Wildlife shots early morning or later evening. At low light. Cranking up the ISO is what I don't like as I hate noise in my pictures. A 4.0 makes a difference. This I can say. So I will add the Nikkor 180-400mm 4.0 to my Nikkor 600mm 4.0 FL. That is the ideal setting in my opinion. And you know what? For me this lens is a deal here in Shanghai. Why? Because I get it for 62.5k RMB what is roughly 9.8k USD. What means about 2.5k USD cheaper than in US.
I'm tipping the IQ will be incredible. At that price, it would want to be.
At this price, everything better be incredible.
True. The one thing we know about this lens already *is* incredible - the price! So they've made a promising start...😉
And the weight! My D800 + 70-200 is about 6 pounds altogether. I keep trying to imagine the weight of my D800 + the 180-400!!! Woo!
Good point! When I saw the price in your first paragraph, I thought "they must have created a super light and small form factor, with fresnel lenses or something". Nope - the lens alone is 7.7lb!
That's double your 70-200 and over 50% more than my Tamron 150-600. So I guess we can say the weight is incredible, too...still an incredible lens in every way, with the available information! 😂
hahahaha it'd be funny to do a side-by-side comparison in terms of physicality .... this lens could eat both of our lenses, and still have room for more :)
Lol, so true; that is a very funny thought! If you do get ahold of one for review on Fstoppers, make sure you also mention the cost of your chiropractor's bill after you try hand-holding it on your d800! 😀
Hahaha and the cost of the gigantic Advil bottle xD
double your 70-200 and double the focal length, seems to follow. More than Tamron but faster so requires bigger glass. Fair again.
Gimme gimme
I'd love to take one for a spin!
I wonder if the days of exotic lenses are numbered.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean ... care to elaborate?
As third-party lens makers get better at their game, how long before stuff comes out at 2/3-1/2 of the price of one of these lenses? Even "lesser" lenses may still improve significantly (just look at the G2 150-600 Tamron). Even if these lenses may still come out ahead, the differences become gray lines. Lenses like this Nikon will become even more expensive, made-to-order items.
Also remember, who takes the better picture, the great photographer with the OK lens, or the OK photographer with the great lens?
I agree with everything you said. This is definitely a special lens for a special kind of photographer. Just confused with the term "exotic lens." And yes! Great photographer wins every time :)
Sensors are getting better and better, greatly improving usability of low-end lenses for budget photographers. This piece of art is definitely not for budget constrained folks. Yet photographers are perfectionists and there will be always demand for the best in breed at the high price level.
That is a very good point. If I could reasonably afford this one, I'd totally buy it. Why not? But then again, it's cheaper cousin - the 200-500mm is a pretty solid alternative.
This is actually a good one. The 12K price is steep but still prefers this lens with a body rather than carrying 2-3 bodies and multiple super tele lenses. I just hope the IQ would justify the asking price.
I definitely agree - carrying this one lens would cover the focal lengths of two or maybe even three other lenses/bodies. I enjoy that it's an F/4, and could only imagine how much a 2.8 would've cost. At this price, though, I feel like the IQ will definitely be incredible. I'll be surprised if it isn't. Would love to see for myself!
Yes, the f4.0 is a major factor. But to save weight and gain flexibiltiy I left my heavier f4.0 500mm home and purchased the 100-400 for the trip referenced below. I think it was the right decision. If only money grew on trees ...
I just returned from a once in lifetime trip to Sarengeti. I carried an f2.8 70-200mm on a full sensor 5D4 body and an f4.5-f5.6 100-400mm on a crop sensor 7D2 body (160 to 640 equivalent) everywhere for two weeks. Very heavy. But if I thought I could afford a 200-400, I would still have needed the 70-200 and my over the shoulder load through 6 airports would have been even heavier.
WOW! I would LOVE to see an image or two in the comments section here from your trip - sounds incredible!! (Super jealous!!). Good point about lugging gear through the airport and heavy weight while traveling - didn't think of that! Sounds like you covered the whole range though. Did you also bring a lens or two to cover the wide/mid range-end? I'm assuming most of your shooting was done from the inside of a car in ample light?
Because of light rain and humidity in Rwanda on Chimp hunt and dust in Tanzania/Serengeti I was trying to avoid switching lens except when unavoidable, but I did pack a 40mm f2.8 pancake lens for the few occasions I wasn't focused on wildlife.
Those are such beautiful animals, I'm very jealous you got to view them in their natural habitat. I really enjoy that first picture of the chimp - interesting composition and great lighting. Love the rhythm and pattern of the leaves! And yea, if you were shooting in worse lighting conditions (basically golden-hour/dawn and dusk) and had to mainly shoot handheld, then I could understand bringing the 500 F/4. Good choice on lenses in the end, though. Thanks for sharing and commenting! I love hearing personal stories and photographs!! :)
The Canon 200-400 f4.0 with integrated 1.4x teleconverter is currently selling for $11,000 and weighs very close to 8 pounds. Nikon just raised the ante with wider zoom range and slightly lower weight. IQ will be the defining factor.
I agree. I wonder if how the clarity throughout the entire focal length range ends up, or if there will be extreme softness in the corners at 180/on the lower end. Because if so, I couldn't see this being worth it. I'd probably rather buy Nikon's cheaper 200-400, and take the loss on the loss of F/4.
I love Nikon and will always stay with them but dang they need to make some affordable long lenses. Lol. I’ll never get to shoot wildlife at this rate.
lol I agree. The best I could swing within the next few years would be the cheaper 200-500. But even then it's a long shot. Maybe one day...probably not....
Hope Nikon figured out the IQ with this new lens, because the 200-400 is a hot pile of steaming garbage.