p.1 #1 · Your Experiences w/70-200 f2.8 Z paired w/Nikon Z TC-2x
Looking to expand my reach when shooting intimate landscapes. In the past I have rented the 200-500mm f5.6E ED VR and although I really liked that FL range I didn't like that weight and I primarily relegated it as a work from the trunk of my car lens. The new 100-400mm Z lens would probably be great if I could find a near new one and save some coin. My other idea and this is where you guys can come in, is purchasing the Z TC-2x and pairing it with my already owned 70-200mm f28 Z. That route would be much easier on my wallet and much easier on my back when hiking.
Anyone here shooting with that combo? Are you pleased with the results? I would mainly be shooting intimate landscapes with it, no BIF and only occasional wildlife. Where I live there is not much large wildlife, I would have to travel roughly three days to get to a location with large wildlife.
p.1 #2 · Your Experiences w/70-200 f2.8 Z paired w/Nikon Z TC-2x
This is a good question and like you I also enjoy long teles for intimate landscape work. Previously I used the F mount 70-200/2.8E which was disappointing with the TC-20EIII so the 200-500mm was often brought along which worked well but added so much weight and bulk as you noted. So I switched to the Z 100-400mm and constantly use the entire range for tight landscape intimates. I actually find need for the 500-550mm range on occasion and if the upcoming Z 200-600mm is excellent I may add that.
Hopefully others who shoot the 2x on the Z 70-200/2.8 will chime in. I have read others say that combo is decent, but not quite as good as the Z 100-400.
p.1 #3 · Your Experiences w/70-200 f2.8 Z paired w/Nikon Z TC-2x
For occasional use, a 2.0TC is a very reasonable solution. Especially if you have other considerations such as cost and weight (hiking).
The downsides are that 2.0TC's are never ideal, and it isn't as good as a bare 100-400. Adding another piece between the body and the lens is obviously less desirable in general. The 70-200 works quite well with the 2.0TC though and you are unlikely to be too disappointed. If you stop down on that combo, you get some sharpness back, but now you're at F8. You will also lose 40mm on the wide end, but I'm guessing that isn't a big deal for you.
Another thing to consider is if you end up finding a 100-400 at a price you're comfortable with, adding a 1.4TC will get you a 140-560mm combo that will be more similar to the 200-500 range you really liked (without the weight), and the 1.4TC works so well on both the 100-400 and 70-200 that it's pretty well invisible. MILCs also don't suffer the same loss of AF performance like DSLRs do when adding TCs.
In your situation though, and especially if you're shooting primarily landscapes with it, stopping down might be what you are going to do anyway and in that case a 2.0TC would be less punishing than if you were using it primarily for wildlife. Seems like a pretty good solution for your intended usage.
p.1 #4 · Your Experiences w/70-200 f2.8 Z paired w/Nikon Z TC-2x
CanadaMark wrote:
For occasional use, a 2.0TC is a very reasonable solution. Especially if you have other considerations such as cost and weight (hiking).
The downsides are that 2.0TC's are never ideal, and it isn't as good as a bare 100-400. Adding another piece between the body and the lens is obviously less desirable in general. The 70-200 works quite well with the 2.0TC though and you are unlikely to be too disappointed. If you stop down on that combo, you get some sharpness back, but now you're at F8. You will also lose 40mm on the wide end, but I'm guessing that isn't a big deal for you.
Another thing to consider is if you end up finding a 100-400 at a price you're comfortable with, adding a 1.4TC will get you a 140-560mm combo that will be more similar to the 200-500 range you really liked (without the weight), and the 1.4TC works so well on both the 100-400 and 70-200 that it's pretty well invisible. MILCs also don't suffer the same loss of AF performance like DSLRs do when adding TCs.
In your situation though, and especially if you're shooting primarily landscapes with it, stopping down might be what you are going to do anyway and in that case a 2.0TC would be less punishing than if you were using it primarily for wildlife. Seems like a pretty good solution for your intended usage....Show more →
My copy of the Z 100-400 with 1.4x has been disappointing at 560mm. I need to test it more. I was really hoping that would meet my occasional needs in that range.
p.1 #5 · Your Experiences w/70-200 f2.8 Z paired w/Nikon Z TC-2x
Thanks for this Ross. I compared my 100-400 with the 70-200 s and a friend's 2x TC to see if I should just buy the TC and return the 100-400. It solidified my love for the 100-400 as I didn't like the TC 2x at all outside of the center area (compared on a tripod, same settings, no wind, etc). I thought it was the 2x TC and perhaps the 1.4x would be much better (as I've read) but I haven't tried it yet. I think there are applications where adding the TC to the 70-200 may be a better match vs adding the 100-400, but for landscapes I think the 100-400 has the advantage.
Ross Martin wrote:
My copy of the Z 100-400 with 1.4x has been disappointing at 560mm. I need to test it more. I was really hoping that would meet my occasional needs in that range.
p.1 #6 · Your Experiences w/70-200 f2.8 Z paired w/Nikon Z TC-2x
It's "pretty good" and probably even better than I expected, but not excellent. By contrast, you stay excellent with the 1.4x at 280mm. I recently bought the 100-400 thinking it would be a lot better at 400, and while it is better than the 70-200 with 2x, it's still just a tad less than I hoped for. But then I've only shot with the 100-400 once, so hopefully I just need more time with it.
p.1 #7 · Your Experiences w/70-200 f2.8 Z paired w/Nikon Z TC-2x
FWIW, I haven't gotten to it yet, but hopefully this week I'll get to compare the 70-200Z w/ 2x TC and the 200-500. Also plan to check the 300 f4 (Af-S D) with the 1.4x TC-14EII. Will post some crops...
p.1 #9 · Your Experiences w/70-200 f2.8 Z paired w/Nikon Z TC-2x
The TC-20 is ok but you’re going from stellar quality to “fine”, for ~$600+ new. I have it, I’ve tried to love it on the 70-200 Z, forced myself to add it in many situations, but I usually get home and wish I’d just used the 1.4x and found a way to recompose/get closer. The 1.4x is excellent.
(should say, for sensor argument sake, this is from my experience on both a Z6i and Z9)
AcuteShadows wrote:
This is a quite thorough review of both Z teleconverters.
p.1 #10 · Your Experiences w/70-200 f2.8 Z paired w/Nikon Z TC-2x
AdamLT wrote:
The TC-20 is ok but you’re going from stellar quality to “fine”, for ~$600+ new. I have it, I’ve tried to love it on the 70-200 Z, forced myself to add it in many situations, but I usually get home and wish I’d just used the 1.4x and found a way to recompose/get closer. The 1.4x is excellent.
(should say, for sensor argument sake, this is from my experience on both a Z6i and Z9)
Yes, it's probably the best available 2x TC. Yet, with a high-res sensor, you may get the same quality with the 1.4x TC and cropping - with $0 additional cost. If the 2x TC is not "better" than the sensor *across the frame* (for landscape), then you cannot make use of the additional resolution and cropping with a 1.4x TC is sufficient to preserve the image information that you want to retain. That probably needs to be checked at the aperture settings you intend to use.
