At 400mm will one stop make a big difference? I've been seeing a lot of reviews popping up on Nikon's new 180 - 400mm lens. They all spend some time talking about the 400 F/2.8. Any...

Bill_de Loc: US

I've been seeing a lot of reviews popping up on Nikon's new 180 - 400mm lens. They all spend some time talking about the 400 F/2.8. Any opinions on (or examples) how much the 1 stop difference affects the look of the background?

--

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

I am sure others will jump in and give you their opinions. My 400 mm lens is the old 80-400 VR which is a variable aperture zoom. In my case and when I use the 400 mm end it has always been in good light. To obtain a reasonable shutter speed for wildlife the ISO has to be high enough which has not been a burden for me and I continue to use the lens as so.
In low light the f2.8 aperture allows better performance but in bright light I do not see the advantage. There are 400 mm f4.5 lenses available and for a lens of that focal length I would say that is pretty fast.
Look at how successful the Nikon 200-500 mm VR has been with a maximum aperture of f5.6.

Bill_de Loc: US

camerapapi wrote:

I am sure others will jump in and give you their o... (show quote)

Thanks. What I am actually interested in is how much difference in background appearance, blurring rather than exposure.

--

jccash Loc: Longwood, Florida

Bill_de wrote:

I've been seeing a lot of reviews popping up on Nikon's new 180 - 400mm lens. They all spend some time talking about the 400 F/2.8. Any opinions on (or examples) how much the 1 stop difference affects the look of the background?

--

Seems like a grear lens for over $12,000.00. It would be nice to have this lens in Florida for night shooting sporting events or even outdoor photography.

Brucej67 Loc: Cary, NC

I own the Nikon 80-400mm f5.6 G at 400mm and I also own the Nikon 200-400mm f4 G VR II and for bokeh quality the 200-400mm outshines the 80-400mm when both are shot at 400mm.

Bill_de Loc: US

Brucej67 wrote:

I own the Nikon 80-400mm f5.6 G at 400mm and I also own the Nikon 200-400mm f4 G VR II and for bokeh quality the 200-400mm outshines the 80-400mm when both are shot at 400mm.

Thank Bruce.

---

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Bill_de wrote:

I've been seeing a lot of reviews popping up on Nikon's new 180 - 400mm lens. They all spend some time talking about the 400 F/2.8. Any opinions on (or examples) how much the 1 stop difference affects the look of the background?

--

The 400 F2.8 is in a class of it's own in every respect - including bokeh.

It you are just asking about depth of field, that is easy enough to predict using depth of field tables. Bokeh is not measurable so only a direct comparison will do.

Now, the 180-400 is quite a bit better (and a lot more expensive) than the 200-400 which it replaces. It does seem that if you use their 400 F2.8 you won't miss it when shooting with the 180-400.

This review provided some useful info.

https://photographylife.com/news/nikon-180-400mm-f-4e-tc1-4-fl-ed-vr-announcement

But I'd still like to see it field tested.

Bill_de Loc: US

Gene51 wrote:

The 400 F2.8 is in a class of it's own in every re... (show quote)

Thanks Gene. I am thinking of replacing my 200 - 400 VR. The 180-400 does seem like the prime candidate, but reading what's available it looks like the 400 F/2.8 could be an option. There aren't too many reviews out there, as you know. Steve Perry did an abbreviated one after renting the 180-400 for a few days.

https://backcountrygallery.com/nikon-180-400mm-first-test-and-sharpness-comparison/

--

GED Loc: North central Pa

Bill_de wrote:

I've been seeing a lot of reviews popping up on Ni... (show quote)

GED Loc: North central Pa

[quote=Bill_de]I've been seeing a lot of reviews popping up on Nikon's new 180 - 400mm lens. They all spend some time talking about the 400 F/2.8. Any opinions on (or examples) how much the 1 stop difference affects the [b]look of the background[/

Bill I'll shoot a few samples at 2.8 and 4 and post them here for you when the weather breaks it's pouring out right now. If you prefer a certain subject distance and background distance let me know.

Glenn

Bill_de Loc: US

[quote=GED][quote=Bill_de]I've been seeing a lot of reviews popping up on Nikon's new 180 - 400mm lens. They all spend some time talking about the 400 F/2.8. Any opinions on (or examples) how much the 1 stop difference affects the [b]look of the background[/

Bill I'll shoot a few samples at 2.8 and 4 and post them here for you when the weather breaks it's pouring out right now. If you prefer a certain subject distance and background distance let me know.

Glenn[/quote]

Thanks Glenn. My favorite subjects are song birds, but anything will do.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

My concern with 400 2.8 is the lack of DOF on the subjects and at the distances I normally shoot at which is 40-60 feet. If you are shooting larger animals at greater distances I can see using the 400 @2.8 ( like moose, deer, big cats or human sports subjects ect) - otherwise, for smaller subjects when I would be shooting @f4-5.6-8 the only advantage of the 2.8 would be for the AF.

So the real question (for me) is can f2.8 give you the DOF needed at the distance and subject you are shooting at ??

..

Bill_de Loc: US

imagemeister wrote:

My concern with 400 2.8 is the lack of DOF on the ... (show quote)

Good points Larry. Right now, depending on the lens, I am often shooting wide open at F/4.0 or F/5.6.

I figured that with a lens with a maximum aperture of F/2.8 I still have the option to stop down.

Some of my shooting has subjects around 25 feet away with the background only a few feet behind. Also, particularly in winter, I am shooting in pretty low light.

Still in the thinking stage. Thanks Larry.

--

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

Bill_de wrote:

I've been seeing a lot of reviews popping up on Nikon's new 180 - 400mm lens. They all spend some time talking about the 400 F/2.8. Any opinions on (or examples) how much the 1 stop difference affects the look of the background?

--

I shoot a LOT of wildlife with my 200-500 f5.6 and my backgrounds are all nicely out of focus. Now, I try to get as close to the bird as possible and try to fill the frame with the bird.
A lot depends on how close to the background the animal/bird is. One stop does not make that much difference.
BUT, a 400 2.8 is actually heavier that the new 180-400.
I am deeply disappointed in Nikon for making the new 180-400 heavier than the 200-400 because they added the drop in 1.4 teleconverter. Now, I know this makes the lens more versatile but at the cost of more weight.
I love to hand hold and I was really looking forward to Nikon making the lens lighter like they did with the new 500 and 600.
The knock on the older 200-400 was that it tended to be soft at 400 used at a distance from the subject. I have not read many reviews about the new 180-400 sharpness at 400.
But, I regress, if the subject is close and the back ground is at a distance, you will not see much difference between f2.8 and f4.

Nalu Loc: Southern Arizona

The depth of field tables will probably give you a good idea of the difference between the two apertures. Probably not much depending on how close to your subject you are. My concern would be more about the need for speed. One stop can make a huge difference, especially for moving subjects in low light. 1/500 vs. 1/1000 can make or break an image of a moving subject. You may say bump the ISO, but I am very picky about noise and try to keep my ISO as low as possible all the time. If I had the bucks and price didn't matter I'd go with the faster lens. Assuming you can carry it. Those fast primes are pretty GD heavy.