Z Teleconverter TC-2.0x

[chrismitchell]

Somebody on here has tried one.  Do you lose detail in your pictures if you use the teleconverter?  In the old days people said they weren't good enough.  Maybe in the new days they are good enough?  I just noticed that Nikon has a $15,000 lens with a built-in teleconverter.  I don't have $15,000.  I do have $599.  Or I could save up and buy a 400mm lens in the spring.  If two people say the converter gives a less Sharp photo I will hold off and buy the lens at a later time.

[Mary Doo]

4 hours ago, chrismitchell said:

Somebody on here has tried one.  Do you lose detail in your pictures if you use the teleconverter?  In the old days people said they weren't good enough.  Maybe in the new days they are good enough?  I just noticed that Nikon has a $15,000 lens with a built-in teleconverter.  I don't have $15,000.  I do have $599.  Or I could save up and buy a 400mm lens in the spring.  If two people say the converter gives a less Sharp photo I will hold off and buy the lens at a later time.

All I can say is it's the best Nikon 2x so far - and I believe I had tried every past 2x model.  The images looked sharp and focusing speed was very good.  I have not extensively tested it (not being a keen tester).  Does it lose details?  I would imagine so, but I am not really a pixel peeper.  However, if you need a Nikon 2x, I believe this is the best you can get.  You can send me a private message if you want to test out my copy, which is practically new.

[Niels - NHSN]

It is always good for your wallet (and sanity) to define for yourself what is "good enough".

It is highly likely that a teleconverter will loose some quality - it is a compromise after all -  but if it is above your threshold, then it is irrelevant.

So many people obsess over resolution and sharpness but mainly share their photos online or never print above 11x14" which makes the discussion largely inconsequential. 

I am not saying that is you, but if the only criteria for not buying is "two people saying it gives less sharp pictures" without any additional qualification, you may as well just start saving for the longer lens.

 

[mike_halliwell]

1 hour ago, NHSN said:

So many people obsess over resolution and sharpness but mainly share their photos online or never print above 11x14" which makes the discussion largely inconsequential. 

Same goes for the 'Do I need a TC or is cropping a better bet?'

[bgelfand]

The only person who can decide if it is "good enough" is you. Rent one for a week and you decide.

[ShunCheung]

It also highly depends on which lens you are putting that 2x TC on. TCs work better on high-end lenses and, in general, less well on zooms. On the 400mm/f2.8 without engaging the internal TC, the 2X TC may produce pretty good results in a 800mm/f5.6 equivalent. If you stick the 2x TC onto a 70-200mm/f2.8 VR S, you may turn a $3000 combo into a mediocre 400mm/f5.6. But yes, what is "acceptable" is a very individual decision.

[Mary Doo]

I just did a casual search on YouTube and found quite a few reviews.  So far most are using the 70-200mm S lens for the test because the 400mm is not yet available.  (The 70-200 was the lens I used with the 2x as well.)

The consensus is that the results are excellent; and strange is that it becomes sharper to almost indistinguishable under scrutiny in comparison as the focal range gets longer (with increased F-stops), which is the point most photographers use the teleconverter for.  

Here is one review, but please look at the others as well if you are seriously thinking about it.

My personal view is accolades, except the combo is bulky, but that's the price one has to pay.

Edited November 27, 2022 by Mary Doo

[ilkka_nissila]

20 hours ago, mike_halliwell said:

Same goes for the 'Do I need a TC or is cropping a better bet?'

There are other effects of 2X TC use than sharpness to consider that may be noticeable in images even when displayed on a smaller scale. Contrast, image clarity, vividness of color, flare, out of focus rendering, and practical issues such as autofocus performance, maximum aperture etc. The Z TCs have a good reputation with the 1.4x better than the 2x. I have not used either of them yet.

 

Grays of Westminster compared the 100-400 and 70-200 with 2X TC informally. No test charts but you get their impressions. They are a shop specializing in Nikon equipment so they tend to be more upbeat about everything Nikon. 😉

Edited November 27, 2022 by ilkka_nissila

[ShunCheung]

Thom Hogan has a recent article comparing the Nikon mirrorless Z 200mm to 800mm options. He has a table in that article, and please keep in mind that Thom is using the label "Worst" in a somewhat misleading way. It merely means that is the worst way to reach a certain focal length among his tests. It doesn't necessarily mean the results are very bad. For example, I own the 100-400mm S zoom, and I certainly don't believe that lens by itself, without any TC, deserves the "worst" label around 300mm.

And this is what Thom says about putting the Z 2x TC onto the 70-200mm/f2.8 S VR:

Quote

but with a 2x teleconverter the 70-200mm is definitely is the worst way to get to 400mm today. Again, that produces acceptable results, but not the best. I’d strongly suggest you find a good deconvolution sharpener if you want to use this lens at 400mm.

https://www.zsystemuser.com/z-mount-lenses/nikkor-lenses/z-mount-lens-articles/best-telephoto-options-in.html

Again, what is "acceptable" to Thom Hogan and to Chris Mitchell the OP may be quite different.

[mike_halliwell]

I was pleasantly surprised how well the TC 1.4 ii behaves with the 70-200mm 2.8 fl on the Z6ii wide open,

Ricci did a test with the Z TCs on the 800mm PF. He concluded the x1.4 was useful, the x2, not so much.

[ShunCheung]

10 hours ago, mike_halliwell said:

I was pleasantly surprised how well the TC 1.4 ii behaves with the 70-200mm 2.8 fl on the Z6ii wide open,

Ricci did a test with the Z TCs on the 800mm PF. He concluded the x1.4 was useful, the x2, not so much.

The 800mm PF is an f6.3 lens. With a 1.4x it is max f9. With a 2x TC it is max f12.6 @ 1600mm; don’t even think about it.

