Lance.I dont have a 100- 400.I plan to use my Tamron 70 200 f 2.8 with 2xTC with Z9 for my upcoming trips(I am also carrying ma rented 800 PF 6.3 & 400/600 mm with my A1)
May i have your views on my use of of 70 -200 with 2xTC instead of 100-400
First photos Z9 + Z 400 f4.5 VR S
- Thread starter Lance B
- 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).
May i have your views on my use of of 70 -200 with 2xTC instead of 100-400
I wonder how an 800mm f9 (400 f4.5S + 2x) compared to adapted 700mm f/8 (FTZ + 500PF + TC14iii). This might be of interest to those who live and die by the converter.
I'm not a converter user, as I prefer a DX crop (750mm) to adding and removing converters in the field.
bruce
Wow you have some amazing front yard birdsI tested the 400 f4.5 + 2x TC on a couple of birds out my front window. So, I am shooting Z9 + 800mm f9 in lowish light due to rain and overcast conditions and thus relatively highish ISO. I used as low a shutter speed as I could to try to keep ISO's as low as I dared to go with a subject that may possible move and at this long focal length, any movement of subject is *noticeable*.
The 2x TC does take the edge off sharpness but it is still very useable. These birds are at about 6-8 mts from the camera so, no cropping required. 800mm for these photos is too close as I could not get the whole bird in the frame with a little room around it for "breathig space" and "correct" composition. Ideally, I would say that for a standard sized bird like these and a pigeon, you would need to be about 10-12 mts away to get a correct frame filling photo with a little room around it. For a larger chicken sized bird maybe 15-20mts away. I have not had the opportunity to shoot at longer distances with the 2x TC yet.
In this situation, I would shoot the lens bare and crop if required (see last photo). However, if I was at say 10-20mts away, I would use the 1.4x TC and crop if required. If I were at say 20-30mts away I would possibly use the 2x TC and crop if required or possible. Using a TC is never cut and dry as it depends on distance and ISO used etc and thus you need to weigh up the situation as to whether use a lens bare, with a 1.4x TC, or 2x TC, try to get closer or walk away from the shot.
Most of the seasoned long lens users here will already be well aware of all this but, for those that are considering this set up, 800mm is quite long and excellent long lens craft is required. 800mm and f9 wide open is no point and shoot option as it requires a steady hand, low shutter speeds to keep ISO down and a target that stays still. Any movement of camera, lens or more importantly, subject matter, is magnified even if you have VR and IBIS available. Due to the low shutter speeds involved here, I took many photos to get some decently sharp shots mostly due to subject movement.
No noise reduction is applied, but my usual post processing via Capture One Pro, adding a little saturation, and where required, maybe highlight/shadow, WB and levels. Open in Photoshop reduce for web size and sharpen a little.
Z9 + 400 f4.5 + 2x TC, 1/160s f/9.0 at 800.0mm iso1400
Z9 + 400 f4.5 + 2x TC, 1/160s f/9.0 at 800.0mm iso1800
Just to give context, this shot was taken the day before with the lens bare at about a 1/2 a meter longer distance than the last photo above.
Z9 + 400 f4.5 bare, 1/250s f/4.5 at 400.0mm iso1000 as seen in the post above
Great shotsricardo00
Well-known member
I do use converters and for me, a more interesting comparison would be the 500mm plus a 1.7TC and the 400mm f/4.5 plus the 2xTC. I plan to do this when I get the 2x converter (currently on order though might go ahead and rent it to see). A 1.4TC is usually markedly less impact on photos than something higher. (I generally have to crop as well as using the converter). This shot was taken with the 1.7TC on the 500mm PF and still massively cropped:
[ ]
I'd argue (rhetorically) that if you regularly add a 1.7x (which is known to be a relatively poor performer) to 500mm lens AND you need deep crops (> DX) then both the 500PF and 400mm f4.5S are the wrong lens for your shooting goals.
