Converters with z9

[Ken Miracle]

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.

I click with Steve's opinions and teaching over Thom's. I just do not click with Thom for whatever reason. I spent $ on Thom's Z9 guide book and it just does not fit me. I started reading, then skimmed through to see if it was all just not my cup of tea and it is not. So I quit wasting time on it. Others "really" resonate with Thom. We are all different in the way we learn etc.. and that is not a bad or good thing it just is what it is

I do agree with Thom and his thoughts on the Z100-400 and as I noted I have that lens because I want the variable focal length. I did not do any formal testing with the "Z400 f/4.5" and 1.4 TC and only a few sample simple test shots before my wife adopted it. I sold the 500pf after I saw how it stacked up against the Z100-400 so I did not have it to do a at the same time and same subject test against the Z400 f/4.5 with 1.4 TC.

I just came back from getting frame filling ID shots on some rare for this area sapsuckers with the Z800pf that I could not have come close to with cropped shots from 500pf, Z100-400, Z 400 f/4.5 or the 600 f/4E I sold last year.

 

[JoelKlein]

@Ken Miracle
The reason I quoted Thom, is because he is kinda contradicting in those 2 paragraphs.
In the first, The 400+TC would be worse in the ‘center’ vs. the 500+TC. That is odd, because Z TC’s should be better from F TC’s

Second paragraph he praises the 400+TC as the best possible combo. Even better from the 100-400+TC

So I want to know what Steve thinks about this. Not because I want to credit or discredit Thom, but because I want to know the info for my self.

The fact that Steve is so hooked on that 400+TC is ringing a bell. A positive bell. And I want to know more. I really want to know more.

 

[JoelKlein]

This image is an example of an extreme crop from the 500 bare.
It was raining and a tiny bird. I liked the shot. If were to use the 400+TC, would the result have been the same, better, or worse?

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[Ken Miracle]

This image is an example of an extreme crop from the 500 bare.
It was raining and a tiny bird. I liked the shot. If were to use the 400+TC, would the result have been the same, better, or worse?

View attachment 53541

Cool shot of a Common Grackle not something we have a lot of around here.

With an extreme crop the Z9 resolution is doing the heavy lifting. Without having shot the same or a similar subject in the same type of light and atmospheric conditions from the same distance with both lens set ups I sure could not make a well informed guess. @Steve may be able to make a better educated guess since he has more experience with the two.

Subjective observation is that I was getting very equivelant ID shots with the Z100-400 with 1.4TC compared to the 500pf. At the 400 end with TC I am at f.6.3 so a stop of light lost as noted my main reason for the 100-400 was the variable focal length so the loss of the stop of light was not an issue for me and as I saw the results on my computer screen it was a no brainer for me to sell the 500pf since I had a comparatively frame filling Z800 f/6.3 on the way. Since the Z800 arrived I do not use the Z100-400 with the 1.4TC. but only on its own.

My wife does does not use the 1.4 TC on the Z400 f/4.5 since she is happy with the 35mm 600mm equivelant with it on her Z50 (DX). I have been impressed with her images how much of that is the photographer and how much the gear? Probably a combination of the two since she got good images with her 35mm Argus Cosina back when she started in the early 70's. I am a late comer starting in 2012.

 

[jdinny]

First time TC user.
Lousy day bit I had to try them out
Z9 - Z 400mm f4.5 + 1.4 TC
8x10 crop from the full size image

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[BillW]

@Ken Miracle
The reason I quoted Thom, is because he is kinda contradicting in those 2 paragraphs.
In the first, The 400+TC would be worse in the ‘center’ vs. the 500+TC. That is odd, because Z TC’s should be better from F TC’s

Second paragraph he praises the 400+TC as the best possible combo. Even better from the 100-400+TC

So I want to know what Steve thinks about this. Not because I want to credit or discredit Thom, but because I want to know the info for my self.

The fact that Steve is so hooked on that 400+TC is ringing a bell. A positive bell. And I want to know more. I really want to know more.

Isn’t Thom comparing the 500 mm PF bare to the Z 400 mm f4.5 with the Z 1.4x TC?

