Chris Prince
New member
Just wondering I’ve got a Nikon z9 and 500 f5.6 P EF lens and was wondering if anyone has used this combination with converters and what the results were like?
Many thanks Chris
Many thanks Chris
Converters with z9
- Thread starter Chris Prince
- Start date
If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).
If you do a search for 500PF you'll get a lot of results that talk about that combo on Z bodies. In general what you'll find is that people are very happy with that lens on Z bodies. If you mean the 1.4x TC with that combo what you'll find is that most people feel like AF is more accurate with Z bodes with TCs.
The 500pf works very well on the FTZii with the Z9. With a f-mount TC1.4, the resolution is good, but you are limited to f/8. Assume you are aware that you can not use z-mount TC’s with the FTZ and f-mount lenses.
Chris,
I assume you're pondering whether or not to invest in a TC for your 500pf? I would say yes if you're looking for more reach and aren't prepared to spring for one of the Z telephotos right now. I would expect that Nikon might drop a Z 600pf on us or rework the 500pf in a Z mount version at some point, but I don't see that happening in 2023 and then figure in a long wait for delivery.
I can think of no instance where a properly functioning F-mount lens doesn't work as well or significantly better on a Z9. This, especially, includes the use of a TC when a DSLR's AF struggles or fails at high effective maximum apertures (f8 or above). As you may or may not know, with a DSLR, you lose varying amounts of your AF points when the maximum aperture rises above f8, if I'm recalling correctly. By f11, you basically have no functioning AF points and have to focus manually, often through a very dark OVF. Not so much of an issue with a Z9, though AF will be more inclined to struggle in low-light situations.
I've used a TC14 or TC17 on 4 of my F lenses and they all worked better than on the D850 and D500 I owned when I bought the Z9. These included a 70-200E FL, 200-500, 300 2.8 VR II and 500pf. The 200-500 has been sold, but I'm keeping the others, for now. Is the length added by the TC and the FTZ ideal, of course not...might look a little odd, but it's a whole lot better than no lens...and fortunately, the 500pf is fairly lightweight. With the 300 2.8, I just use that without TC where that FL and aperture is required. I'm careful and just deal with it.
Cheers!
I assume you're pondering whether or not to invest in a TC for your 500pf? I would say yes if you're looking for more reach and aren't prepared to spring for one of the Z telephotos right now. I would expect that Nikon might drop a Z 600pf on us or rework the 500pf in a Z mount version at some point, but I don't see that happening in 2023 and then figure in a long wait for delivery.
I can think of no instance where a properly functioning F-mount lens doesn't work as well or significantly better on a Z9. This, especially, includes the use of a TC when a DSLR's AF struggles or fails at high effective maximum apertures (f8 or above). As you may or may not know, with a DSLR, you lose varying amounts of your AF points when the maximum aperture rises above f8, if I'm recalling correctly. By f11, you basically have no functioning AF points and have to focus manually, often through a very dark OVF. Not so much of an issue with a Z9, though AF will be more inclined to struggle in low-light situations.
I've used a TC14 or TC17 on 4 of my F lenses and they all worked better than on the D850 and D500 I owned when I bought the Z9. These included a 70-200E FL, 200-500, 300 2.8 VR II and 500pf. The 200-500 has been sold, but I'm keeping the others, for now. Is the length added by the TC and the FTZ ideal, of course not...might look a little odd, but it's a whole lot better than no lens...and fortunately, the 500pf is fairly lightweight. With the 300 2.8, I just use that without TC where that FL and aperture is required. I'm careful and just deal with it.
Cheers!
Yes...results were good. It does make for a long lens!
Z9 + FTC II + 1.4 T/C III + 500 PF.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
ricardo00
Well-known member
Before I got the 400mm f/4.5, I used the 500mm PF f/5.6 with my Z9 and a 1.4 or 1.7TC. As others have said, it works fine, better than on my DSLRs. However it does seem like the 1.4 and 2.0 Z TCs on the 400mm f/4.5 grabs focus better than the 500mm PF on a moving bird. If you are interested, some of my photos are on flickr:
[ ]
[ ]
I picked up a Z 400 f/4.5 and a 2x tc yesterday(still no 1.4), and was quite impressed, so far on stationary tests.
Super sharp considering a 2x TC, and great focus.
Hopefully get to shoot some BIF this weekend.
Super sharp considering a 2x TC, and great focus.
Hopefully get to shoot some BIF this weekend.
joe43
Well-known member
At this very moment my 500mm f5.6 pf and my 1.4x TC III and FTZ II are mounted on my Z9 for backyard bird photos with a tripod most of the time. Results are excellent using AF-C and various AF area modes--3D, Auto Area, Wide area, and Dynamic Area.. and S. I have compared results with this combo to the 100-400mm S lens with its S 1.4x tc on the Z9 and cannot tell any difference (except for focal length differences.).
