2x teleconverter, for z5. How good are they?

[chrismitchell]

I might buy a z 400 mm lens and a 2x teleconverter.  I'm not so sure about the teleconverter.  Nikon claims the in lens converter is excellent.  Is the latest version of separate $599.00 teleconverter good?  The old teleconverters are said to be less than perfect.  Anybody have hands on experience with the latest z 2x teleconverter?

I could save up until the end of July and buy the z 800 mm.  I will never be able to afford the in lens teleconverter for $13,000 or $16,000.  

The main use will be wandering around Yellowstone park.l, and other national parks.  Wolves, bears, animals.  Eagles?  

 

Three or six thousand dollars is really Way more than I can afford.  I really enjoy my time in the woods out of cell phone coverage.  I need expert advice.

Z5 mirror less.

[ilkka_nissila]

The 400/4.5 and 100-400 are lenses that you could easily use while trekking without much discomfort. The 800mm PF is a larger lens and although the magnification is powerful, you might find its narrow angle of view restricting. I would not purchase the 800mm before you have other, shorter, telephoto lenses. The 800 PF would give more detailed images than a 400mm with 2X TC, of course. My personal preference would be the 400/4.5 and 1.4X TC. I already have the 70-200/2.8 so adding the 400/4.5 would complement my existing lenses well. I prioritise being able to photograph in lower light such as in a pine forest where lighting can be dim. The 100-400 and upcoming 200-600 are other options that you can consider. There is not much information yet available about the 200-600mm, but the Sony version is very popular, so you might want to wait until the Nikon version is available.

I would not recommend spending more than you can comfortably afford. Wait until you can afford what you really need for your subjects.

Edited May 29, 2023 by ilkka_nissila

[mike_halliwell]

I determined that an 800mm PF was coming my way when I used a 1.4 TC on my 500mm PF on walks and it wasn't TOO long. Small birds a modest distance away. Atmospherics aren't a problem at medium ranges. I don't try large things a long way away, although planes at 25k feet come out quite well sometimes!

That being said, my walkabout lens for bug hunting, is my 100-400mm Z + TC1.4Z. MFD feels about 80cm, so doesn't scare them away so much.

Edited May 29, 2023 by mike_halliwell

[Dieter Schaefer]

Here's a review: https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-z-1-4x-2-0x-teleconverters

[ShunCheung]

I have the Z 100-400mm zoom, 400mm/f4.5 and 800mm/f6.3. Those are all fine lenses but for different purposes. I have the Z 1.4x teleconverter but not the 2x. I can confirm that the 1.4x works great on the 400/4.5. Essentially TCs work better on faster lenses. The Z TC couples well with the 70-200/2.8 and 400/4.5. Otherwise, it turns the already slow 100-400 and 800/6.3 into even slower lenses.

[mike_halliwell]

54 minutes ago, ShunCheung said:

it turns the already slow 100-400

Yup, that combo doesn't seem to work well at medium/long range, AF really seems to struggle, but for skittish beasts it wins hands down.

Sadly the 400mm Z and ZTC1.4 doesn't make for a good close-up pairing. The native 1:6.3 'close-up' isn't great.

I tried my old faithful bug chaser of the 500mm PF + TC1.4eii and I kept having to back peddle to get to min focus for a small butterfly.

From what I gather, although the ZTC2.0 is a good lens, as usual, the prime of the same final length is way better.

I found the ZTC1.4 on the 800mm PF to be 'bearable' if you need 1000mm +, but the FOV is so narrow, initial target acquisition is hard.

[chrismitchell]

ilkka_nissila, good answer, as are all the answers 

I have a Z 5, 24-200 4.5, and a Rokinon 14 mm 2.8.

Correct me if I'm wrong.  A 400 mm lens is going to take sharper clearer photos than a 200 - 600 would.

 

 

 

Edited May 30, 2023 by chrismitchell

[ilkka_nissila]

5 hours ago, chrismitchell said:

Correct me if I'm wrong.  A 400 mm lens is going to take sharper clearer photos than a 200 - 600 would.

 

 

Yes, that's generally true, especially at the prime's native focal length. However, without testing the 200-600 it would not be obvious, whether it is better or worse at 600mm than the 400/4.5 with 1.4X at 560mm. The 400/4.5 is really nice in its handling and its weight at 1.2 kg is substantially lower compared to the Sony 200-600 (2.1-2.2kg). I think this increases the applications of the 400/4.5 as one can just walk around with it and enjoy it while a heavier and longer lens may make the experience less comfortable. However, of course, if one has to work with subjects at different ranges, or control the framing and how much environment is shown, then the zoom would be in its element. 