 

[fcotterill]

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.

Isn’t Thom comparing the 500 mm PF bare to the Z 400 mm f4.5 with the Z 1.4x TC?

1st paragraph compares 400 f4.5S+ZTC14 against 500 PF.
2nd compares 100-400 S against 400 f4.5S+ZTC14.

I agree with Thom H. I have all 3 lenses. They are all excellent, overlap a great deal but each has its unique attributes.

100-400 S most versatile and bite sharp zoom. A 'Swiss army knife' is Brad Hill's description. Closest MFD for herps, large arthropods etc. Ideal for wildlife video which its other major role in my gear system.

400 f4.5S is the lightest at 1.2kg and faster. Excellent 560 f6.3, decent but slow 800 f9 in emergency. Perfect walkable rig on a Z9 or any Zed camera.

500 PF needs no justification besides what's become generally known worldwide. It's often on my D6. A most capable 700 f8 especially on a MILC

 

[ricardo00]

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.

Just curious if the results would depend on how far one is from the test subject. That is, if it is almost frame filling at 600mm versus still only a small portion of the frame at 600mm?

 

[fcotterill]

Recent report on the 400 f4.5S

The Real World with the Nikon Z 400f4.5

A real world look at the Nikon Z 400 f4.5 paired with the Nikon Z 7ii

www.joshruarkphotography.com

 

[ricardo00]

Recent report on the 400 f4.5S

The Real World with the Nikon Z 400f4.5

A real world look at the Nikon Z 400 f4.5 paired with the Nikon Z 7ii

www.joshruarkphotography.com

This report doesn't look at the use of TCs, only the 400mm f/4.5 lens on the Z7ii as far as I saw. Even to photograph a relatively small bird (the kingfisher), they did not use a TC, presumably because they did not want to add a TC in the dusty environment of Africa. Not sure how much he had to crop for those small subjects. I know even with a 2.0TC on my 400mm I am still cropping a lot. But very tough to test in these real world situations whether one would be better off not using a TC so will look forward to the tests people do on their test subjects. Meanwhile I will continue to enjoy the 400mm plus the TCs:

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[fcotterill]

Yes, good point. In retrospect this link is better shared in the 400 f4.5S thread.

Your raising the subject of dust is pertinent. I don't hesitate to change lenses/TCs when need dictates. Obviously where and how matters. In built devices exemplified in the Z9 shutter guard are a great help in this respect. Hopefully Nikon repeats this going forward, well at least in fully electronic shutters.

IME I've found the concern is not as serious as made out. It helps a great deal to keep gear in a dedicated bag (eg Guragear). I use a large sheet of cloth [chitenge (=kikoi) that can be bought in many markets and also curio shops]. This can be shaken out and washed easily on trips.

 

[Lance B]

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

I think the combination of Z9 + 500 PF + 1.4x TCIII works brilliantly. All these birds are very small, except the Peregrines of course, most about the size of my thumb. Best to click on the image for the largest size viewing.

Z9 + 500 PF + 1.4x TCIII, 1/500s f/8.0 at 700.0mm iso1100

Z9 + 500 PF + 1.4x TCIII, 1/320s f/8.0 at 700.0mm iso900

Z9 + 500 PF + 1.4x TCIII, 1/400s f/8.0 at 700.0mm iso3200

Z9 + 500 PF + 1.4x TCIII, 1/400s f/8.0 at 700.0mm iso3200

Z9 + 500 PF + 1.4x TCIII, 1/800s f/8.0 at 700.0mm iso1400

Z9 + 500 PF + 1.4x TCIII, 1/400s f/8.0 at 700.0mm iso125

Z9 + 500 PF + 1.4x TCIII, 1/5000s f/8.0 at 700.0mm iso2800

Z9 + 500 PF + 1.4x TCIII, 1/5000s f/8.0 at 700.0mm iso2800

 

[Marcus]

I think the combination of Z9 + 500 PF + 1.4x TCIII works brilliantly. All these birds are very small, except the Peregrines of course, most about the size of my thumb. Best to click on the image for the largest size viewing.