Here is a jpeg made with that combo: No cropping or processing. f8, ISO 1400, 1/640 , 3D with eye detection. Jpeg made in NX Studio.
Here is a jpeg made with that combo: No cropping or processing. f8, ISO 1400, 1/640 , 3D with eye detection. Jpeg made in NX Studio.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Last edited:
Roy
Well-known member
The 500pf seems to work at least as well on the Z9 as it does on a DSLR.
A TC is usable but you will still lose 1 - 2 stops of light but the Z9 seems to handle this well...
Yes I used a 500 pf with 1.4TC on Z9 and Z6II worked a bit better overall than it did on my D850 or D6.
That being said my wife and I have gone to all Z lenses now and Z100-400 (with or without 1.4TC) , Z400 f/4.5 and Z800 had my 500pf sitting in the dry cabinet all the time so I sold it.
That being said my wife and I have gone to all Z lenses now and Z100-400 (with or without 1.4TC) , Z400 f/4.5 and Z800 had my 500pf sitting in the dry cabinet all the time so I sold it.
F mount TC’s you need 8 or 10 to find a good match for the 500pf to work. I gave up after trying 2. Steve said he found a good one after trying multiple.
The Z TC’s are more consistent.
I’m curious as to why Steve is walking around with a 400/4.5+1.4TC instead of a bare 500.
The Z TC’s are more consistent.
I’m curious as to why Steve is walking around with a 400/4.5+1.4TC instead of a bare 500.
I do not know about @Steve I have only used the 400 f/4.5 with the 1.4 TC once when we first got it and it was every bit as good if not better than the 500pf IQ wise and I like and used the control ring for EV. My wife then adopted the 400 f/4.5 for birding with her Z50 and I have not used it since.
As I noted in another thread after using the Z100-400 with and without a 1.4 TC and having a Z800pf my 500pf was sitting in my dry cabinet.
I sold the 500PF after my wife tried it and thought it was to big and heavy and she struggled with taking off and putting on the lens hood (small arthritic hands). So I bought the Z400 f/4.5, lighter, shorter, she can manage the lens hood and she loves it on her Z50.
Roy
Well-known member
The 400 is probably the better lens ...
fcotterill
Well-known member
Make sure the TC14 is the current model vIII (released with the 400mm f2.8E FL). This version is optimized for the E type tele Nikkors. I own 2 copies but cannot detect any difference in quality. Anyways, buy and test from a source with a return policy.
Synchronized IBIS with the lens VR is an important advantage of a Z lens on a Z MILC compared to adapting a F-mount. This is clear from my comparing the two options.
So the 800 PF is ideally better if majority of one's needs involve mostly such tighter framing/reach. But the 500 PF is more versatile, cheaper, lighter and easier to get....
There's little more to add, to what's been covered previously
bcgforums.com
Synchronized IBIS with the lens VR is an important advantage of a Z lens on a Z MILC compared to adapting a F-mount. This is clear from my comparing the two options.
So the 800 PF is ideally better if majority of one's needs involve mostly such tighter framing/reach. But the 500 PF is more versatile, cheaper, lighter and easier to get....
There's little more to add, to what's been covered previously
500PF 1.4x or 800PF?
I currently alternate between the 100-400z and the 500 PF on my z9. I am using the 500pf with the 1.4 teleconverter, 90% of the time. I also use the 1.4z on the 100-400 on occasion. After months of use, l still prefer the images produced by the 500pf, when compared to the 100-400, even with the...
bcgforums.com
Alistair
Well-known member
The TC1.4 III I had went back to Nikon as did my 200-500 3 times under warranty ... in each case after the 3rd time they both worked. By then I had other lenses I liked better for the 200-500 focal range so sold it. But the repaired TC 14III worked great with the 500pf on D850 and D6 and also Z6II and Z9 with the ftz adapter.Make sure the TC14 is the current model vIII (released with the 400mm f2.8E FL). This version is optimized for the E type tele Nikkors. I own 2 copies but cannot detect any difference in quality. Anyways, buy and test from a source with a return policy.
Synchronized IBIS with the lens VR is an important advantage of a Z lens on a Z MILC compared to adapting a F-mount. This is clear from my comparing the two options.
So the 800 PF is ideally better if majority of one's needs involve mostly such tighter framing/reach. But the 500 PF is more versatile, cheaper, lighter and easier to get....
There's little more to add, to what's been covered previously
500PF 1.4x or 800PF?
