https://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/z-mount/z_400mmf45_vr_s/spec.htmhttps://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1713854-REG/nikon_nikkor_z_400mm_f_4_5.html

8.2 feet for the 400 f/4.5.3.2 feet for the 100-400 S at 400 mm.9.8 feet for the 500 PF.

Cameralabs review (so far):Nikon Z 400mm f4.5 VR S review-so-far | CameralabsSurprisingly light and compact for a non PF lens.I'll wait for the full reviews but that maximum repro ratio of 1:6.2 is disappointing. For me that limits the usefullness.  I know this will not be the main use of this lens for many but I like to have the combination of super-telephoto with extreme close focus for an all-in-one lightweight solution to take on short hikes and at that rate for tele-macros I'm probably better off with my 300 PF (+ converters) which already gives me great results.The optical performance of this new lens will have to be something.Frank

If anything, the MFD coupled with the reproduction ratio suggests minimal focus breathing (to the less-telephoto side). This is unprecedented in the whole telephoto range I believe.

Minimal focus breathing is demonstrated in this video by Ricci Chera, Nikon UKhttps://youtu.be/pLeb9GXPGQU

At this price, I would prefer a 100-400 lens at $2700

aniltulsi wrote:At this price, I would prefer a 100-400 lens at $2700I would prefer the 0.63 stops and additional sharpness of the 400 f/4.5. It makes sense if you're almost always shooting at 400. Plus it's lighter.

archerscreek wrote:8.2 feet for the 400 f/4.5.3.2 feet for the 100-400 S at 400 mm.9.8 feet for the 500 PF.That's a bit of a bummer. Oh well.

Ricci Talks First LookRicci Talks First Look vs 100-400 and 500PF

BasilG wrote:archerscreek wrote:8.2 feet for the 400 f/4.5.3.2 feet for the 100-400 S at 400 mm.9.8 feet for the 500 PF.That's a bit of a bummer. Oh well.Rules this lens out for my purposes

AsterAstraAsteria wrote:If anything, the MFD coupled with the reproduction ratio suggests minimal focus breathing (to the less-telephoto side). This is unprecedented in the whole telephoto range I believe.OK but you have to get 8ft away.  Not always easy.

archerscreek wrote:8.2 feet for the 400 f/4.5.3.2 feet for the 100-400 S at 400 mm.9.8 feet for the 500 PF.Minimum focus is a bit disappointing compared to the 300 f/4 AFS and the 100-400.  Both otherwise the lens looks very good and the price is as expected.

ericbowles wrote:archerscreek wrote:8.2 feet for the 400 f/4.5.3.2 feet for the 100-400 S at 400 mm.9.8 feet for the 500 PF.Minimum focus is a bit disappointing compared to the 300 f/4 AFS and the 100-400. Both otherwise the lens looks very good and the price is as expected.It's a pity. I guess you can get to about 1/3 mag by adding a bit of extension and a 1.4x TC, but at that point's the setup is already a bit cumbersome.

JasonTheBirder wrote:aniltulsi wrote:At this price, I would prefer a 100-400 lens at $2700I would prefer the 0.63 stops and additional sharpness of the 400 f/4.5. It makes sense if you're almost always shooting at 400. Plus it's lighter.Point taken. For you, these minor advantages may be valuable, but for my use, the versatility of 100-400 outways 400's advantages, and is $550 cheaper...

Is it really that much of an improvement to the Nikon 500mm f/5.6 PF ED VR...?I'm talking in terms of size? The 400mm seems to be a tiny bit narrower, same length, same filter diameter. The 400mm is about 300 grams lighter, but it is 400mm vs 500mm...I guess the benefit will really be in the optical quality, no adapter required, and maybe VR is better. I think if one has the 500mm PF ED VR it might be tough to get in line for this 400mm f/4.5... agree?

RWN Photo wrote:Is it really that much of an improvement to the Nikon 500mm f/5.6 PF ED VR...?I'm talking in terms of size? The 400mm seems to be a tiny bit narrower, same length, same filter diameter. The 400mm is about 300 grams lighter, but it is 400mm vs 500mm...I guess the benefit will really be in the optical quality, no adapter required, and maybe VR is better. I think if one has the 500mm PF ED VR it might be tough to get in line for this 400mm f/4.5... agree?Truth be told, I wish they'd just put the 500 PF and 300 PF in a Z casing and sell these. I think the 500 is great optically and is a more attractive focal length than the 400 (though the latter offers some aperture advantage), and the 300 with its extremely light weight and close focusing ability would be very handy too.

RWN Photo wrote:Is it really that much of an improvement to the Nikon 500mm f/5.6 PF ED VR...?I'm talking in terms of size? The 400mm seems to be a tiny bit narrower, same length, same filter diameter. The 400mm is about 300 grams lighter, but it is 400mm vs 500mm...I guess the benefit will really be in the optical quality, no adapter required, and maybe VR is better. I think if one has the 500mm PF ED VR it might be tough to get in line for this 400mm f/4.5... agree?The 1.4TC is 220 g, so if one adds that, the difference is negligible.   I wish some of the reviews had looked at how this lens performs with a TC (maybe I missed it?).

Ricardo00 wrote:RWN Photo wrote:Is it really that much of an improvement to the Nikon 500mm f/5.6 PF ED VR...?I'm talking in terms of size? The 400mm seems to be a tiny bit narrower, same length, same filter diameter. The 400mm is about 300 grams lighter, but it is 400mm vs 500mm...I guess the benefit will really be in the optical quality, no adapter required, and maybe VR is better. I think if one has the 500mm PF ED VR it might be tough to get in line for this 400mm f/4.5... agree?The 1.4TC is 220 g, so if one adds that, the difference is negligible. I wish some of the reviews had looked at how this lens performs with a TC (maybe I missed it?).Only with the 2.0 TC and is relatively soft. I also would like to see if it is significantly different from the 100-400 w/ 1.4 TC, and how does it compare with the Sony 200-600 although in may case I'm undecided between carrying a 70-200 + 400 + 1.4 TC or carrying just a 100-400 + 1.4 TC, convenience vs 1 1/3 - 2/3 f-stops.

I have a 500PF and have no interest in this lens. The choice of gaining 2/3 of a stop of light versus losing 100mm is an easy one for me. Also I can use my 500PF on my D500 and my Z bodies not so with the 400z.

Maljo