Hey Everyone ! not sure if you can tell but I'm really impressed by these Tele converters, I had high hopes but I was still expecting a slight loss in image quality. Can not wait to do some further testing on these against my go to tele lenses like the 500mm F5.6. As always if you have any questions let me know in the comments and if you liked this video give it a Thumbs up ! thanks for watching !
You all probably dont care but does someone know of a way to log back into an Instagram account?? I was dumb lost my login password. I love any help you can offer me
@Moises Reid thanks for your reply. I found the site thru google and I'm waiting for the hacking stuff now. Takes a while so I will reply here later when my account password hopefully is recovered.
10:50 I'm not surprised at all. Every Z mount lens I've used so far has been much better or very noticeably better than any F mount lens I've used. No doubt about it.
So essentially Nikon gave us a 140-400 F5.6 with the 2x. I'd like to compare it to the 200-500 F5.6 300mm PF 300mm PF with 1.4x TC 500mm PF I think this is an awesome tele option for nikon z. Having a internal zoom 140-400 in a relatively compact size is amazing
The first comparison I'm really interested in is the Z 70-200 with 2xTC against the 200-500 for outdoor animals or the moon. The 200-500 is a common affordable lens that many of us have. The other not so common comparison I wanna see is the Z 70-200 f2.8 with the 1.4TC against the 120-300 f2.8 for indoor action.
I've taken some brilliant moon photos with my TC-2.0 and the fact that f/11 is the correct stop for shooting the moon makes it a perfect tool to use. Additionally, the edge of most moon shot are black so you won't have to worry about fall-off around the edges.
DUDE, the 70-200 2.8 S + 1.4 TC looks bloody amazing, that left side looks significantly better than the older FL version! Can't wait for the newer lenses to start popping, 100-400 and 200-600 I can't wait to get in my hands for some shoots!
It would be great to see how big the sharpness / perceived resolution difference between cropping an imagine from the 70-200 S vs using the tele-converters is to answer the question whether it is "worth" to use the tele-converters vs just cropping 1.4x or 2x.
Agree. I think the 2x on the 70-200 on your shoulder (unless you can find a bluebird) for those close fly-bys or stumbling upon a nearer subject as backup to a 600 f/4 or 500mm primary makes good sense. You'd never realistically need to be wider than 140mm and having the 400mm f/5.6 reach, IF acceptably sharp with quick AF makes an intriguing idea.
The protrusion brings back memories of the 200, 201, 300 and 301 teleconverters. I wonder how much losing 1-2 stops of light effects the Z cameras autofocus. Impressive results for any TC. TCs are mainly for longer lenses anyway
Impressive. And, yes, the Z lenses seem to be overall much sharper than the F. I recently got the 24-200, an all-round lens that typically comes with a considerable quality compromise, and I am very happy with the image quality.
I have all 3 F mount TCs. My most used is the TC1.7 which had the best reach with great picture quality. It is so sharp that most shots taken with it I had to check the EXIF to see if I used a TC. The 2.0 had image quality loss, and the 1.4 didn’t have a significant reach improvement. So I am hoping they will produce a Z 1.7.
My experience with the F mount lenses is that only the 300 f2.8 and 400 f2.8 lenses handled the 2.0 well. I have travelled all over Africa with the 300 f2.8 vr ii using the 1.4 ii, 1.7ii and 2.0iii. The key was the fact that I had every camera I used properly focus calibrated/aligned with the lens and the converters. Once set-up the results were fantastic. I also had a 200-400 f4 vrii and did the same with the TC1.4iii. The f-mount needed proper calibration even the naked lenses. I spend hours making sure that this was done and before every major trip I would check again. I now use the 1.4 S on my 400 f4.5 and it is very impressive.
I doubt we will see the 300 f4 PF and 500 f5.6 PF be ported to the Z mount any time soon, because those lenses just came out a couple years ago. You can buy them and just adapt them. However, I would love to see a 400 f4 PF and 600 f5.6 PF for the Z mount.
