What's your experience with using a Z Teleconverter, both the 1.4x and the 2.0x? Has anyone specifically paired one or the other with the Z 70-200 2.8 v2? I'd like to avoid owning a 100-400 or 180-600 lens.
I've only used the 1.4x and found that it only slightly degrades AF performance on the Z9. There is a noticeable hit to overall sharpness and I'll use the lens bare if I can. That said there have been sharpness comparisons between the 70-200ii with 2x and the bare 100-400 and the 70-200 hangs right in there (it's a VERY sharp lens). AF does take a hit with the 2x.
I was going to sell my 70-200S because I wanted a 100-400 for critters and I wasn't using the 70-200 range very much. Last two weeks I used only that lens with the 2x tc just to give it an honest chance before ditching it. I am keeping the lens because it is incredibly good at 400/5.6. I am sure that I could see a difference RAW at 100-200%, but as far as final output (prints for me)...no way. It's really impressive, and focus is still fast. I was able to shoot butterflies, dragonflies, and other pollinators with ease and with great success. So...glad I gave it another go before knee-jerk selling this one.
jbear wrote:
I was going to sell my 70-200S because I wanted a 100-400 for critters and I wasn't using the 70-200 range very much. Last two weeks I used only that lens with the 2x tc just to give it an honest chance before ditching it. I am keeping the lens because it is incredibly good at 400/5.6. I am sure that I could see a difference RAW at 100-200%, but as far as final output (prints for me)...no way. It's really impressive, and focus is still fast. I was able to shoot butterflies, dragonflies, and other pollinators with ease and with great success. So...glad I gave it another go before knee-jerk selling this one. ...Show more →
Appreciate this information! I'm hoping the 2x might be an option to use with a 70-200 for aviation photography.
jbear wrote:
I was going to sell my 70-200S because I wanted a 100-400 for critters and I wasn't using the 70-200 range very much. Last two weeks I used only that lens with the 2x tc just to give it an honest chance before ditching it. I am keeping the lens because it is incredibly good at 400/5.6. I am sure that I could see a difference RAW at 100-200%, but as far as final output (prints for me)...no way. It's really impressive, and focus is still fast. I was able to shoot butterflies, dragonflies, and other pollinators with ease and with great success. So...glad I gave it another go before knee-jerk selling this one. ...Show more →
Is that the Version I or II 70-200?
Frankly, unless I need the light, I keep the 1.4 on my 70-200 VI. It may take just a hint of the bite off the image, but not enough that I could tell when I compared files.
bettyberg wrote:
Appreciate this information! I'm hoping the 2x might be an option to use with a 70-200 for aviation photography.
Having used the 2x on my Z 70-200 f2.8 VR S version one quite a bit, I find it best to stop down half to 1 stop to get the best sharpness. It is very good wide open, but it actually quite excellent stopped down.
I completely disagree with the assessment that that the 70-200 f2.8S degrades in any significant way when the 1.4x converter is added.
My primary telephoto is the 400 f2.8TC, and I have the 180-600. I also owned the 100-400S since its introduction and recently replaced it with the 70-200 f2.8S. If I'm using the 400 f2.8TC as my primary long lens, you can assume that I care about the final image quality. I chose to replace the 100-400 with the 70-200 because I value the internal zoom more than the push to 400mm.
I recently used the 400mm f2.8TC in tandem with the 70-200 f2.8S w/ 2x converter on a trip to the great bear rainforest. The primary target species was grizzly bears. The combination did not let me down. Let me know if you want to see samples.
OwlsEyes wrote:
I completely disagree with the assessment that that the 70-200 f2.8S degrades in any significant way when the 1.4x converter is added.
My primary telephoto is the 400 f2.8TC, and I have the 180-600. I also owned the 100-400S since its introduction and recently replaced it with the 70-200 f2.8S. If I'm using the 400 f2.8TC as my primary long lens, you can assume that I care about the final image quality. I chose to replace the 100-400 with the 70-200 because I value the internal zoom more than the push to 400mm.
I recently used the 400mm f2.8TC in tandem with the 70-200 f2.8S w/ 2x converter on a trip to the great bear rainforest. The primary target species was grizzly bears. The combination did not let me down. Let me know if you want to see samples.
Lance B wrote:
Having used the 2x on my Z 70-200 f2.8 VR S version one quite a bit, I find it best to stop down half to 1 stop to get the best sharpness. It is very good wide open, but it actually quite excellent stopped down.