Great shots of the small birds, interested to know how close you were to the subject? Cheers

 

[Marcus]

Some may find this interesting, maybe should go in the 400 4.5 thread, but it is a walk around with Z9 + 400/4.5 using 1.4x TC and video crop. Looks very usable in good light.

 

[EricBowles]

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.

If you are testing, you might also take a look at backgrounds - particularly specular highlights. For me, that was the biggest drawback of the 500mm PF. The backgrounds of the 400mm f/4.5 are excellent under all conditions. My conclusion was the backgrounds are the biggest difference - not sharpness.

 

[Steve]

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.

Thom may be correct, I haven't done any formal testing, just shooting. All I know is that - so far - I'm every bit as happy with the 400 + 1.4TC as I am with the 500PF based on my real-world photos. I haven't used it for a wide variety of subjects or at a wide variety of ranges though. What I have to shoot in my area this time of year is somewhat limited.

 

[Steve]

Cool shot of a Common Grackle not something we have a lot of around here.

With an extreme crop the Z9 resolution is doing the heavy lifting. Without having shot the same or a similar subject in the same type of light and atmospheric conditions from the same distance with both lens set ups I sure could not make a well informed guess. @Steve may be able to make a better educated guess since he has more experience with the two.

It's tough to say. Just too many variables and I just don't have a ton of experience with the 400 + TC yet.

 

[Steve]

Just curious if the results would depend on how far one is from the test subject. That is, if it is almost frame filling at 600mm versus still only a small portion of the frame at 600mm?

As long as its equal between the two tested optics, the results should be the same. (Of course, some lenses are better at a distance than others).

 

[Anjin San]

500 PF needs no justification besides what's become generally known worldwide. It's often on my D6. A most capable 700 f8 especially on a MILC

So…and this is one of my considerations since I’ve already got the 500PF, the Z 100-400, and the Z TCs…does it make any sense to keep the 500PF got bare use (not much justification there form a focal length perspective)…or to keep it and get the F TC for a 700 reach or 1050 in DX in a pinch…or to just use the 100-400 and 1.4 TC with a little bit more cropping from the 560…or stick to the 100-400 and the admittedly slightly softer 2.0 TC when something more than 560 is needed. While I ack owledge that the Z 400 with or without the Tc is a very fine lens…it’s a duplicate focal length for me and isn’t as flexible as the zoom and I would be unlikely to carry both it and the zoom.

From a carry standpoint…particularly as almost all my output is to screen for the blog and not prints (lack of wall space for them at home and trying to sell them is more work than a retired old fart wants to expend although if somebody asked I would sell them one)…the single zoom and the atCs with a little judicious cropping seems better…see the retired old fart section above…and while I don’t care for the lack of subject isolation due to higher apertures the TCs cause…buying the expensive heavy fast prime glass isn’t in my idea of possibl because of weight and cost/benefit ratio more than cost alone. Thats why I’m doing some thinking over this season before making any decisions on the issue…but I’m always looking for and absorbing the good opinions and viewpoints expressed here.

 

[Ken Miracle]

So…and this is one of my considerations since I’ve already got the 500PF, the Z 100-400, and the Z TCs…does it make any sense to keep the 500PF got bare use (not much justification there form a focal length perspective)…or to keep it and get the F TC for a 700 reach or 1050 in DX in a pinch…or to just use the 100-400 and 1.4 TC with a little bit more cropping from the 560…or stick to the 100-400 and the admittedly slightly softer 2.0 TC when something more than 560 is needed. While I ack owledge that the Z 400 with or without the Tc is a very fine lens…it’s a duplicate focal length for me and isn’t as flexible as the zoom and I would be unlikely to carry both it and the zoom.

