NIKKOR Z 400mm f/2.8 TC VR S - filter question

[Chris_911]

Amazingly I now have one of these incredible lenses.
It uses a drop-in filter system at the rear of the lens.
I want to get an ND4 filter (and maybe an ND8) for times when I want to use the lens wide open but keep the shutter speed slow(ish) in bright weather - for example when photographing prop driven aircraft.
The rear holder accepts 46mm screw-in filters but Nikon cautions that not all makes of filter will fit.
I don't have a 46mm filter that I can try, so am seeking a filter recommendation please.
I know it's a long shot - -bit of an exotic lens and all that, but....
TIA.

 

[sk66]

I don't have the Z version, but on mine it just can't have too thick of a ring; anything with a thinner ring will work. (like B&W Nano Master)

 

[Hadge]

You might be able to buy the actual holder and then get some filters cut that work. I've got the FL and you can find polarisers okay but I've never come across and ND ones.

 

[Chris_911]

You might be able to buy the actual holder and then get some filters cut that work. I've got the FL and you can find polarisers okay but I've never come across and ND ones.

The empty holder is in the lens as std.
It takes 46mm screw-in filters. Just want to know what to avoid.

 

[yzfmike]

Are you sure it’s empty? My 300 f/2.8 has a plain glass screw in filter as standard (52mm) to ensure tahat the optical path is unchanged when you use a filter. FWIW I use an inexpensive Kood ND filter which, I think, I may have bought from SRB. I’ve just checked and it doesn’t appear to be particularly low profile. I think it might only be a problem with polarisers or variable ND where they have a rotating mount.

HTH

 

[Graham W]

Are you sure it’s empty? My 300 f/2.8 has a plain glass screw in filter as standard (52mm) to ensure tahat the optical path is unchanged when you use a filter. FWIW I use an inexpensive Kood ND filter which, I think, I may have bought from SRB. I’ve just checked and it doesn’t appear to be particularly low profile. I think it might only be a problem with polarisers or variable ND where they have a rotating mount.

HTH

Same with my 400 2.8...the most recent f mount.

 

[Chris_911]

Are you sure it’s empty? My 300 f/2.8 has a plain glass screw in filter as standard (52mm) to ensure tahat the optical path is unchanged when you use a filter. FWIW I use an inexpensive Kood ND filter which, I think, I may have bought from SRB. I’ve just checked and it doesn’t appear to be particularly low profile. I think it might only be a problem with polarisers or variable ND where they have a rotating mount.

HTH

It is empty.
Given the cost of this lens there are a few penny pinching moves from Nikon - not really the lens itself, but the 'peripherals' if you like.
The filter is one - both my 300 f/2.8 and 200 f/2 use rear filters and came with a filter fitted. (Though thinking on this, I do feel a UV filter is unnecessary).
The case is another.
Then there's the lens foot - why doesn't Nikon supply one that is Arca Swiss compatible?

 

[sk66]

In terms of optical effect, there is no real difference between mounting a quality filter internally, or in front. It will reduce the focal length by a miniscule amount, but the AF should compensate just fine. I don't know why Nikon always used to insist a filter be installed (and UV instead of clear at that).

Then there's the lens foot - why doesn't Nikon supply one that is Arca Swiss compatible?

That is quite annoying to me... a compatible foot is so much better than an add-on plate.

 

[Nod]

Then there's the lens foot - why doesn't Nikon supply one that is Arca Swiss compatible?

IF "Arca Swiss" was 100% standardised, even among itself, I could see that feet could be supplied as standard but not everybody uses AS (or "compatible") heads.

 

[sk66]

but not everybody uses AS (or "compatible") heads.

Wouldn't make a difference to them; the arca swiss feet still have the screw holes for other mounting options. Compatibility requires nothing more than putting a 45˚ taper to the sides of the existing foot (and correct width).

 

[Nod]

Still doesn't address the problem of Arca Swiss not being standardised between different manufacturers of (very) similar mounts. Adding even just the 5 or 6mm to the height of the lens above the base could start to introduce stability problems if/when another plate is screwed on to the base, not to mention the extra costs involved (which is, I suspect, the real reason for the foot being left flat.)

 

[sk66]

Still doesn't address the problem of Arca Swiss not being standardised between different manufacturers of (very) similar mounts. Adding even just the 5 or 6mm to the height of the lens above the base could start to introduce stability problems if/when another plate is screwed on to the base, not to mention the extra costs involved (which is, I suspect, the real reason for the foot being left flat.)

There's a few makes that differ notably, but most interchange with any adjustable arca swiss clamp (screw clamp, adjustable lever). And most factory feet are cast aluminum, they just need to include it in the mold design. There's no reason for extra height/etc, and the cost would be negligible... most current Sigma/Tamron telephoto lenses include arca swiss compatibility.