For some years now I've been using the AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II with the TC-20E III 2x Teleconverter for wildlife. I agree that there is a cost in IQ using the 2x teleconverter but not so much that I can't make some very nice photos. I never shoot at less than f/8.0 -- that's the sweet spot for the combo. I can, and have, used both with the FTZ on my Z6 with no noticeable difference in IQ or focussing. Now, of course, I'm very interested in the new Z-mount 70-200 and equivalent teleconverter. It sounds like I'd be impressed with the technical improvements.
Update: Just after I wrote the above comment, I bought the Z 2X TC and the 70-200 f/2.8 VR S. Couldn't be happier. Now the question is: do I buy the 400 f/4.5 and 1.4 TC or the 100-400? I'm leaning towards the 1st option for better IQ and aperture.
Great to see this video giving us a look at the new teleconverters. I must say I have been thinking about trading my 500/5.6 PF for the new 70-200mm plus these TC´s, would be great if you do a video about the topic 😊
Keep the 500 PF. Without even testing, I can assure you it is far sharper (not to mention the 100mm of extra reach). I have a TC-2x coming, and I have both those lenses. I might do a test and a video on that topic.
I'd like to see how the 70-200 with the 1.4x and 2.x converters stacks up against the 200-500/5.6 with the 70-200 set at 200mm and the 200-500 set to 500mm, and the 70-200 shot cropped to the same field of view as obtained by the 200-500 at 500. i.e. can I realistically carry just the 70-200 and not carry the 200-500 for photos that would _also_ have needed cropping at 500mm. It is not a useful comparison to compare the 70-200 + 2x converter against the 200-500 at 400mm because I wouldn't typically use the 200-500 that way, it is 99% of the time shot at 500mm and further cropped.
Great video Ricci! Remember now, the Z 1.4 Teleconverter in crop mode with the Z6 II or the Z7 II will give you a 420mm f:4 which is very, very attractive!!
I picked up the 2x and I'm waiting for the Z 100-400mmS. I know, I'll be waiting for a while. Meanwhile I have a teleconverter that I can't use (haha) since I don't have the 70-200mmS. Ricci please make a call to Nikon and get them to push the 100-400mmS out to us. Thanks for the informative video. Keep it up.
Great video. I would like to see a comparison between the 70-200 S lens with 2.0 Tele Converter and the upcoming 100 to 400 S lens. I'd also like your input on the quality of the 100-400 S lens once it is available, and whether it will be compatible and useful with the 2.0 Tele Converter.
Thanks for an excellent video Ricci. From the tests you have done there I will definitely be getting the 70-200 2.8 and both these TC's for my Z7 for my wildlife photography. It is a no-brainer as they say.
I cover action,sports,wildlife and i use nikon 180-400mm f4 and 400mm f2.8 with the 70-200 f2.8 are all F mount lenses. I found the Nikon Z6 and Z7 cameras & FTZ adapter wasnt as fast as compared my Nikon D5 & D6 cameras when using the above named lenses.
Interesting video! But I'm going to be very patient and wait for the Z 100-400. My (future) Safari camera lens set up will be 100-400 on my Z7 & my 500PF on my D500 with my 24-200 along for the walkabout stuff.
I am enjoying the Z6 and 24-70 f4 and waiting on the new 70-200 and the 2x. You mentioned birds in flight as a good test on AF, but since I convinced “her” that the 2x will get us into birding an example of birds in the branches, so to speak, would be appreciated. Getting to 400 will mean a lot to me as selling my D800 and all my pro glass to get to lighter weight was one of my objective for the change. I am amazed with the close subject focusing with the 24-70 f4 and understand the teleconverter doesn’t change that. Look forward to 400m close up and never needing a macro! Good work on the review.