I currently alternate between the 100-400z and the 500 PF on my z9. I am using the 500pf with the 1.4 teleconverter, 90% of the time. I also use the 1.4z on the 100-400 on occasion. After months of use, l still prefer the images produced by the 500pf, when compared to the 100-400, even with the...
Z100-400 with and without the 1.4TC is a great lens and what I use it for the variable focal length is the reason I have it so the 500pf did not fill that need/want.
You are absolutely correct about the Z800pf ... it is an amazing lens and it has been on my Z9 most of the time since I got it 5-1-22 so a lot of use. However as I tell anyone who asks about it 800mm is not for everyone and if someone thinks they are going to use it to get sharp images at distances they could not with a 500pf or something with 600mm focal length that is fraught with high rates of disappointment.
Much of the time those trying to shoot images a long ways off will run into atmospheric distortion issues with a 500 or 600 and trying to shoot stuff at the same distance or even further away in the same conditions with the 800 still have the same amount of atmosphere or more to deal with. With even fairly small let alone frequently large temperature variations between water, land, snow and air atmospheric distortions are there.
So for me a citizen science bird ID photographer the Z800 allows me to see detail (filling more of the frame) at distances my 600f/4 E (a great lens) could not and it has significant logistic advantages.
Generally speaking converters work much better on a z9 than on a dslr!
Krümelkraft
Well-known member
Strange. I bought one TC (1.4 III) and it works fine. I definitely get more detail with TC compared to 500mm and upscaling the image to match 700mm.
What was wrong with yours?
Mostly because I like consistency with my controls.
My Z mount controls (rings, buttons) are there on the 400 and not on the 500PF. Also, as Ken points out, the 400 + TC seems easily on par with the quality of my 500PF. So, bet of both worlds, more or less
Yup pretty much my experience. I'll have to do some tests when I get a chance, but the 400 + TC does seem at least as good at the 500PF.
With the bare 500pf I could crop the heck in to pixel level and still get a shot. The 400+TC should be more restrictive with cropping because of the TC. In other words, If the subject is really small in the frame, with the bare 500 it’s recoverable, vs. the 400+TC its not. Correct?
It depends. If, as I suspect, the 400 + TC are the same across the frame as the 500PF, then it's not any different than using the 500PF, even if there's cropping. In addition, the 400 + 1.4 TC is 560mm, so less cropping is required than with the 500PF. I'll probably do a test with this and see for sure. I have a new test chart coming I'd like to use, but it hasn't arrived.
Can’t wait.
The 400/4.5 has a really nice Bokeh. But the 500 is already short of what I really want which is 600mm, the ultra sharp 500pf makes up for the extra cropping.
So to get to 600mm range using only 400mm+TC is risky. But hay, could be the 400mm has so much juice to spare that feeding a TC doesn’t impact the outcome other then the extra f/stop loss.
The 400 optical design formula is also very different.
Steve, you have what it takes, with your knowledge, to establish if we have an official 560/6.3 prime…
The 400/4.5 has a really nice Bokeh. But the 500 is already short of what I really want which is 600mm, the ultra sharp 500pf makes up for the extra cropping.
So to get to 600mm range using only 400mm+TC is risky. But hay, could be the 400mm has so much juice to spare that feeding a TC doesn’t impact the outcome other then the extra f/stop loss.
The 400 optical design formula is also very different.
Steve, you have what it takes, with your knowledge, to establish if we have an official 560/6.3 prime…
I’m also curious about Thom’s comment not to sell the 500pf for a 400+TC.
Compared to the F-mount 500mm f/5.6E PF, the 400mm f/4.5 VR S with a 1.4x teleconverter (560mm, so not perfectly comparable) seems to do slightly worse in the center, slightly better in the corners. For most telephoto work, sharper centers is what you want, so don't throw that 500mm PF away just yet ;~).
Finally, the 400mm f/4.5 VR S is a little better with a 1.4x teleconverter than the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S, but both are quite good. In the F-mount world I was not a fan (or user) of teleconverters. In the Z-mount world, I'm coming around to liking (and using) them, at least the 1.4x version.
Compared to the F-mount 500mm f/5.6E PF, the 400mm f/4.5 VR S with a 1.4x teleconverter (560mm, so not perfectly comparable) seems to do slightly worse in the center, slightly better in the corners. For most telephoto work, sharper centers is what you want, so don't throw that 500mm PF away just yet ;~).
Finally, the 400mm f/4.5 VR S is a little better with a 1.4x teleconverter than the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S, but both are quite good. In the F-mount world I was not a fan (or user) of teleconverters. In the Z-mount world, I'm coming around to liking (and using) them, at least the 1.4x version.