Good to know. Stopping down should be doable the majority of the time.
bettyberg wrote:
Can I see one with the 400 2.8 TC and one with the 70-200 2.8 w/ 2x? But don't tell me which is which!
I will look to see what I have when I get back to my computer and send post them for you. The difference between the 400 f2.8 and the zoom w/ a 2x will likely be noticeable, but the 400mm f2.8 is a $12000-$14000 lens. One should expect a difference. However, once you process your images, the difference is less important that having the flexibility of a lighter zoom lens.
I'd also like to add one more point... if your goal is to shoot at 400mm most of the time, you will be better off with the 100-400 or 180-600. The latter zooms are designed with the purpose of accessing those focal lengths. If you goal is to have the capability to get to 400mm once in a while, then the 2x converter should meet your needs.
OwlsEyes wrote:
I will look to see what I have when I get back to my computer and send post them for you. The difference between the 400 f2.8 and the zoom w/ a 2x will likely be noticeable, but the 400mm f2.8 is a $12000-$14000 lens. One should expect a difference. However, once you process your images, the difference is less important that having the flexibility of a lighter zoom lens.
I'd also like to add one more point... if your goal is to shoot at 400mm most of the time, you will be better off with the 100-400 or 180-600. The latter zooms are designed with the purpose of accessing those focal lengths. If you goal is to have the capability to get to 400mm once in a while, then the 2x converter should meet your needs.
Thanks! Right now my goal is to have more reach on occasion. If I ever want a designated lens I'd prefer the 400 2.8 over the 100-400 and 180-600. I prefer a fixed aperture.
bettyberg wrote:
Thanks! Right now my goal is to have more reach on occasion. If I ever want a designated lens I'd prefer the 400 2.8 over the 100-400 and 180-600. I prefer a fixed aperture.
I'll be able to post something for you in a few hours. I can't recall if I have anything at 400mm f5.6 (70-200 + 2x at full focal length), but I definitely have photos with the combination that I can share. The 400mm f2.8TC is at a different level of optical performance, but that does not detract from the usefulness of the 70-200 f2.8S w/ converters.
I'll add the following, if the 400mm f2.8TC is a price too high for you... a feeling I had for myself until I was ready for the expense... the fixed 400mm f4.5 Z is an amazing lens too. I'm in the market for one now, as I have some international trips planned where I'm not sure I want to haul my 400mm f2.8TC around when I'm traveling to various destinations via train.
bettyberg wrote:
Can I see one with the 400 2.8 TC and one with the 70-200 2.8 w/ 2x? But don't tell me which is which!
Ok... I'm back and have something together to share.
The photos were taken on the same day and they are the same bear. The shooting time is about 3 hours apart, but the light is essentially the same. Note... Pictures 1 and 3 have been run through DXO and exposure balanced with LR Masking. They have been cropped to the same dimensions.
Pictures #2 and #4 have gone through my entire edit process and represent final printable images.
Picture #1: Shot with the 70-200 + 2x @ f/7.1. EXIF is included. In addition, this is a crop from the original 48mp to 25mp. As you can see, the combination can handle a crop. In the scope of things shot on this day, I kept it, but more for a memory, as it is not something I am likely to use in a print, blog, or Insta Post. I was shooting bear landscapes and had the 70-200 w/ 2x ready for that purpose.
Picture #2: Shot with 70-200 w/2x, but pulled wider. This is how I had my lens set up. I wanted to use this lens for bear landscapes, while keeping my Z9/400 f2.8TC for tighter work.
Picture #3: Shot with the 400mm f2.8TC. The photo is framed with the same cropped dimensions as the 70-200 w/ 2x. I wanted to keep things consistent so you can get an idea about the difference in the image quality. Note the image is at f3.2.
Picture #4: This is the final output of image #3. I decided that I wanted a super tight shot. I cropped it down pretty small and then used Gigapixel to increase the resolution to make something printable. The 400mm f2.8 offers such great detail that I can get away with this. This is a photo that I might use in the future.
Finally, here a link to my bear portfolio from the trip to the Khutzeymateen. All of these photos were taken in 4 days of shooting where all of the photography was done from a zodiac. Most of the wider animal-scapes were with the 70-200, while most of the tighter stuff was done with the 400mm f2.8TC. Link: https://bruce-leventhal.squarespace.com/great-bear-rainforest-new
I hope this helps you... feel free to ask any questions you might have.
