Which Nikon Telephoto Zoom for the Nikon Z8 Camera?

 This is second part of a look at Nikon’s telephoto zooms. The first was for the Z50ii (DX sensor 23.5 x 15.7 mm; 20.9 megapixels) when a focal length of 400 mm is equivalent to a focal length of 600 mm. This part is for the Z8 with a full-frame sensor (FX 35.9 x 23.9 mm, 45.7 megapixels} when a 400 mm lens has a focal length of 400 mm

The reason for both these articles is because is endless debate as to which is the best Nikkor Z zoom lens at 400 mm focal length. I have all three of the lenses in question: 180-600 mm f/5.6-6.3 VR; 100-400 mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S; 28-400 mm f/4-f/8 VR. Last week in an idle moment I thought I would compare the three on a real scene at 400 mm looking only at sharpness (that mix of resolution or acuity and contrast) while completely ignoring attributes like weight, handling and price that are also important considerations.

I aimed my camera at the local school (50 m away) on a quiet Sunday morning. There was no sun and a slight breeze—ideal conditions for avoiding thermal gradients in the air between camera and target. I compared out-of-camera jpgs (which have of course been processed to that stage) at their maximum apertures (f/5.6 two and f/8 for the 28-400), and base ISO (64). The shutter speed (on aperture priority mode) remained  1/80 or 1/60 sec. VR was off and I chose a shutter delay of 2 sec to avoid vibration from any movement of the floor the tripod was standing on. I had to change the mounting for the lenses (28-400 has no collar) in use but made the changes as quickly as possible and each time I made sure the centre autofocus point (AF-S) was as near I could get it on the same object—a child’s cut-out drawing—on the inside of the school window.

With the images cropped to the same size in Lightroom and looking at the centre of the frame the 100-400 and 180-600 were sharper then the 28-400 but not by that much.. I then moved the crop to the bottom edge of the frame where the plane of focus was virtually identical. There was a  difference in sharpness in the order one would expect from the price of these lenses (100-400 mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S > 180-600 mm f/5.6-6.3 VR > 28-400 mm f/4-f/8 VR) with the last notably less sharp than the other two.

I also looked at the result of a simple adjustment in Lightroom of sharpening. The second series of photographs shows the result of increasing sharpening the RAW image (the camera saved both jpgs and raw images) but not to the point where over-sharpening is evident. On the Z8 I could not improve the sharpness of the 28-400 mm lens image to the point at which it approached the other two lenses.

Will I use the 28-400 with the Z8 where its performance—as expected—is lower than when used on the Z50ii? Probably not for still photographs since the both the other lenses are clearly superior and the Z8 is never part of a lightweight travel package. I will though see how it performs with video in FX and DX mode and where I routinely downscale in Final Cut Pro. The next test is looming.

The resiults are below but differences may be dofficulty to see because of the compression used on the site.

Which Telephoto Zoom for the Nikon Z50ii Camera?

There is endless debate as to which is the best Nikkor Z zoom lens at 400 mm focal length. I have all three of the lenses in question: 180-600 mm f/5.6-6.3 VR; 100-400 mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S; 28-400 mm f/4-f/8 VR. On the Z50ii I could see little difference between them in the real world in terms of sharpness but last week in an idle moment I thought I would compare the three on a real scene at 400 mm (600 mm in full-frame terms) looking only at sharpness (that mix of resolution or acuity and contrast).

I aimed my camera at the local school (50 m away) on a quiet Sunday morning. There was no sun and a slight breeze—ideal conditions for avoiding thermal gradients in the air between camera and target. I compared out-of-camera jpgs (which have of course been processed to that stage) at constant aperture (f/8 the maximum of the 28-400), and base ISO (100). The shutter speed (on aperture priority mode) remained at 1/100 sec. VR was off and I chose a shutter delay of 2 sec to avoid vibration from any movement of the floor the tripod was standing on. I had to change the mounting for the lenses (28-400 has no collar) in use but made the changes as quickly as possible and each time I made sure the centre autofocus point (AF-S) was as near I could get it on the same object—a child’s cut-out drawing—on the inside of the school window.

With the images cropped to the same size in Lightroom I really could not see any material difference in sharpness at the very centre of the frame. I then moved the crop to the bottom edge of the frame where the plane of focus was virtually identical. There was a difference in sharpness in the order one would expect from the price of these lenses (100-400 mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S > 180-600 mm f/5.6-6.3 VR > 28-400 mm f/4-f/8 VR).

A DX camera body used with these lenses offers more than the increase in effective focal length—from 400 to 600 mm in this case. These are FX (full-frame) lenses and any only the centre of the image is used. In lenses where resolution drops from the centre outwards, the edge definition of  DX-camera image is higher than one taken by an FX camera, as was evident when I used my Z8 for the same series of shots.

