Converters with z9

[Lance B]

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

Thank you for your kind comment.

According to the EXIF on the images:
1) = 5mts
2) = 5.5mts
3) = 6.33mts
4) = 4.5mts
5) = 5mts
6) = 5mts
7) = 40mts
8) = 40mts.

 

[JoelKlein]

What percentage of the time will you be using a teleconverter? It's not a substitute for the right lens.

That’s the reason for my questions! You nailed it. If someone is using a TC glued on, then he needs a longer lens.
Steve has the 600 and 800, but he decided to use the 400+TC officially! He found a Nikkor 560mm f/6.3 prime. This is new history in the making.

 

[EricBowles]

That’s the reason for my questions! You nailed it. If someone is using a TC glued on, then he needs a longer lens.
Steve has the 600 and 800, but he decided to use the 400+TC officially! He found a Nikkor 560mm f/6.3 prime. This is new history in the making.

I've got the 400 f/4.5 and 800mm PF. Its very rare for me to use both lenses at the same time. If the subject is distant or small, I use the 800mm. If it's a typical mammal, large wading bird, or similar subject, the 400mm f/4.5 is used and I'll carry the 1.4 TC just in case. If I'm birding and the output is for social media, ID, or eBird, I'll usually use the 400 f/4.5 with 1.4 TC because it is so light and mobile and the intent is to crop and downsize. If I am birding with a plan for higher quality output and don't want a significant crop, I'll use the 800mm. The 600 f/4 is mainly for situations involving limited travel so I can work from a tripod - and it overlaps with the 800mm PF.

All of these are distinctly different lenses each selected for a specific purpose.

 

[Anjin San]

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.

Thanks to both you and Ken…at this point I'm leaning toward selling the 500PF and just carrying a single body in the field with perhaps the second one in the backpack for spare purposes…will be testing that out over the birding season here in FL but I only used the PF for a dozen or two frames on our first outing this year compared to 500 or 600 with the 100-400…and while I did shoot a few subjects with both lenses there isn't much of a serious difference in IQ between them outside of pixel peeping and if I've got the more flexible lens that goes to 560 then the 500 just didn't get used much…although to be honest part of that was because it was on the Z7II and the zoom was on the Z9 with it's better AF and FPS.

I keep flip flopping on whether the 800 makes sense…it's expensive but I can afford it so it's a matter of whether the ORF in me wants to part with the bucks and carry it…that argues in my head with the "how much will it get used percentage wise and how many other shots will get missed by needing to swap lenses since it's too long for a lot of situations'. I don't shoot a lot of little birds and for most of the places Connie and I go the 800 would be too long for a lot of situations…and carrying it on a 3 mile hike just in case doesn't have a lot of attraction to me…and she consistently and vehemently disavows being my Sherpa. She will serve as a make shift tripod pretty willingly but she carries the Z50 and 2 lens kit for a reason according to her and ain't changing. I've tried telling her that she *needs* to be my Sherpa but she doesn't see it that way.

 

[Anjin San]

As Eric says, all these lenses under consideration are excellent....I'm less inclined to use the ZTC14 on the otherwise excellent 100-400.

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.

Yep…IQ wise we're really talking about polishing the cannonball with any of these lenses bare…I have no issue with the 1.4 on the 100-400 since I'm all screen output and the pixel peeping minor differences don't really show up when exported at blog dimensions anyway.

And…redundancy is really good…so much so that if I ever were to do the Africa safari or expensive photo oriented trip I would likely just rent another Z lens or perhaps even buy the 400/4.5 so that a failed lens didn't waste a 20K or 30K trip…and even for a less photo oriented trip like our upcoming one to UK I'll probably carry both the 70-200 and 100-400 as well as the Z7II as a spare body just in case. Having had the shutter on my Canon F1 back in the film days about 1991 or so fail on a trip to Italy I won't make the mistake of only having a single anything on a trip again.

 

[EricBowles]

I keep flip flopping on whether the 800 makes sense…it's expensive but I can afford it so it's a matter of whether the ORF in me wants to part with the bucks and carry it…that argues in my head with the "how much will it get used percentage wise and how many other shots will get missed by needing to swap lenses since it's too long for a lot of situations'. I don't shoot a lot of little birds and for most of the places Connie and I go the 800 would be too long for a lot of situations…and carrying it on a 3 mile hike just in case doesn't have a lot of attraction to me…and she consistently and vehemently disavows being my Sherpa. She will serve as a make shift tripod pretty willingly but she carries the Z50 and 2 lens kit for a reason according to her and ain't changing. I've tried telling her that she *needs* to be my Sherpa but she doesn't see it that way.