When you use the F mount 70-200 FL with a 1.4x TC on any Z body, you also need the FTZ so that you are using two adapters in series. Not an ideal situation.

[mike_halliwell]

I've never used or even seen one but Canon make an 800mm f11, which seems to have quite reasonable AF.

Ricci's main issue seemed to be IQ and that AF wasn't that speedy either!

He has a target with native 800mm (cropped to the size of the 800mm + x2) v the TC version: the cropped looks as good.

Edited November 28, 2022 by mike_halliwell

[Mary Doo]

 

7 hours ago, mike_halliwell said:

Ricci's main issue seemed to be IQ and that AF wasn't that speedy either!

Everything is relative - the capability of the camera and lens affect performance as well.   If he had tried a non-Z 2X on an 800 f/12-something lens, then he would be amazed at how "good" this Z 2X compares.  In the past, few serious photographer would use a 2X unless it was between getting the image or no image.  

[mike_halliwell]

2 hours ago, Mary Doo said:

If he had tried a non-Z 2X on an 800 f/12

He was trying the Z TCx2 on the Nikon Z 800mm f6.3 PF.... only someone crazy would put a TCx2 on an f12 lens.....😱

[Rob Davies]

On 11/27/2022 at 4:01 PM, mike_halliwell said:

I was pleasantly surprised how well the TC 1.4 ii behaves with the 70-200mm 2.8 fl on the Z6ii wide open,

Ricci did a test with the Z TCs on the 800mm PF. He concluded the x1.4 was useful, the x2, not so much.

I'll let you know how the Z TC 1.4 does with the 70-200 when it finally arrives. I ordered it back in October...... I'm getting good at waiting for things. 🤣

[ShunCheung]

1 minute ago, robert_davies2 said:

I'll let you know how the Z TC 1.4 does with the 70-200 when it finally arrives. I ordered it back in October...... I'm getting good at waiting for things. 🤣

The Z 1.4x TC works well with the 70-200/2.8 S. I bought both in December 2021. The TC was in stock at B&H back then, but it became hard to find early in 2022.

[Rob Davies]

Awhile back the 1.4 was quite easy to find in the UK, but has since become much harder to come by.

I suspect the addition of lenses that can actually use the convertor (other than just the 70-200 on release) has driven the demand.

[Mary Doo]

4 hours ago, mike_halliwell said:

He was trying the Z TCx2 on the Nikon Z 800mm f6.3 PF.... only someone crazy would put a TCx2 on an f12 lens.

Mike, I won't consider him crazy, even when shooting f/6.3 + 2 stops = f/12-something, because he was experimenting with a new toy.  😃  He probably has not tried an 800mm lens (Bigma?) with a 2x of a prior generation - because the images would have been unusable, assuming he could focus.  Btw, I  tried just about all of the Nikon 2X of past generations.  The TC-20E III was an improvement but still could not compare to Z 2X.  It seems the Z camera and lenses are just better in general.

[chrismitchell]

My 24-200/4-6.3 might work well with the z 2x converter?  Honestly, I didn't fully understand all of this on the first read.  I will be reading all of this a second and third time.  I spent the last two nights out in the dark skies of the Baja desert.  Attempting to learn how to take star trail photos in camera.  Z5 can combine ten photos in camera.  I bought a 14mm manual focus Rokinon for that purpose.  Last night it was in the thirties before moon set.  

My current plan is for the next two or three years to buy one or two high quality s line lenses.  When Nikon comes out with their 60 megapixel camera I will spend the money to get a good camera.  Hopefully they will have a model for people who really don't care about video, but want to take the best still photos they can.

Well anyway, next August, when I go to Yellowstone park, I will want either a 2x converter or a longer lens.

Hopefully some people who actually have the z 2x will pipe in.

[chrismitchell]

"could not compare to Z 2X.."

new and improved.

[Mary Doo]

2 hours ago, chrismitchell said:

My 24-200/4-6.3 might work well with the z 2x converter? 

Unfortunately no.  Currently only these five Z lenses are/will be compatible with these teleconverters:  70-200, 100-400, 400, 600, 800.  

If possible, it is always better to not have to use any teleconverter.  Then, using the 1.4x is always preferable to using the ultimate 2x.  To me, a 2x on a piece of heavy Nikon lens is cumbersome as one needs to exert extra effort to be successful, such as using a tripod while tracking volatile wildlife movement, not to mention relative degradation of image quality, as good as it may be.

[mike_halliwell]

5 hours ago, Mary Doo said:

Mike, I won't consider him crazy, even when shooting f/6.3 + 2 stops = f/12-something, because he was experimenting with a new toy.  😃

He tried the Z2x on the 800mm 6.3 = f13, and wasn't very keen on it.... but not crazy.

However, what you wrote was..

"If he had tried a non-Z 2X on an 800 f/12-something lens, then he would be amazed at how "good" this Z 2X compares. "

ie, an additional 2x on an already f12 lens... resulting in an ~f22 lens.... now that is Crazy!

[Mary Doo]

1 hour ago, mike_halliwell said:

ie, an additional 2x on an already f12 lens... resulting in an ~f22 lens.... now that is Crazy!

Hmm... semantics.  What I meant was a resultant f/13 lens when the 2x has been added.  At least we now agree that he is not crazy and that's good.  😉

 

[chrismitchell]

I didn't see that, thanks.

Nikon only lists four lenses on their compatibility page. 

Why would it be compatible with a 600mm f/4. Built-in 1.4x teleconverter lens?  Interesting.  At $15,000 I don't expect to find out why?

[Rob Davies]

Because with the 2X you get a 1200mm f8 and/or a 1680mm f11 and with the 1.4X a 840mm f5.6 and/or 1176mm f8.