Very interesting results. The following summarizes my extensive testing under outdoor laboratory conditions on a standard target. This compared all 3 TCs [TC14 III, TC17 II, TC2 III) on 300 f4E PF, 500 f5.6E PF, 70-200 f2.8E FL, 200 f2G VRII and last but not least 400 f2.8E FL. Cameras are D850 and Z7 on heavy gimbal mounted on Gitzo 5543LS. Shooting D850 in Liveview to mitigate error (even though all combos are carefully tuned with AFFT). Distances selected to represent realistic encounters with wildlife subjects: 10m, 20m, 30m, 57m. I have also run many tests on birds and animals (cats' whiskers, elephant skin etc are ideal to compare image quality). Key points: 1. IQ (Image QUality) varies greatly across lenses. The Queen of TC-friendly lenses is the 400 f2.8E with all 3 TCs. I routinely shoot this combo as a 800 f5.6 on the D850, although the 600 f4E+TC14 III would arguably be better. 2. Some lenses fail badly. My copy of the 70-200 f2.8E works very well with TC14 III but fails badly with TC17 II. This combo is basically useless, despite repeated AFFT. Results are acceptable with TC2 III but the 200 f2G is far better with the latter. 3. The 500 PF delivers excellent results with TC14 II - subject to cropping and subject Distance 4. The 300 PF is excellent with both TC14 III and TC17 III. It is my mainstay portable combo on the D850. 5. IQ drops off markedly with all TC combos beyond 30m, this is even with the 400 f2.8. Cropping a D850/Z7 image taken with a TC is not advised, especially if the subject was taken beyond 30m!
I would be interested in comparing the new Z 2x with Z 70 - 200mm lens vs F mount 200-400 with 1.4 tele. I interested in these because of weight of not carrying the 200 - 400 mm lens. I would be happy with just a Z 400 mm lens if the quality is far better than F mount 200 - 400 with 1.4 Tele.
Love your clear explanantions. Helps a lot in choosing gear. I would be very interested in comparing the Z50-2x TC-Z70-200 combination to the Z6 or Z7 combinations.
great video, saw the 70 - 200 video, nice sequal to that one; would be nice to compare both converters and this lens to the 200-500 and the 80-400 F mount , and see what is best as an " all rounder" telephoto lens; at a fixed aperture, that is, since the 24-200 is a variable zoom lens (~4-5.6?), even against this lens and the 70-200 without the converters, to see what the money does give you compare to the older f mounts, even the older 200 and 300 primes.
Hi Ricci, I went on a safari with the Z 70-200mm 2.8 plus the teleconverter 2.0 and got excellent pictures. For me that meant that I didn't have to take a larger telephoto with me and it's a cheap alternative, actually more than that. But I would also like to have the 1.4 converter, because then I can work better with the aperture 4, as the begin with aperture 5.6.
Ricci I notice that Nikon have added the extra tab on the teleconverters to prevent lenses they don't think are optically good enough to be mounted, just as they do for the F mount TC's there needs to be a gap in one of the tabs on the lens to match for it to be able to fit. If the tab were removed it's possible the FTZ would mount on the 2X converter.
Wonder how this converters handle chromatic aberations compared to the F-mount converters. My 300mm f2.8+TC 1.4III combo shows significant purple fringing around specular highlights, escpecially when shooting seabirds in sunny conditions. Sharpness is not really affected.
Yes, I have that purple fringing also. And for me, the combination doesn't look any sharper than Sigma 150-600mm and the old Sigma 500mm F4.5 looks sharper.
I have a ton of photos that people have admired and have no idea it was shot with a TC-2.0. I believe the z TC is better than f. If I need the reach and that's what I have I use it. Naturally, you will need to have ample light because you'll lose 2 stops.
Hi Ricci! Always enjoy your videos and look forward to each new one you produce! I know you've done focus testing with the Z cameras where you go back and forth from subject to subject and show us the real time results of how long it takes for the camera/lens to acquire focus. Would you be able to do that with the 70-200 Zed + 1.4TC vs. the 300mm f2.8 f mount (or the 300mm f4 PF)? I would love to see if the Z cameras with a x1.4TC could achieve focus as quickly as the f mounts without a tele. Thanks so much! Rick
Greetings for the New Year Ricci. Have to admit that impressed and convinced as I was by this review when it first came out I didnt rush out to buy either simply because I do not own the 70-200mm Z lens. Now that there are more than a couple compatible Z lenses how about doing an update?