I'm using the 800mm PF handheld a lot of the time. It's light enough that carrying it for 5-6 miles is not an issue. But I do think you are making a choice - a 100-400 OR an 800 - not both when you go out to photograph.

I spent a week working shorebirds with Arthur Morris in 2022, and he is very interested in filling the frame. 80-90% of the time he was using his 200-600 or 600 f/4 with a teleconverter. I ended up using similar combination - a 500 PF with the 1.4 TC or the 600mm f/4 with the 1.4 TC. It takes some practice, but it made me very comfortable using the 800 PF for birds in flight and other subjects. You adjust to the longer focal length - and still want more.

As it turned out, my 800mm PF was my most used focal length for the year - either based on images taken or Selects (this is just photography for me - not client work). I used it for birds, hooved animals, and even for a couple of landscapes. I used it for the lunar eclipse in May 2022 and I'll be using it for the solar eclipse in 2024.

 

[Ken Miracle]

I'm using the 800mm PF handheld a lot of the time. It's light enough that carrying it for 5-6 miles is not an issue. But I do think you are making a choice - a 100-400 OR an 800 - not both when you go out to photograph.

I spent a week working shorebirds with Arthur Morris in 2022, and he is very interested in filling the frame. 80-90% of the time he was using his 200-600 or 600 f/4 with a teleconverter. I ended up using similar combination - a 500 PF with the 1.4 TC or the 600mm f/4 with the 1.4 TC. It takes some practice, but it made me very comfortable using the 800 PF for birds in flight and other subjects. You adjust to the longer focal length - and still want more.

As it turned out, my 800mm PF was my most used focal length for the year - either based on images taken or Selects (this is just photography for me - not client work). I used it for birds, hooved animals, and even for a couple of landscapes. I used it for the lunar eclipse in May 2022 and I'll be using it for the solar eclipse in 2024.

Welcome to the 800mm landscape club I actually did a couple in between birds ... just camera club projected image stuff but members were quite surprised that I had used an 800mm for a landscape

 

[Anjin San]

I'm using the 800mm PF handheld a lot of the time. It's light enough that carrying it for 5-6 miles is not an issue. But I do think you are making a choice - a 100-400 OR an 800 - not both when you go out to photograph.

I spent a week working shorebirds with Arthur Morris in 2022, and he is very interested in filling the frame. 80-90% of the time he was using his 200-600 or 600 f/4 with a teleconverter. I ended up using similar combination - a 500 PF with the 1.4 TC or the 600mm f/4 with the 1.4 TC. It takes some practice, but it made me very comfortable using the 800 PF for birds in flight and other subjects. You adjust to the longer focal length - and still want more.

As it turned out, my 800mm PF was my most used focal length for the year - either based on images taken or Selects (this is just photography for me - not client work). I used it for birds, hooved animals, and even for a couple of landscapes. I used it for the lunar eclipse in May 2022 and I'll be using it for the solar eclipse in 2024.

Yeah…I’m just not sure how often I would really use an 800 and that’s why I’m consciously thinking about it this season…because you’re right carry both is a lot of weight. OTOH…while a lot of shots here in SW FL would be enhanced by the longer 800 there are many shots that would either be missed opportunities or be head portraits only. I’ve carried both the 500PF, 2 bodies, and 100-400…and that gets really old after awhile and less weight is always an attractive option. If I was out west instead…the 800 would be a no brained because most wildlife out there is farther out…but in FL it’s a different story.

There was also another comment earlier or maybe in another thread to the gist of “if you always have a TC on you need a longer lens”…and I think that’s too blanket of a statement to make. One has to balance cost, weight, percentage use, walking distance, output destination (screen or print), and other factors to decide what is best. I don’t do many little birds…down here in FL it’s hard to get an unobscured view of them as they hide in the foliage…my wife calls these taunty birds because you can hear them but the calls are just taunting you.

Im still on the fence about the 800 though…but the 600 is definitely in the not enough bano for the buck bucket for me even though it would be easily affordable, we’ve been doing the cost/benefit evaluation for a long time…which contributes to the easily affordable rating.

 

[EricBowles]

There was also another comment earlier or maybe in another thread to the gist of “if you always have a TC on you need a longer lens”…and I think that’s too blanket of a statement to make. One has to balance cost, weight, percentage use, walking distance, output destination (screen or print), and other factors to decide what is best. I don’t do many little birds…down here in FL it’s hard to get an unobscured view of them as they hide in the foliage…my wife calls these taunty birds because you can hear them but the calls are just taunting you.