What struck me was that although the pixel peepers seem to think they will get a better image with, say, the most expensive of these three lenses, there was very little difference in actual sharpness between the three at the one focal length of 400 mm (600 mm equivalent) in the centre of the field. 

It is a pity that the MTF charts published by Nikon only contain data from either end of the focasl length range and at a range of apertures up to the point at which resolution becomes affected by diffraction in the various Z cameras. The charts are nowadays theoretical but designers now have such sophisticated software that they know the photographer's reaction to a particular lens before the first one is even manufactured. Good performance charts would save a lot of user testing and endless debate.

I also looked at the result of a simple adjustment in Lightroom of sharpening. The second series of photographs shows the result of increasing sharpening the RAW image (the camera saved both jpgs and raw images) but not to the point where over-sharpening is evident.

I shall continue to use my Z50ii-28-400 mm combination for general overseas wildlife watching trips (we avoid ‘photographic’ tours like the plague). That combination has produced published photographs—with help from RAW images and Lightroom Denoise, and with ISOs from 100 to 52,000—with everything I have pointed it at from hummingbirds to humpback whales. For other sorts of trip one of the other two zooms is a better choice.

Compression for Blogger may affect how the photograph below appears.

UPDATED 5 JUNE 2026

A 1957 slide from a Kodak Bantam Colorsnap camera copied with 2026 technology

828 film copied using Nikon Z8 with Nikkor Z 105 mm macro lens
Raw image processed in Adobe Lightroom Classic

Following up my last article on the 3D-printed slide copier for the Nikon Z8 with 105 mm macro lens, I tested it with random slides I had already scanned in the past using the Nikon Coolscan IV. Amongst those I pulled out at random was this one taken in 1957 from the first 35 mm size camera I had—the first model of the Kodak Bantam Colorsnap introduced in 1955.

I was struck not only by the resolution of the copy but by the image that cheap camera produced. While I would expect some improvement from the Coolscan IV scans (the Coolscan V had higher resolution) the image shows that the Cooke triplet Anaston lens in the camera was no mean performer.

The Bantam Colorsnap used 828 size Kodachrome film. That was a roll film containing 35 mm film stock without the perforations used in a 35 mm camera. There were only 8 exposures per reel.

Kodak were pretty brave in bringing out the Colorsnap. The film was only rated at ASA (ISO) 12 at that time and exposure calculated from a simple dial on the back of the camera. With the films low latitude it seems miraculous with hindsight that all 8 shots on my first film were properly exposed.

828 slides can be distinguished from those taken with a 35 mm camera because they are slightly larger (40 x 28 mm). In UK the price of a roll included processing at Kodak’s plant in Hemel Hempstead. Slides came back in 2 x 2 inch card mounts.

This first model of the Bantam Colorsnap was made in UK by Kodak. In 1959 it was replaced by the mark II version and in 1961 by the mark III. Production of these 828 film cameras ceased in 1963 in favour of 35 mm film versions.

The UK  launch price of the Bantam Colorsnap, as the advert from Punch shows, was £11-18-6. That included the iniquitous levels of purchase tax then imposed. Any body thinking that sounds cheap even for a camera with a triplet lens, a simple shutter and no other frills then it is worth noting that when inflation is taken into account the price in 2026 would be around £320, considerably more than I paid recently for an all-singing, all-dancing DJI Osmo Pocket 3.

Making a Slide/Film Copier for the Nikon Z8 Camera with Nikkor Z MC 105 mm Macro Lens

I designed and built a 3D-printed slide and film strip copier because I could find nothing on the market that was sufficiently versatile or designed specifically for my needs. There is a whole industry out there building film copiers for those photographers who persist in using film and then making a digital copy. Many are very expensive and a number have design flaws. Most simpler attachments on the market on designed: to fit a specific macro lens, of around 50 mm focal length; to be suitable only for 24 x 36 mm transparency or film frames; to fit only thin slide mounts like card or the relatively recent glass mounts.

I have no need at present for a 50 or 55 mm macro lens but I do have the Nikkor Z MC 105 mm f/2.8 VR S for its longer working distance. Fitted to my Nikon Z8 it seemed ideal to build a slide copier around. I decided on a horizontal design à la optical bench found in physics labs. That way it is easy to have the camera and the slide parallel compared with a vertical copy stand in which the camera has to be adjusted in all directions.