Starting to watch this video, off the cuff, Ricci, your initial remarks already make me motivated to watch the whole thing, like all your videos before. I have always shot primes for two reasons: (1) optical quality, (2) maintain my sense of viewpoint and perspective without a camera (I have numbers in my head, walking around and pre/en-visioning a photo, I am able to review, in my head, viewpoint, angle, focal length - a zoom would ruin my numbers). So, I have all the Z/S primes now. With the D/F camera and lenses I would use a 180ED/2.8 occasionally for a portrait in my studio - that thing is light and soft, yet sharp enough to scare people with phobias about wrinkles in their face. And I thought I needed a substitute. At 2.8, that 180 is 4x darker in the optical viewfinder than a 1.4. Ha, with a Z 2x TC and my Z 85/1.8S, I would end up at f/3.6 - still brighter than a f/4 zoom, but with the electronic viewfinder (inherent amplification) we wouldn't care less. I am really exhilarated to hear and see what you have to let us know about this Z 2x TC!
Great vid Ricci and whilst I'm late to this discussion I can share my experience with the f-mount 2x TC. It was horrible. I could never get a sharp image from it and that was mated to a f2.8 300mm prime off a D4 thinking I had a useful setup, but how wrong was I. I used it once and got rid of it preferring the 1.4 f-mount TCIII. The sample images you provided are enough to persuade me back into a 2x z-mount TC so thanks for that!
Ricci - to answer your question - Can you compare the F mount 70-200mm you have WITH the F mount 2x teleconverter with the Z mount 70-200mm with the new 2x teleconverter? I would love to see that.
I am progressively transitioning to the Z system from the F system. I started with the Z6 with the 24-70 f/4 S kit. Then, got the 20mm f/1.8 S for astro, and just got the 14-30 mm f/4 S for landscapes. I am planning to get the Z7 II once released because of the improved focus system and 900 second shutter limit. I miss the 36 MP resolution and no AA filter of the D810 when I started carrying the Z6 on my hikes because of weight and compactness. With the Z7 II, I do not have to compromise resolution and sharpness for weight. I am debating between selling the Z6 or keeping it since I believe, the Z6 is better in low light and videos.
I presently use a D500 with a 200-500 for wildlife. Sometimes with the 1.4 TC attached. I was advised at my camera shop not to get the 2 x TC, and went with their advice, and I'm glad I did. Even hand held the 1.4 works very well on this lens, with hardly any loss of quality. I'm looking hard at getting a Z 7ii at sometime in the not too distant future, along with the 70-200 Z mount. It seems that the 2 x TC would be a good option to go along with it. Saving me having to carry the 200-500 on the FTZ , having a weight gain.
I've been using that 2x / 70-200 Z combo for a while now. Of course you lose two stops to f/5.6, but the weight and cost savings is substantial. Shoot DX format (19.5 MP) on a Z7 and you've got a 600mm f/5.6 lens, easily good for 18" to 24" prints.
In addition to a comparison with the 300pf + 1.4 TC as already mentioned by others I would also like to see a comparison with the Nikon 80-400 as the zoom range and aperture are similar to the Z 70-200 + 2x TC. Thanks for the early review.
I have the Z 100-400mm and both Z teles. The 1.4 performs brilliantly, and it almost never comes off. The 2x, although it works great on the Z 70-200, my experience with the Z 100-400mm and the 2x is mixed. It seems to have a little softness and at f/11 maximum aperture, it needs a lot of light.
I have the Z 100-400mm and both Z teles. The 1.4 performs brilliantly, and it almost never comes off. The 2x, although it works great on the Z 70-200, my experience with the Z 100-400mm and the 2x is mixed. It seems to have a little softness and at f/11 maximum aperture, it needs a lot of light.
I currently own the F mount 1.4x, 1.7x and the 2x teleconverters. I use the 1.7x and 2x solely for my 300 MM 2.8 VRII (which I am keeping forever...the Z version will cost a fortune) and I only use the 1.4x for my 105mm 2.8 macro and my 300mm F/4 pf lens. I will keep these F mount teleconverters for some time to come. I am patiently waiting for the 70-200MM 2.8s lens (zzzzzzz) and when it finally arrives I am planning on ordering the 2x Z teleconverter to attach with the new Z 70-200mm 2.8 for wildlife.