I know what you mean about small birds. Even in the open at my feeders, some of these little birds are never still for long.

On the other hand, the statement about the TC is related to the fact that you are giving up a lot to use a TC. Effectively you are taking an expensive lens and giving up the advantages of faster aperture, sharpness, and speed that caused you to pay a premium for the lens to start. If you are going to use a TC on a lens most of the time, it's probably not a great solution.

I just finished some testing with a 400mm f/4.5 lens. For birding, I readily use the 1.4 TC most of the time with that lens. But the photos I'm making are record shots - lots of deep crops and none will ever be likely to hang on my wall, so sharpness is secondary. If I was looking for something to put on my wall, I'd be using the 800mm PF and spending time on a fraction of the number of birds I hear and see so I could concentrate on making quality photos.

 

[jdinny]

So after following this thread, I went out yesterday with my Z9, 400 f/4.5 and the TC2X to take some shots with the TC2 mounted.
These are all heavy cropped JPG's right out of the camera. Granted, all subjects are stationary, but I was quite surprised at how good they are.
Never had any luck with a 2X on my f mounts, except my 500 f4.
I downsized them with FastStone to get them on here.

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.

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.

 

[JoelKlein]

• Shutter Speed: 10/4000

Woooooooo!!!!!!

I love those pictures.
Seems that’s the reason Steve is hooked with the 400+1.4

 

[jdinny]

Thank you.
Yes, the 400+1.4 works awesome, just as good as no TC, I was just surprised that the 2x worked this good in my 69 yo hands

 

[JoelKlein]

Thank you.
Yes, the 400+1.4 works awesome, just as good as no TC, I was just surprised that the 2x worked this good in my 69 yo hands

You know that this is new era for a lens to take a TC and behave just like a bare lens.
Thank you for your wisdom and confirmation.

I’m going to actively think about swapping my 500pf. I just need one example of the bare 400 from a child’s face against a distance background. I need a buttery smooth bokeh just like the 500pf

 

[Ken Miracle]

So after following this thread, I went out yesterday with my Z9, 400 f/4.5 and the TC2X to take some shots with the TC2 mounted.
These are all heavy cropped JPG's right out of the camera. Granted, all subjects are stationary, but I was quite surprised at how good they are.
Never had any luck with a 2X on my f mounts, except my 500 f4.
I downsized them with FastStone to get them on here.
View attachment 53664View attachment 53665View attachment 53666View attachment 53667View attachment 53668

cool shots but must be a typo even in the exif or something new .... I have never heard of 10/4000 of a second shutter speed ? Is that supposed to be 1/4000 ?

 

[fcotterill]

At far as judging Nikon optics, the most successful combination of a telephoto prime with a TC2 was previously restricted to the 200 f2G, 300 f2.8G VR II and 400 f2.8E FL. I owned and used all of these regularly, as my Nikon system metamorphosed since 2015. The 400 f2.8E is the best IME and still holds its status, as a solution with TC2 III to get to 800 f5.6.

The above results were with a D850 primarily, these days a Z9 has the advantage of avoiding AFFT with a 400 f2.8E + TC2. Nevertheless, realistic subject distances - atmospheric conditions particularly - are always a dominant factor determining image quality using any TC, a F or Z TC2 especially.

These ZTCs are obviously improved optics. Equally we now enjoy these new top quality Z telephotos. As importantly the price of very high quality telephotos - Used Market notably - has dropped a lot with the Z system additions - started by the 70-200 f2.8S was released. Releasing the new TC's so early is definitely one of Nikon's shrewder decisions.

I was fortunate to find a ZTC14 and ZTC2 a year ago. They then sat in my rifle safe awaiting the 800 PF and my results quickly confirmed these new Teleconverters not only set a new standard but open up interesting new opportunities!

Fyi There're more 400 f4.5S examples here

 

[jdinny]

cool shots but must be a typo even in the exif or something new .... I have never heard of 10/4000 of a second shutter speed ? Is that supposed to be 1/4000 ?

Yes, I did see that. Pretty strange as that came right out of the photos.
All of them were shot at the same 1/400-f9-iso 2000
I did resize them with FastStone, but they don't show that EXIF on my pc.
Here is the exif from FastStone image viewer.

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

 

[jdinny]

Realistic subject distance remains a dominant factor determining image quality using TC, a F or Z TC2 especially.



Fyi There're more 400 f4.5S examples here

This right here is so very true, much more prevalent in my dslr F mounts.
The quality is still impressive from the Z TC2x.
Following are three long distance shots with the TC2x. This cabin is 4,624' from where I was shooting the birds.
Resting the lens on a window sill of the birding blind.
The first two are unedited, (except for downsizing with FastStone) jpg's right out of camera.
The second photo was shot in DX mode, and the third is an edited crop from the DX shot.

