RoamingScott wrote:
I'm pretty interested in trying out the 1.4 TC with the 100-400 on the Z7ii. Any idea how that performs in practice?
I have the original Z6, so YMMV. I’ve also only had it out a few times, so others might be able to give a more experienced answer. But so far…
Autofocus:
I found in marginal conditions (haze) the AF degrades enough to start missing shots I think I should get. In good light (morning sun) AF was sure-footed, and while I’ve always found the Z6 to be a camera that makes me work for my AF tracking, I didn’t find the TC to make it significantly worse to the point that I would miss shots I would be certain I’d make without the TC.
As is usual with my Z6, the TC works great for perched and swimming birds, and I have to work for BIF.
Sharpness:
I definitely see more detail with the TC. I think it’s a hair behind the 500PF (despite its “60mm” additional reach), although the 500PF can also take a 1.4x well, so that’s a bit of a stilted comparison. Two caveats:
1) I haven’t shot it close-up yet… there are no bugs or flowers here at present.
2) I’m shooting on a Z6, which is less challenging of lenses than your Z7II.
Aberrations:
If I try, I can get a little CA out of my bare 100-400 against a really bright sky. I have to turn off Lightroom’s automatic CA processing to see it. Adding the TC makes it slightly more noticeable, but generally not worth correcting, and I don’t think the CA is coming from the TC so much as it is just magnifying the CA that’s already there by 1.4x.
Overall:
I’d say it’s worth using. It barely hurts you, and it adds a ton of reach. I’m excited for next spring, when shooting landscapes means happening upon many songbirds. I love a 100-400 for landscape!
Now if I could only get the thing mounted on my 105/2.8…. I’m tinkering with that now!
Well thought out posts like this are an easy way to get me to spend money
CKrueger wrote:
I have the original Z6, so YMMV. I’ve also only had it out a few times, so others might be able to give a more experienced answer. But so far…
Autofocus:
I found in marginal conditions (haze) the AF degrades enough to start missing shots I think I should get. In good light (morning sun) AF was sure-footed, and while I’ve always found the Z6 to be a camera that makes me work for my AF tracking, I didn’t find the TC to make it significantly worse to the point that I would miss shots I would be certain I’d make without the TC.
As is usual with my Z6, the TC works great for perched and swimming birds, and I have to work for BIF.
Sharpness:
I definitely see more detail with the TC. I think it’s a hair behind the 500PF (despite its “60mm” additional reach), although the 500PF can also take a 1.4x well, so that’s a bit of a stilted comparison. Two caveats:
1) I haven’t shot it close-up yet… there are no bugs or flowers here at present.
2) I’m shooting on a Z6, which is less challenging of lenses than your Z7II.
Aberrations:
If I try, I can get a little CA out of my bare 100-400 against a really bright sky. I have to turn off Lightroom’s automatic CA processing to see it. Adding the TC makes it slightly more noticeable, but generally not worth correcting, and I don’t think the CA is coming from the TC so much as it is just magnifying the CA that’s already there by 1.4x.
Overall:
I’d say it’s worth using. It barely hurts you, and it adds a ton of reach. I’m excited for next spring, when shooting landscapes means happening upon many songbirds. I love a 100-400 for landscape!
Now if I could only get the thing mounted on my 105/2.8…. I’m tinkering with that now!...Show more →
RoamingScott wrote:
Well thought out posts like this are an easy way to get me to spend money
Ha! Thanks, but if you really want to blow some cash, consider the 2x TC photos posted here and then realize that the 1.4x is better.
With the exception of AF performance in low contrast, the 1.4x is basically a free lunch. And "doesn't work well in crappy light" isn't really a criticism that anyone should care much about.
I think with this type of lenses there are more reports of protective filter interfering with image quality. If you get a filter, get a high-quality one and test the results with and without filter before committing to use one regularly.
I only use a protective filter if the lens is about to be exposed to something that could damage it. Sand, dust etc.
According to technical arguments, a filter placed in front of the lens does not introduce aberrations (link).
Filter adds two glass-air surfaces. This does impact light transmission and - most importantly - flare and ghosting; consequently, high quality filters, with state-of-the-art anti-reflecting coatings, are highly recommended.
However, the main problem of a lens consisting of 25 elements and 20 (moving) groups is represented by manufacturing tolerances.
Ryan74 wrote:
Is anyone here putting a filter on the front to protect the front element? I usually go with a B+W UV filter on my lenses
I took this pictures from behind a "window" ... of a Renaissance building ...
My personal opinion is that UVs used simply for protection are a waste of time and money. Your front element is very robust and a weaker shattering UV will likely scratch the front element.
I’ve seen a hundred cases on FM where someone asks “what happened to this pic I took” where there is some odd aberration and the culprit winds up being a UV.
Ryan74 wrote:
Is anyone here putting a filter on the front to protect the front element? I usually go with a B+W UV filter on my lenses
RoamingScott wrote:
My personal opinion is that UVs used simply for protection are a waste of time and money. Your front element is very robust and a weaker shattering UV will likely scratch the front element.
I’ve seen a hundred cases on FM where someone asks “what happened to this pic I took” where there is some odd aberration and the culprit winds up being a UV.
I agree in general.
But there could be use cases for a protective filter that I have just not encountered, like a desert with blowing sand maybe?
But there could be use cases for a protective filter that I have just not encountered, like a desert with blowing sand maybe?
Yes, there are times and places for everything, a course for every horse.