If I needed greater than 600mm for a large proportion of my photography, I would save money to buy a 600mm f4 or 800PF. If size an weight are a barrier, I'd prioritize the 800PF or look to buy a Sony A1 with a 200-600 G.
There is no doubt that my advice reflects a lifetime of nature and wildlife photography with 35mm and 645 film. My own background has biased my perception of over-cropped photos or those made with teleconverters.
There is an active thread on BCG related to our most common mistakes... I posted that mine was using "gear envy" as an excuse for my lack of imagination... another well respected forum photographer "arbitrage" thought his was belief that converters would reliably produce satisfactory images.
For the record, your osprey shot is lovely... but I'd expect that any modern 24MP (plus) camera with a decently corrected telephoto lens could be modified in lightroom and cropped for impact, and still look amazing on a typical 4k screen. It is for this reason that much of our debatd about best lens (100-400 v 400 f4.5, 500PF v 500 f4, 200-600 v 600 f4) is both folly and academic. Unless the work is printed or exported for large 50" high res monitors, nobody but a critical photographer would know the difference between a full res output or a digitally enhanced hi res output.
cheers,
bruce
Last edited:
As many know I shoot birds. I also only own and have used 1.4 TC and very seldom used those. I am currently using the Z800mm pf on my Z9 for 80% of my bird photography and I have used it with the 1.4 TC but prefer it without the TC.
If you look at the Osprey just opened on my 27" Apple Studio Display and not zoomed in or even viewed full screen you can see the impact of the 1.7 TC and the crop a certain blurry muddiness to use a non technical term.
I prove it to myself regularly when viewing my own images and especially when I print something that looked good on the screen and it does not cut it on photo paper
ricardo00
Well-known member
I do have the 800mm PF on order (ordered it within an hour of it being posted) but from the few that have trickled out to non-NPS photographers, not sure I will be able to lift it by the time I get it. I have rented the 800mm f/5.6 but would not be able to carry it very far. I also have the 500mm F.4 and used it previously with the 1.4 and 1.7TC but again the weight (8.4 pounds) limits my use. For sure I would be better off getting closer but for much of my shooting this isn't possible (ie. a falcon nest on a cliff, etc). In the case of the osprey shot, I was shooting across the "lake" so wouldn't have gotten closer without going out on a boat. I would agree, much of the discussion posted on boards is "both folly and academic" and one's time would be better spent out taking pics. And thanks for your kind comment on the osprey pic (my mistake in that photo was overexposing).
ricardo00
Well-known member
If either of my two orders for the Z800mm pf is ever filled, I will be using it for 80% or more of my bird photography as well. Unfortunately for those non-NPS members, it seems like there will be a very, very long wait for this lens. In the meantime, one is left to either using a TC or not for more distant subjects (or not photographing them at all).As many know I shoot birds. I also only own and have used 1.4 TC and very seldom used those. I am currently using the Z800mm pf on my Z9 for 80% of my bird photography and I have used it with the 1.4 TC but prefer it without the TC.
If you look at the Osprey just opened on my 27" Apple Studio Display and not zoomed in or even viewed full screen you can see the impact of the 1.7 TC and the crop a certain blurry muddiness to use a non technical term.
I prove it to myself regularly when viewing my own images and especially when I print something that looked good on the screen and it does not cut it on photo paper
The osprey pic actually has two problems (in addition to being quite far and having the TC on), one is being overexposed and the second is that the focal point is on the reflection in the water and not the bird. These errors are probably more due to me than the camera so not sure how much one can blame the TC for them. When I test the TC on a static subject (and closer), I don't feel it is as bad as people have claimed. Obviously one is better off without a TC. However my point was directed at the post suggesting one test the Z 2.0TC against a 1.4TC, in my opinion an unfair comparison.
I think the 100-400 bare is a bit better than the Nikon Z70-200 f2.8S + 2x TC.