I have no clue why the site is changing the shutter speed from the exif. Should be 1/320th

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.

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.

 

[Anjin San]

I know what you mean about small birds. Even in the open at my feeders, some of these little birds are never still for long.

On the other hand, the statement about the TC is related to the fact that you are giving up a lot to use a TC. Effectively you are taking an expensive lens and giving up the advantages of faster aperture, sharpness, and speed that caused you to pay a premium for the lens to start. If you are going to use a TC on a lens most of the time, it's probably not a great solution.

I’m just saying it depends. There’s no argument that overall IQ is better with primes, fast apertures, and no TC involved…but whether that difference matters depends on a lot of things. At pixel peeping levels…sure, it does…but at screen display output sizes maybe not so much. Slower aperture’s impact DoF…but the techniques in PP that Steve had in his recent video can partially overcome that…and one must add in the physical capabilities of the user and the budget then can afford as well. For a shot that you absolutely need 800mm for instance…the 800PF is the best option…but it’s only the best option if (a) you can afford it and (b) if you can get it the 4 miles into the bush for the shot…and how many images did you not get on that 8 mile round trip because you didn’t have the shorter and/or more versatile lens. If the 800mm shot is the only one you wanted and cared about…that’s one thing…but a good enough image at 560 or 800 with the 2x TC and the 200 other keepers you got on the hike because of lens versatility of the 100-400 would for many be considered a better overall outcome for the day. While I could afford the 800 just fine…taking it on a hike would seriously impact whatever else I carried…and most of the time for me it wouldn’t be worth it…because the 800 prime shot while better at 1:1 isn’t significantly better than the 560mm one (and probably the 2xTC one as well but I haven’t done enough shots with that config to evaluate) when reduced to 1024 wide for the blog or here or instagram or whatever.

TCs have drawbacks…sure they do. 809PF primes also have their drawbacks. For me so far…the 100-400 and 1.4 are just fine for my output needs and I’m going to do some 2xTC shots to compare this season to see what the differences are at 800 compared to 400 and 560 so that I can decide whether the drawbacks of the 800 are overcome by the pluses that it puts on the screen…cant do side by side shots without an 800 obviously but comparing a heron or hawk shot at 400 vs some different herons or hawks at 800 all cropped to output size will help make that determination.

Neither approach is wrong…just different.

Now if my bride would only agree to be my Sherpa or if I wasn’t too cheap to hire one…that’s a different question and I would have her carry the 800 when I wasn’t using it…but OTOH that’s just a hard no go for her. Funny how wives are like that.

 

[JoelKlein]

On a hike, opportunity shots usually won’t give you the time to mess with TC’s on or off

 

[ricardo00]

On a hike, opportunity shots usually won’t give you the time to mess with TC’s on or off

True, but you can go out on a hike with the TC on, then remove as the light gets low. So one lens can be all one carries. I even did my last photographic trip this way (it was a short birding trip to Arizona). Obviously not as good as if one can carry multiple lenses and camera bodie, but for those of us with bad backs, knees, etc, gives us a bit more flexibility though giving up on some of the sharpness, picture quality, etc.

 

[Steve]

On a hike, opportunity shots usually won’t give you the time to mess with TC’s on or off

That's why you get a new 400 TC or 600 TC

 

[JoelKlein]

That's why you get a new 400 TC or 600 TC

And leave them home, Just take the 560/6.3 Steve Perry addition (400+1.4)

 

[Steve]

And leave them home, Just take the 560/6.3 Steve Perry addition (400+1.4)

LOL, I'd admit, when I leave the 600 TC at home and take the 400 + 1.4 combo, it feels like I'm doing something wrong!!

 

[JoelKlein]

LOL, I'd admit, when I leave the 600 TC at home and take the 400 + 1.4 combo, it feels like I'm doing something wrong!!

Its only a feeling though. Deep in your heart you know very well that you’re not compromising on image quality. Otherwise you wouldn’t have done it again and again…

 

[Steve]

Its only a feeling though. Deep in your heart you know very well that you’re not compromising on image quality. Otherwise you wouldn’t have done it again and again…

Yeah, just using the right tools for the job. For the tiny birds I've been after lately, the close focus distance and size / weight of the 400 1.4 tc combo is perfect. Plus, I need t LEAST F/6.3, if not F/8 for the proper DoF at close range. No need for the 600, but man, it's tough sometimes leaving it home!