* to clarify regarding my comment "marveled at how steady it is". I wasn't referring to the physical/weight balance (no long lens balances very nicely on a Zf body) but I was referring to the lens' built in VR coupled with the Zf's IBIS. Zoomed out to 400, even with my shaky hands, the image coming through the viewfinder would make you think you were mounted on a tripod.

It's never a good sign reading from a new owner: "the quality feels more than adequate to me". 😁

@@USGrant21st Ha. I hear ya. What I meant was, even though this is not an S lens, I'm (so far) not bothered by that fact. I guess time will tell.

The 400 is really nice in such a compact package. Sure it's F8 but look at Canon's 800 F11. Sometimes you just need something that reaches far and is light.

@@AbhinavYadav-zm7ut Canon 800/11 is $999 and is still expensive. This one is $1299, too much for an occasional slow 400mm. You can find cheaper lenses for such an occasional use, unless you insist it must be Nikon. There are a number of cheaper (and brighter) lenses reaching 400mm. Sigma 100-400/4.5-6.3 on sale for $699, Tamron 50-400/5-6.3 on sale for $1199, there are also APS-C and superzoom bridge cameras as well.

All "preproduction reviews" are basically informercials. I watch them for entertainment purposes, nothing more.

it does - I had the same problem - you just have to grip it and use a bit more force. I have another new Nikon Z lens that has the opposite problem of the hood falling off after it clicks, so I suspect that Nikon decided to make sure this lens doesn't have that problem.

@@chriskenyon8843 Thank you as it worked!!!

That's a fixed lens camera not ILC. The coolpix ones have a range of 3000mm.

With your smaller sensor, you don’t quite get the same resolution and noise is an issue soon after iso 100...

I replaced my NIKKOR 24-200 and NIKKOR 100-400 S with the NIKKOR 28-400. Certainly the 100-400 is a much nicer and faster lens. But it also costs a LOT more. I also have the 14-30 S lens which is really nice. But now, I have just two lenses to cover 14 to 400mm. I think the 28-400 is pretty close to the 24-200 in terms of quality (image and build). The main drawback as I see it with the 28-400 is the speed of the lens. While the 24-200 has a max aperture of 6.3, the 28-400 hits smaller that that by about 105mm. By the time you get to 200mm, it is max f/8 aperture. If you like buttery smooth bokeh at long focal lengths, maybe the NIKKOR 100-400 S would be worth it with a max aperture of f/5.6 at the longer focal lengths. 2 stops is nothing to sneeze at ... but it is expensive!

I have the same quandary. I’m got both. The 100-400 for serious photography. But often I want to explore locations BEFORE I go out and set up for reals in perfect lighting. I’ll take my new 28-400 for stomping through the woods and keep the 100-400 in my backpack to change when I need it.

The f-stop increases faster on this lens, it's already f/8 at 200mm.

@@USGrant21st makes the 24-200 a better “walk around” lens for me then. Plus I appreciate the wider 24mm. 👍🏻

@@ThroughJoesLens I agree 24-200 is a better walkaround lens. The extra 200mm comes with serious tradeoffs in terms of price, weight, and overall performance.

Isn’t it going to f8 at 200mm and therefore everything below 200mm is f6.3 … so pretty much the same as the 24-200mm.

Peirce park in the north

I personally don't think I will ever want to use this lens. I wish Tamron would make their excellent 50-400 in z-mount. Until then I would rather use e-mount version with an adapter.

Well Sony certainly rule the influencer (nichtnütze) crowd & for a long time.

Mimimi

@@Benjamin_Jehne unlocking the power of Nikon by using Sony hahaha thats the joke of the day.

@@Hofsaedter Do you whine about Jordan, that he uses a Panasonic S5II for the PetaPixel videos?! Seriously, grow up!