I have not done a back to back comparo, but from my seat of the pants observations of the files from the 500 PF + 1.4x TCIII compared to the 400 f4.5 + 2x TC, the 500 PF combo is sharper. However, if you need to crop the 500 PF + 1.4x TCIII to 800mm it might be a little closer. For me, I would be choosing the 500 PF + 1.4x TCIII.
Last edited:
Thank you very much, Ken.Wow you have some amazing front yard birds
And I was glad you did
I hope you get an 800 PF soon ... it does not fix atmospheric distortion, since no lens does, but where you wish you had more focal length to fill more of the frame or reach a bit further out than a 600mm it is amazing.I am NPS and was very aggressive at getting my order in place at a smaller camera store that has few NPS orders and then getting my NPS priority shipping request in as soon as it was open to do so. So I was blessed to get one before the West Coast Nikon Sales rep had even seen one. The demand is strong, must be a lot of us birders wanting one
The war in the Ukraine has caused parts used in the lens to be diverted to defense contractors according to the Nikon rep. hence a huge backorder log jam.
I am blessed that at 74 in 3 weeks I am able to lift weights 3 times a week and have the 800pf and Z9 at 8.2 lbs seem very light compared to the Z9 or D6 on the 600mm f/4E I used to use
I shoot hand held 99% of the time and I am also blessed with many situations that get me fairly close to my subjects.
new food for this thread:
+TC1.4
bare lens:
bare lens / heavy crop:
+TC1.4
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.
bare lens:
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.
bare lens / heavy crop:
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Nextlife1
Active member
Lance—I think your posted bird photos are consistently unsurpassed on the web in terms of quality. Always superb. Can you let me know your process in Photoshop for reducing for web size and what size that actually is? Thanks!
Thank you very much, Nextlife1. Much appreciated!
I do all RAW adjustments etc in Capture One Pro, save as a 16bit TIFF and then do a few trweaks if required in Photoshop. In Photoshop, this maybe things like noise reduction plug-in and cloning etc. Once I've done everything, I then go to "image" and then select "image size" and then select either 1800pixels, or 1900 pixels or 2160 pixels high depending on where I am going to display the image. I set the jpeg size for 4k/UHD screens, screens being 3840x2160 pixels, and I mostly make it 1900 high for web view as most hosting sites have borders that need to be taken into consideration when viewing on their sites. I put most of my images on PBase, especially test shots, but also most others that I take, and the best size for that site is 1900 pixels high. I just find PBase easy to link to for displaying on the various forums. However, I only put my favourite or best images on Flickr and they are 2160 pixels high x 3840 pixels wide depending on the aspect ratio of the photo.
Once I have adjusted the size of the image, I then mask the subject matter of the image (say the bird) giving it room around the mask and then I feather the mask to about 45 pixels. I only mask the areas of the subject that are sharp. After masking the image, I then sharpen using Power Retouche plug in, which I find the best and easiest. I put very little sharpening, almost none, but just enough to give it that little bit of snap but much of the time I don't need to do any sharpening. If it is a landscape shot, I may just mask out the sky and sharpen the ground.
Once I have sharpened the image, I covert to 8bit and then save as jpeg and like to keep the file size as large as possible but keeping it around the 2-3MB size. When there is a lot of detail in the photo, you can get 6MB or more with a 1900 x 2850 size image if you're not careful.
I also link my photos to the forums rather than upload them to the site as the forums generally limit the photo size - understandable as they would have limited memory for hosting photos etc. IMO, limiting the photo size means that they lose impact on the large 4k screens and if you enlarge the image on the screen they lose sharpness and look soft. If you link the image to a photo hosting site you can make them the size that looks best on a 4k screen.
I hope this helps.
Nextlife1
Active member
Thanks very much Lance--I'll try to work my way through your response. I process in Lightroom and Photoshop (with plugins when necessary) and am generally very happy with the results. But I don't generally post my photos (rather just share the jpegs directly with a few friends). On the rare occasion that I do post a photo it looks nothing like the original on my computer. Hence my question. Thanks again!