Great video, would love to see a comparison of the 70-200 with the 2.0 vs the newly announced 180-600mm as a used 70-200 + the TC is close in pricing now
The thing with teleconverts always was: * Everyone actually wants the 2times instead of the 1.4 when it comes to range (extend it more than just 1.4*) * Quality-Drop from the 2* was always higher than the 1.4/1.7 versions. This always hold me back because I was not sure if I should get a 1.4* or 2*. So now the 2* seems to be quite good (at least with the Z70-200mm) so why even bother with 1.4* only?
I would like to see a comparison between the 200-500 and the 70-200 with converters. I know the 200-500 is not as sharp as either the 300PF or the 500PF but the 200-500 is the lens I own. I am on the list for a 70-200. Up until your video I was not considering the teleconverters. It was a very impressive video. Thanks
Since many folks have the F-mount 70-200 2.8 EFL, could you do a comparison on the Z7 of the 70-200 FMount with TC14 and TC20EIII against the 70-200S and the new teleconverters at 280mm and 400mm. That seems to be the best way to demonstrate the differences using the FMount lens and TC combinations so many of your subscribers have. Many thanks!
I've already seen this suggestion/question below, but just to reaffirm, I would dearly love to see how the 1.4x and the 2x on the 70-200mm compare to a stand alone 300mm PF. I hope they are brilliant in comparison... I've already sold my 300mm PF! Cheers!
Might have been asked before. Regarding the comparison pics, what part of the frame are you zoomed into? Is it one of the corners, or the center of the frame? Thanks!
I share your comments about F mount TC20III that was really crap when hook to 300 PF or 500 PF, so much low image quality. Fortunately for me, I bought an used TC20III for a very affordable price. I think I use it only twice ... I would like to see Z body with TC14/TC20 to see if they match 300PF or near 500PF. Nikon rumors announced a 400 and 600 lens with f2.8 soon but I am afraid of their price ... when comparing to F mount equivalent. TC14/TC20 will be an nice alternative.
Can you compare this with the 200-500 f5.6. I would love to say that I could afford lenses such as the PF, and it's great to see how it stacks up against these types of lenses, but the real comparison for me is the 200-500. Thanks.
I have two 300mm, one being AF-S D F/4 the othrt being 2.8 VR, both work wonderfully with TC20E III, I think prime lenses especially f/2.8 prime takes TC20E III very well.
'This is a comarison for wildlife photographers and the question is; Can I use the 70-200 with a 2x convertor instead of a 400 F2.8 or a 300 F2.8. Of course the 70-200 F2.8 x 2 will be a 400 @ f5.6, but in terms of sharpness it ca,n still be useful to know whether it is usable for shooting birds in flight for instance.
I have a Nikon Z6II and am stuck between the choice of the Sigma 150-600mm Contemporary vs the Nikon 70-300mm f4.5-5.6E ED VR AF-P lens with the Z 2.0x teleconverter, the only problem is i'd say there'd be some vignetting with the Z 2.0x teleconverter attached to the camera then the FTZ adapter attached to that then the 70-300mm lens attached to that.
You can not do that, the 70-300 doesn’t take any tele converter and you can not use the Z - mount tele converter with the FTZ. The best option you have is the Nikon 200-500 f5.6 constant aperture
Well, well, these impressive results kick the proverbial ball firmly into Nikon's court. The logical progression for Nikon R&D - ASAP - is the TC14-FTZ and TC2-FTZ. This combined Teleconverter-FtoZ adapter will set the requisite correction distance AND above all give us optimal IQ with the 300 f4E PF, 70-200 f2.8E FL, 200 f2G VRII, 400 f2.8E FL, and in fact all the current Exotic F-Nikkor telephotos. These new Teleconverters have also ramped up the pressure on Nikon by a big jump in barometers... Where is the Z Camera with AFC matching the D5 AF engine, even better with the key elements of the D6 AF sauce? We are weary of waiting...