But slapping a UV filter on a lens as a 24/7 catch all "protection" is largely pointless and ultimately detrimental to IQ, and sometimes you won't notice till you're home and notice a shot is irrevocably ruined by some aberration.
RoamingScott wrote:
Yes, there are times and places for everything, a course for every horse.
But slapping a UV filter on a lens as a 24/7 catch all "protection" is largely pointless and ultimately detrimental to IQ, and sometimes you won't notice till you're home and notice a shot is irrevocably ruined by some aberration.
I do use UV( protection filters) when I am going to be in an environment where I will have the need to clean the front element frequently. Places with conditions such as blowing dust, water spray, ect.. i would rather be rubbing things off a filter than the lens front element.
The only lens I have ever lost to damage had a UV filter on it. I slipped and fell on a slippery rock in Iceland. Just as has been noted in this thread, the UV filter broke, and pieces dug into, and scratched, the front element of the lens. The lens also sustained some internal damage that was unrepairable, so a total loss. Fortunately 100% covered by insurance.
Steve Perry did this set of experiments that seem to confirm my use of the filters.
I haven't used a UV with my 100-400 yet. I use them when there's heavy weather or I'm in close quarters and the lens is likely to be touched. I haven't encountered the former yet, and any people I shoot at 400mm don't tend to have arms that long.
I've never found filters to cause too much trouble on telephotos, so long as you use a hood.
gdsf2 wrote:
But there could be use cases for a protective filter that I have just not encountered, like a desert with blowing sand maybe?
Surf often has a fine salty spray/mist in the air that deposits on surfaces and can be a PITA to clean. I sometimes use a protective filter in conditions like that because it's relatively easier to clean than the front element of a lens.
For actually reducing UV haze a polarizer will often work better anyway.
He used Tiffen filters. No surprise the filter slightly reduced contrast (which is not resolution) due to internal reflections between the two air-glass surfaces. Ghosting too was obviously heavily affected.
Actually, the 77 mm UV Protector USA filter he used costs 14 $ ... my B+W filters of same diameter cost 99 $ ...
It remains a mystery to me why people spend thousands of €/$ in lenses and then save few tens of €/$ for filters
To follow up, I bought this, and put it on my 100-400, as so:
https://i.imgur.com/pjnrXqQ.jpg
I haven't taken it out shooting yet, but playing around in the house with some too-thick gloves on, it's very easy to turn the control ring. I'm definitely going to try this out this winter, it should make it a lot easier to use the ring with gloves.
Thanks for the suggestion!
Here are the Tilta Focus GearRing (Amazon link above) sizes that fit the *control* ring on the following Z S lenses:
For Control Ring on the Lens
============================
81-83mm GearRing for Z MC 105mm f/2.8 VR S Lens
72-74mm GearRing for Z 14-24mm f/2.8 S Lens
72-74mm GearRing for Z 24-70mm f/2.8 S Lens
72-74mm GearRing for Z 70-200mm f/2.8 VR S Lens
88-90mm GearRing for Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S Lens
No Control Ring on the Lens
===========================
Z 85mm f/1.8 S Lens
I'm wondering if anyone compared 100-400s at 400/5.6 vs 300PF/tc15 at 420/5.6, yet?
I still didn't get my 100-400, but I purchased z7II, z5 is on the market by now, so 300pf/TC14 is my other option, I just can't wait anymore.
I didn't like VR when I used 300pf with Z50, but I liked a lot compactness. I'm thinking, z7II may make VR a bit better at lower shutter speeds, considering ibis.
Just out of curiosity, what are your intended subjects at 400/420mm? I ask because if it’s birds, 400mm is still too short. I wouldn’t want to crop TC images personally, which you would if you’re doing birding with it.
cvrle59 wrote:
I'm wondering if anyone compared 100-400s at 400/5.6 vs 300PF/tc15 at 420/5.6, yet?
I still didn't get my 100-400, but I purchased z7II, z5 is on the market by now, so 300pf/TC14 is my other option, I just can't wait anymore.
I didn't like VR when I used 300pf with Z50, I'm thinking, z7II may make it better at lower shutter speeds.
RoamingScott wrote:
Just out of curiosity, what are your intended subjects at 400/420mm? I ask because if it’s birds, 400mm is still too short. I wouldn’t want to crop TC images personally, which you would if you’re doing birding with it.
It's not exclusivly birding, it's combination of all kinds of different things, during my long trail everyday walks or series hikings.
I like to have camera and telephoto with me all the time, so 400mm is sweet spot for my liking, size and price vs reach.
A year ago I owed 300pf/TC14II/FTZ/Z50 for 4 months to give it try.
The combo was so light and handy, the AF wasn't bad, except racking from close to far, or oposite.
Two things bothered me the most, FTZ notch (solved with FTZ2), and VR at lower shutter speeds when you need it the most.
The lens is f4, so croping with TC isn't bad at all.
Nothing beats compactness of that combo, that makes me to rethink it again, but this time with z7II.
On Saturday I took the 100-400 out with 1.4tc attached on a Z fc. The morning was dull and overcast, which was great for testing AF. The combo worked well, and I'm more than pleased with the results.
It didn't suffer the focus freezing issues I randomly get using the 500pf on the Z fc body. I'm so used to these a quick nudge of the focus ring kicks it back into life.
Another plus is being able to zoom when too close to a subject, and the close-focus of the 100-400 is also great.
