Nikon 28-400 Question and Answers

I skived off this afternoon, to see what this lens can do. Nothing artistic. I had an hour to shoot some stuff in town with the 28-400. I like to test out new gear in real life situations. I have done some minor tweaking and some keystone correction. I did not find the aperture limiting in the old church. I just used a higher ISO. I did not find F8 limiting for this sort of photography.

On my big screen they look nice and sharp with lots of detail. I think optically it is better than the 24-200

Here are some examples.

I took a walk along the River Po, afre a medical appointment nearby. Here are some more pictures with the 28-400. I was was with my wife, so I had to be quick! Also I did not have very good light for these shots.

I now have the problem with my 24-200. Do I keep it, or has the 28-400, made it redundant for me.

3 shots from the same shooting position.

Valle del Inferno, between Emilia and Tuscany. I have climbed this glacial circus in the past. One of my favourite places, in the Apennines.

Thom Hogan, one of the more thoughtful commentators has reviewed this lens here.. Unlike most of the comment I see on the DPR Z forum, he understands that this is a travel camera. But he seems a bit sniffy about it, just like most of those commenting on DPR.

I have been testing it out for recording architectural details. Corner sharpness does not worry me most of the time as it forms the background. The extra reach over the 24-200 I used for the same task, means I get less keystoning, for things like column capitals. VR seems to work well, which mitigates the F8 limit.

I just think like the 24-200, this lens is incredibly liberating. I do not need to carry a bag or rucksack full of gear when I am out and about, visiting some location. I can concentrate on composition, instead of worrying about which lens to change over too.

im having a great time with my new 18 300 apsc lens i just bought,super zooms are great, i tested mine today against my sharpest prime and the detail sharpness was identical 😁

Thom calls this lens exactly what it is. No more no less. And his assessment is very accurate and unbiased. Look at your column cap picture. Center details are much sharper than edges and corners of the cap.
Disclaimer: I have been using and use now superzooms starting from very first Nikon 18-200, 18-300, 28-300, and now z 18-200. Have been waiting for Nikon to release z 24-300. Hunting now to buy z 28-400, but it is hard to come by yet.

The capital sides were out of focus due to DoF. Here is a F( (wide open) corner crop at 100% of a recent hand held shot .

Not to shabby, I believe. On a big screen I canno really see any problems.

Was the cap picture cropped or it is original size? Anyway edges of the cap and center are in the same plane and the sharpness fall off is due to the lens and not DOF.
There is nothing in focus on the first shot.
On the second shot compare the sides with the center. They are in the same plane.
At 400 mm this lens is good in the center and just fair at best at the edges.
I've had all superzooms made by Nikon and Tamron 18-400. So I am quite familiar how they do.

I photographed the capital at 45° so the center is forward from the sides of the picture.

The 24-200 and 28 -400 are considered in the reviews if I read, to be much better than past superzooms.

The first shot might have a touch of camera shake but the 100% crop is not to bad.

Maybe il try to do my own test with a tripod to see what this lens is like theoretically.

I just did not like the rather sniffy reaction in Hogan's review for a lens that is all about convenience rather than cutting edge performance. Sure my prime shift lenses have better optical quality in every aspect, compared to this lens, but this is a lens that gives me a practical light weight, one lens one body solution when I hike or if I am visiting a place where photography is just one aspect of the visit.

This is exactly what Thom said about this lens. I've found his review rather favorable, very accurate and unbiased. Do not understand why you are calling it sniffy. BTW the latest 18-300 DX is quite good. The latest blow up you posted is not sharp at all. I would run it through Topaz AI. I can try if you do not mind.

On my first serious photographic expedition for some time, I found the 28-100 a brilliant partner for my set of shift lenses. IBIS/VR is a bit better than the 24-200. I mostly used it for detail shots on a tripod, and a few that hand held, when time limits of a visit did not give me time to use a tripod.

Barga, near Lucca:

Brancoli

San Cassiano

These ones are better than before.

Photographylife review of this lens:

photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-z-28-400mm-f-4-8-vr

Yes, I have seen this review. I find this quite a fair review. The reviewer at least understands the purpose of this lens, which is utility over pure image quality.

Quote:

"Overall? My main question prior this test was whether the lens would be usable at every focal length. It didn’t need to be best-in-class, but I at least wanted to be able to make totally sharp 16×24″ prints from it. That’s a standard this lens meets – perhaps not by much at 200mm, but by enough."

16x24 is as big as I have ever printed, so for me this lens does the job.

Interestingly, all reviews I've seen came to the same conclusion.