Interesting discussion (I think). I have a Z5ii and FTZ and only F-mount lenses. My longest lens is a 300mm f/4.5 AIS. I recently picked up a TC-14B, the TC designed longer lengths. It sits between the FTZ and the lens and raises the 300mm to 420mm. So far I've liked it. In theory it reduces the aperture by 1.4 but the Z5ii just uses whatever exposure is necessary for the light received. I gave the camera a manual-focus lens ID for a 420mm, and it just works. Most of the time when I'm using it I'm pushing for the distance for a long range shot. Does it work? Certainly better than the 300mm by itself, I think.
OwlsEyes wrote:
I'll be able to post something for you in a few hours. I can't recall if I have anything at 400mm f5.6 (70-200 + 2x at full focal length), but I definitely have photos with the combination that I can share. The 400mm f2.8TC is at a different level of optical performance, but that does not detract from the usefulness of the 70-200 f2.8S w/ converters.
I'll add the following, if the 400mm f2.8TC is a price too high for you... a feeling I had for myself until I was ready for the expense... the fixed 400mm f4.5 Z is an amazing lens too. I'm in the market for one now, as I have some international trips planned where I'm not sure I want to haul my 400mm f2.8TC around when I'm traveling to various destinations via train.
OwlsEyes wrote:
Ok... I'm back and have something together to share.
The photos were taken on the same day and they are the same bear. The shooting time is about 3 hours apart, but the light is essentially the same. Note... Pictures 1 and 3 have been run through DXO and exposure balanced with LR Masking. They have been cropped to the same dimensions.
Pictures #2 and #4 have gone through my entire edit process and represent final printable images.
Picture #1: Shot with the 70-200 + 2x @ f/7.1. EXIF is included. In addition, this is a crop from the original 48mp to 25mp. As you can see, the combination can handle a crop. In the scope of things shot on this day, I kept it, but more for a memory, as it is not something I am likely to use in a print, blog, or Insta Post. I was shooting bear landscapes and had the 70-200 w/ 2x ready for that purpose.
Picture #2: Shot with 70-200 w/2x, but pulled wider. This is how I had my lens set up. I wanted to use this lens for bear landscapes, while keeping my Z9/400 f2.8TC for tighter work.
Picture #3: Shot with the 400mm f2.8TC. The photo is framed with the same cropped dimensions as the 70-200 w/ 2x. I wanted to keep things consistent so you can get an idea about the difference in the image quality. Note the image is at f3.2.
Picture #4: This is the final output of image #3. I decided that I wanted a super tight shot. I cropped it down pretty small and then used Gigapixel to increase the resolution to make something printable. The 400mm f2.8 offers such great detail that I can get away with this. This is a photo that I might use in the future.
Finally, here a link to my bear portfolio from the trip to the Khutzeymateen. All of these photos were taken in 4 days of shooting where all of the photography was done from a zodiac. Most of the wider animal-scapes were with the 70-200, while most of the tighter stuff was done with the 400mm f2.8TC. Link: https://bruce-leventhal.squarespace.com/great-bear-rainforest-new
I hope this helps you... feel free to ask any questions you might have.
I'm viewing on a large iMac and sharpness between the images is indistinguishable, although maybe that's due to image compression on the forum? Regardless, I am convinced the 2x TC is a viable option to start with. Appreciate you sharing your images (which are fantastic) and knowledge.
Just my observation over many years shooting, teaching, and spending. Many of the details that we perseverate over in choosing gear (on forums particularly) are generally insignificant in final products. There are exceptions of course, and I would always prefer better capability, but we (most of us...me too) blow minor-moderate differences out of proportion (sometimes to justify something we just want). I have seen a lot of folks spend a ton of money chasing "better" without considering if it is truly necessary. Sometimes I'm sure it is. When you are going to buy a lens for the money that could purchase a decent used car...thinking about it objectively would be my rec.
bettyberg wrote:
Appreciate this information! I'm hoping the 2x might be an option to use with a 70-200 for aviation photography.
I loaned my 70-200/2.8Sii + 2.0TC to a friend when we went to the Oregon Air Show a couple of weekends back. She's over at @whenshesawlight on Instagram, though I can ask for permission to post some full-size samples here.
I can say that her 24MP shots and my 600PF-fed 45MP shots were similar enough in sharpness that I'd have delivered either to a client. Heat shimmer, angles, timing, and focus accuracy were far bigger factors when picking between ours.
bettyberg wrote:
What's your experience with using a Z Teleconverter, both the 1.4x and the 2.0x? Has anyone specifically paired one or the other with the Z 70-200 2.8 v2? I'd like to avoid owning a 100-400 or 180-600 lens.
I posted an admittedly somewhat clumsy test/comparison here, in the 70-200/2.8Sii thread a bit ago.