From a carry standpoint…particularly as almost all my output is to screen for the blog and not prints (lack of wall space for them at home and trying to sell them is more work than a retired old fart wants to expend although if somebody asked I would sell them one)…the single zoom and the atCs with a little judicious cropping seems better…see the retired old fart section above…and while I don’t care for the lack of subject isolation due to higher apertures the TCs cause…buying the expensive heavy fast prime glass isn’t in my idea of possibl because of weight and cost/benefit ratio more than cost alone. Thats why I’m doing some thinking over this season before making any decisions on the issue…but I’m always looking for and absorbing the good opinions and viewpoints expressed here.

This old retired fart sold his 500pf shortly after getting the Z100-400 and 1.4TC and my wife did not want the 500pf. As you noted the variable focal length is what was the reason I used the Z100-400 instead of the 500. So the 500 was just sitting in the cabinet so I sold it.

That being said I am citizen science bird ID photographer and I have seldom used the Z100-400 after I got the Z800 on 5-1-22.

My wife uses a Z400 f/4.5 on her Z50 and does not use our TC since the Z50 (dx) yields a 600mm equivalent image and she really likes the combo for birds.

I will get a Z mount variable focal length lens such as the Nikon Z200-600, or Tamron 150-600 or similar focal length or Sigma 60-600 when one of the becomes available.

 

[BillW]

So…and this is one of my considerations since I’ve already got the 500PF, the Z 100-400, and the Z TCs…does it make any sense to keep the 500PF got bare use (not much justification there form a focal length perspective)…or to keep it and get the F TC for a 700 reach or 1050 in DX in a pinch…or to just use the 100-400 and 1.4 TC with a little bit more cropping from the 560…or stick to the 100-400 and the admittedly slightly softer 2.0 TC when something more than 560 is needed. While I ack owledge that the Z 400 with or without the Tc is a very fine lens…it’s a duplicate focal length for me and isn’t as flexible as the zoom and I would be unlikely to carry both it and the zoom.

From a carry standpoint…particularly as almost all my output is to screen for the blog and not prints (lack of wall space for them at home and trying to sell them is more work than a retired old fart wants to expend although if somebody asked I would sell them one)…the single zoom and the atCs with a little judicious cropping seems better…see the retired old fart section above…and while I don’t care for the lack of subject isolation due to higher apertures the TCs cause…buying the expensive heavy fast prime glass isn’t in my idea of possibl because of weight and cost/benefit ratio more than cost alone. Thats why I’m doing some thinking over this season before making any decisions on the issue…but I’m always looking for and absorbing the good opinions and viewpoints expressed here.

Whether the 500 mm PF is useful to you depends to some extent on what you shoot. I do a lot of bird photography, so I have used the 500 mm PF bare and with the 1.4x TCIII often on a Z body (and occasionally with the 1.7x TCII or 2x TCIII).

I got the Z 100-400 a little over a year ago. Like it a lot — its versatility is very useful to me at times and it covers 400 mm nicely, although not as well as the 400 mm primes. The Z 100-400 also works well with the Z 1.4x TC, although you lose a stop of aperture/light, leaving you at f8 at the long end. Still very useful if you have enough light and take some care with backgrounds.

On several recent trips, I used the Z 100-400 (with or without the Z 1.4x TC) on a Z9 and also carried the 500 mm PF (with or without the 1.4x TCIII) on a Z7II. It was useful to have quick access to a longer focal length on a second body.

So I kept my 500 mm PF after buying the Z 100-400 and am glad that I did. I recently added the 800 mm PF, so my longer telephotos are the Z 100-400, 500 mm PF and the Z 800 mm PF. It still makes sense to me to keep the 500 mm PF, although I admit I am tempted by the Z 400 f4.5. Having the 800 mm PF also means I will generally not be using the 1.4x TCIII (or other TCs) with the 500 mm PF, as the 800 mm PF will be a better choice (unless travel and weight limits make it hard to bring along).

I have used the Z 100-400 with the Z 2x TC. That leaves you at 800 mm, f11 at the long end. Decent optically and I have some photos I like from it. But f11 is limiting and I generally prefer the results from the 500 mm PF with the 1.4x TCIII (or 1.7x TCII).

 

[ricardo00]

As long as its equal between the two tested optics, the results should be the same. (Of course, some lenses are better at a distance than others).