 

I can imagine shooting scenarios that would favour one lens over the other. For example, there is an area of water near me where one can get really close to the water and low on the ground without distractions, and have line of sight to birds in the water at different distances. The 200-600 would be ideal for this situation. I would place it on a tripod really low on the ground so that the horizon is kept level (using a fluid or gimbal head) and lie on a pneumatic matress. In this way, I could stay in one spot for several hours and wait for the birds to appear in photogenic places and the zoom would allow me to control the framing.

 

However, the 400/4.5 would be my preference when walking on hills and in forests, taking photos of deer and moose. The lighter lens would allow me to move without discomfort and its faster maximum aperture would put me typically at ISO 3200 or 6400 instead of 6400-12800 of an f/6.3 lens. Even with the 1.4X attached (+0.22 kg) it would be much lighter than the zoom. 

 

 

Edited May 30, 2023 by ilkka_nissila

[William Michael]

On 5/29/2023 at 2:20 PM, chrismitchell said:

I might buy a z 400 mm lens and a 2x teleconverter.  I'm not so sure about the teleconverter. 

You don't specify which 400mm lens you are considering, and I think that there are two; however by the flow of the conversation I assume it is the Z 400/4.5.

In this case and for the uses you specify, I suggest you consider the x1.4 teleconverter because there is 1 stop less loss when contrasted to the x2.0 teleconverter.

I suspect that choice will be paid back in better: Acquisition; AF accuracy and speed; Follow; and a generally a nicer Viewfinder view. 

For a tighter shot, (i.e. up to a FL 800mm equivalence), I suggest you consider cropping in camera (if possible) or in Post Production, obviously there will be some quality loss, however what loss that one sees is dependent upon the use(s) of the final images. 

As Shun mentioned: "Essentially TCs work better on faster lenses" - I concur.

Though having left the Nikon stable in 2004, for Canon, the same considerations apply: I have no hesitation using a x 2.0MkIII on a 70 to 200/2.8 or 400/2.8; but when pulling F/4.5 on the native lens, the loss of 1 Stop on a great lens is doable, but losing 2 Stops of Lens Speed on a Native F/4.5 lens, certainly can render frustration in several Shooting Scenarios.

WW

[chrismitchell]

I have list interest in the 2x teleconverter.   Possibly even lost interest in the 1.4x.

My choice is the 400 z mount or the 200 - 600 z mount.  How much longer before the 200 - 600 is in the camera store?

The link above says the z 70 - 200 is one of the sharpest lenses they have ever tested.  How long will it take for the 200 - 600 to be tested?

I want my picture of a buffalo to be in sharp.  

I got some good clear answers here.

Thank You.

[ShunCheung]

16 minutes ago, chrismitchell said:

My choice is the 400 z mount or the 200 - 600 z mount.  How much longer before the 200 - 600 is in the camera store?

The link above says the z 70 - 200 is one of the sharpest lenses they have ever tested.  How long will it take for the 200 - 600 to be tested?

That 200-600mm Z-mount lens has been on Nikon's roadmap since October 2019, just before the pandemic. For just about any other lens on their roadmap, Nikon has released them pretty much on time, although obviously the pandemic had various impacts on manufacturing, etc. It is not clear why the 200-600 has had such a long delay. I'd like to think Nikon will announce it this year, but by now I have lost interest, as I already have the 400mm/f4.5 and 800mm/f6.3 PF, plus some F-mount 500mm and 600mm lenses. I am very well covered. I would consider the 400/4.5 with 1.4x TC instead.

[Rob Davies]

11 minutes ago, ShunCheung said:

That 200-600mm Z-mount lens has been on Nikon's roadmap since October 2019, just before the pandemic. For just about any other lens on their roadmap, Nikon has released them pretty much on time, although obviously the pandemic had various impacts on manufacturing, etc. It is not clear why the 200-600 has had such a long delay. I'd like to think Nikon will announce it this year, but by now I have lost interest, as I already have the 400mm/f4.5 and 800mm/f6.3 PF, plus some F-mount 500mm and 600mm lenses. I am very well covered. I would consider the 400/4.5 with 1.4x TC instead.

Agreed, the 400 with 1.4 is an excellent combination. I've not noticed any real downside to using the converter (apart from occasionally mushy bokeh).