Before going further I should explain that in 2001 I bought the then new Nikon Coolscan IVED scanner. I scanned all our own slides and negatives and over the years continued to scan inherited slides as well as some for friends and relations. However, I had to use an Epson flat-bed scanner for ‘superslides’—40 x 40 mm transparencies from 127 roll film in mounts of the same external dimensions as a normal 24 x 36 mm slide from a 35 mm film camera. We also have lots of half-frame 18 x 24 mm slides and negatives. In the scanner these produced files half the size of the full-frame slides, and this lack of resolution was evident. Scanning thousands of slides took weeks since the process is slow, very slow, as the scanner works its way across the frame. In theoe early days of crossover from film to digital sensor, these scanners and their successors had a higher resolution than the digital cameras that were appearing. However, as camera sensors improved markedly and rapidly home scanners became obsolete. Nikon ceased scanner production in 2008/09. Because the Nikon scanners were so robust they remain in use and having copied all my material I did not bother to shift from scanning to copying. However, sometimes I need a high-resolution copy so decided to bite the bullet of building a convenient-to-use copier.

Features

• The copier is simply a tube that slides over the lens with a plate at the end to hold slides or film strips. The tube itself slides along a separate base, to which the camera is attached, in order to move the slide nearer to or further away from the lens. When pulled forward it is at or very close to the closest focus distance of the lens and thus reproduces 24 x 36mm slides at a reproduction ration of 1:1. When the tube is moved further away it reaches a point when the field of view covers a 40 x 40mm ‘Superslide’. I have stops at each end of the slideway for these options. In other words, the copier will work on any size of image mounted in a standard 50 x 50 mm (2 x 2 inch) mount.
• The Z8 provides images of 8256 × 5504 pixels for full-frame 24 x 36 mm slides, a resolution capable of extracting more information from high-quality camera film than the majority of scanners. Half-frame (APSC in current parlance) slides produced images of approximately 5504  x 4100 pixels.
• The tube protects eliminates ambient light reflecting from the surface of the slide into the lens.
• There are interchangeable plates for the front of the tube. One is for slides in standard mounts; the other for a film strip holder.
• The mount for slides fits all thicknesses of mount, from cardboard and plastic to the thick sandwiches of cover glasses, foil mask and transparency we used in the 1950s and 60s. A magnetic frame hold the slide in position. Although the standard size for the mount is 50 x 50 mm there has been variation over the years. Some of the fold-over cardboard mounts may be slightly larger than this. I settled on a holder slightly larger than the nominal size to cope with such deviant slides.
• The plate for film strips has a slot to house a commercial six-frame strip holder (JJC Strip Film Holder, 6 PCS 35mm Negatives Slots Carrier…on Amazon).
• Although specialised light sources are available for copying transparencies I decided to use what I had. I 3D printed a simple reflecting reflecting light box from white material to provide even illumination.
• I decided not to make provision for changing the camera battery since the Z8 can be powered via USB-C during long sessions.
• The masks in or part of a cardboard mount vary in size. For example, I took a 24 x 36 slide at random and the mask is 34 x 22 mm. Another is 35 x 24. A Kodachrome slide from a 1950s Kodak Colorsnap camera that used 828 size film (35 mm stock without the sprocket holes) is 34 x 23 mm. A Kodak Instamatic slide measured 22 x 22. Similarly Superslide mount masks also vary. This means that in most copies the mount surrounding the transparency also forms part of the photograph and the resulting image does not fill the frame of the camera exactly, necessitating cropping during processing. Having an to crop away the surround does mean that features at the edge of the slide are retained.
• For Superslides and Instamatic slides I change the camera format to square. For Half-frame Slides I change the camera to DX mode thus obtaining a full-frame copy but at lower resolution.
• So that the metering system of the Z8 ignores any of the inevitable black edges I use centre-weighted metering.

Results

I have tried the copier on a variety of slides, using Raw images processed in Adobe Lightroom Classic. Denoising takes care of the grain in some of the old colour films like Agfacolor CT18.

In short I am extremely impressed by the results of copying vs scanning. The output, as is to be expected, is simply superior. And getting copies once the camera is attached is very fast indeed, governed purely by how quick you are in changing the slide in the holder.

Specific to Camera and Lens

I should stress that my copier is specific to the Nikon Z8 Camera with Nikkor Z MC 105 mm Macro Lens. The design could be quickly modified for any other macro lens on the same camera. For modifying the design for other cameras the key measurement is the distance from the camera’s base to the optical axis. That can be determined by holding a graduated square in front of the clamped down camera. For the Z8 I found that distance to be 45.5 mm. For the lens, the diameter and the minimum focus distance are the key dimensions needed.

3D Printing and Building

For anybody wishing to build or have built this slide/film copier for their own use the 3D printing stl files are available on the Cults website HERE

Sliding the tube over the camera lens and into its slot
on the base

Different sizes/formats in 50 x 50 mm (2 x 2 inch) slides

Standard 24 x 36 slide in magnetic holder

Magnetic bar being attached to hold slide

40 x 40 mm Superslide from Baby Rolleiflex 127 film

Film Strip Holder