That is my question, is the 500mm PF and 400mm f/4.5 plus 1.4 TC both equal at a distance? Or is one better?

 

[EricBowles]

I see the emphasis of the discussion is all about sharpness and reach. While important, I'm not sure those are the only factors.

Starting with what focal length you really need:

• If your subject matter includes insects and other small critters, the close focus distance and high magnification of the 100-400 is unmatched. The only real alternative is one of the 300 f/4 F-mount lenses - the AFS G version or the PF.
• For mammals and wading birds, 400-500mm is generally enough reach. Maybe not or bears, but for bison, elk, deer, pronghorn, sheep, and goats, you can get reasonably close and these focal lengths are fine. The same is true for large wading birds. Even if the subject is distant, a 1.4 TC is adequate.
• For small birds, jumpy subjects, or otherwise moderately distant subjects, a 600mm or 800mm lens is needed - and the TC may also be needed.
• Of this subject matter, rank your priorities. Don't get a 400mm solution if your top priority is small birds.

After that, you have the OTHER factors:

• How important is a shallow DOF to you?
• What is your use for images - commercial clients, stock, prints, social media, nature viewing and ID, other?
• Does the way a PF lens handles specular highlights factor into your discussion?
• How mobile are you when using these lenses? How important is weight/size?
• What your budget?
• What is your time frame? Will you be making an additional purchase when available or in a couple of years?
• Is your technique capable of delivering the images and focal length you desire?
• What percentage of the time will you be using a teleconverter? It's not a substitute for the right lens.

Every lens that has been mentioned in this discussion is very good to excellent. Sharpness is just one criteria - and only matters when the other factors provide context.

 

[fcotterill]

A most useful synopsis, Eric.
Bookmarked
Thank you

 

[fcotterill]

So…and this is one of my considerations since I’ve already got the 500PF, the Z 100-400, and the Z TCs…does it make any sense to keep the 500PF got bare use (not much justification there form a focal length perspective)…or to keep it and get the F TC for a 700 reach or 1050 in DX in a pinch…or to just use the 100-400 and 1.4 TC with a little bit more cropping from the 560…or stick to the 100-400 and the admittedly slightly softer 2.0 TC when something more than 560 is needed. While I ack owledge that the Z 400 with or without the Tc is a very fine lens…it’s a duplicate focal length for me and isn’t as flexible as the zoom and I would be unlikely to carry both it and the zoom.

From a carry standpoint…particularly as almost all my output is to screen for the blog and not prints (lack of wall space for them at home and trying to sell them is more work than a retired old fart wants to expend although if somebody asked I would sell them one)…the single zoom and the atCs with a little judicious cropping seems better…see the retired old fart section above…and while I don’t care for the lack of subject isolation due to higher apertures the TCs cause…buying the expensive heavy fast prime glass isn’t in my idea of possibl because of weight and cost/benefit ratio more than cost alone. Thats why I’m doing some thinking over this season before making any decisions on the issue…but I’m always looking for and absorbing the good opinions and viewpoints expressed here.

Anjin, I don't have much to add to the thoughtful replies to yours. As Eric says, all these lenses under consideration are excellent. Each is a candidate for a lightweight Commando Kit, and relatively easy to handle compared to the faster Exotics. It's rare for most users to need a tripod or monopod with any of the 3.

One additional point is the the 400 f4.5S and 500 PF perform better with their respective Teleconverters, namely the TC14. I'm less inclined to use the ZTC14 on the otherwise excellent 100-400. Personally I bought the latter primarily for video and as @BillW and many other photographers agree - its versatility.
The 80-400 G wasn't quite good enough I found. I don't regret to trading in my copy ,and was fortunate to get a decent price. But this 100-400 S is in different class for quality: one stunning zoom.

Second additional point is Redundancy , with a Capital 'R' for deliberate emphasis. On long trips a dead or lost lens is a disaster, and especially to a special destination. In addition, where I live repairs invariably take a long time, too often weeks drag into months waiting for some spare or other. Owning and using 2 complementary lenses applies the same principle as owning and working with 2 or more cameras.