Thanks for another good video. Although I have a Z6, I generally use my D850 with the 300mm PF and the TC 14 for my bird photography. The main reason is that the file size enables me to crop more. (The Z7 would of course have been better, but my Z6 choice was not about a replacement.) Given this I'm not sure the Z 70-200 with the new TC will help my case before I upgrade my Z camera. I am hoping the coming 200-600mm may be an option for me. I will probably wait for a proper telephoto lens before I get the new TCs.
Does using a TC affect what the lens displays on the barrel? I.e. when you use it with 2XTC, does it display 140-400 for focal ranges, the apertures start from f5.6, etc?
There is a great deal of difference between the TC-14 III and TC-20 III and earlier teleconverters. The IQ with the TC-20 III is quite a bit better than that of the TC-14 II teleconverter.
Great review.. I have the Nikon 80-400 VRii and use with the FTZ and my z7 and z6ii. Would you say that it would be a better lens to keep or use the Z 70-200 and buy a 2x converter. it looks like from what you think that the results would be very similar and it would be down to size weight and having two big pieces of glass?
Thank you so much for all of your information. You are obviously very thorough and helping me to get the best information. I might have missed it but can you still use the older Nikon TC-14E III Teleconverter mounted to the Nikon 500 mm PF f/5.6 and then attached to the FTZ II with any Z body while I’m still waiting for the larger primes to be developed and released?
Coinciding with the inevitable launch of their Pro Z MILCs (ie rumoured Z8 and Z9), Nikon would deliver a brace of win-win products, if they released a pair of ZF teleconverters ie TCZF 14S and TCZF 2S. These will work as a high quality magnifying FTZ, to pair with a select group of F-Nikkors. They will be received with delight by many sports and wildlife photographers!
The shortfall of the Z teleconverters is they can not be adapted to the FTZ and used on my Legacy F Super Telephotos. I can not even use the 1.4 on my new Z 105mm Macro - but can use my f mount 105 macros with my legacy TCs. -- This means I need to buy new Z/S teleconverters and hang on to my old f mount teleconverters until I fully move to Z/S lenses that support the newer ones. Sad but true...
I was using the Sigma 70-200 2.8 Sports with the tc 1.4 from Sigma on my Z7 and I loved this combo, until the 70-200 broke in two pieces one day, after not even 1 year of careful use. Sigma does not want to accept this lease break as a production issue, service quality of this brand is absolutely nowhere... I now rather buy myself the native lense from nikon combined with the new 1.4 (or even 2.0?) Tele converter, instead of buying any more cheap build 3rd party products for my Z7. Im really interested to hear detailed reviews of this combo.
Hi Ricci, very informative as usual thank you for your time and effort you put into this again. Question is it still true that you loose a stop when adding a teleconverter ? meaning does you F 2.8 become an F4 ?
Great coverage, thank you. I was curious about the FTZ adapter as well. On a related note, given how close the 2.0 is to fitting, could a macro extension tube be fitted between the teleconverter and the FTZ adapter? If so, how would that affect the lens?
Hi Ricci, I have a Z6 and a 7ii. In glass I have the Nikon 300mm f4 PF and the matching 1.4x TC. I have a Z70-200 f2.8 and would love to replace the older F-mount gall with a Z 2xTC, but only if it gives acceptable results in comparison to the 300 +1.4 I already have. That would be an interesting comparison. Thanks
A lens at 200mm has certain characteristics (DoF, bokeh, perspective compression. When you apply let's say a 2.0X TC on 200mm, besides angle of view, does DoF, perspective compression and bokeh change accordingly to match that of the 400mm lens? Or they are essentially that of 200mm with the image enlarged?
So Far for me The responsiveness; the weight compared to my VR 2; the Inate sharpness! It balances very well on my Z6. The bokeh is like 3D man the colors are sensational. Also theAF is quicker as well I don’t know the % but it is noticeably quicker than with FTZ Adapter on my VR2 A monster Winner from Nikon
A test I have not seen anywhere is the depth of field. I suspect that the teleconverters reduce this considerably. It would be greatly appreciated if this were something you could look at, perhaps with the 300mm PF as the reference. Thanks.
