Is a Nikon - Z TELECONVERTER TC-2.0x, optically worth the money?

[SCoombs]

Anything can work sometimes. Especially with really close subjects. But I still stand behind the 2xTC robbing AF prowess too much on most lenses to be a great option.

For example...2xTC on 200-600...not bad for this type of shot...still I'd rather just crop with a 1.4 or maybe even just the bare lens:

November 11, 2019-3.jpg by Bird/Wildlife Photos, on Flickr
August 31, 2019.jpg by Bird/Wildlife Photos, on Flickr
August 16, 2019.jpg by Bird/Wildlife Photos, on Flickr

Hey sometimes you can even do BIF with the 2x....600GM/2xTC....again...I still don't like using it for this type of work. You know the saying about a broke clock?
October 31, 2020-2.jpg by Bird/Wildlife Photos, on Flickr

Of course why stop at a 2x? Here is stacked 1.4 and 2.0x TCs on the 300GM....do I think it looks good? yes. Would I use this? no.
300GM with Stacked 1.4 and 2.0 TCs by Bird/Wildlife Photos, on Flickr

For what it's worth, I don't think my copy of the 180-600 can achieve this level of sharpness bare, so if this is with TWO teleconverters, they can't be all that bad.

 

[BillW]

I have both the Z TCs. I initially used the 2x TC with the Z 70-200 mm lens, where it gave me a very useable 140-400 mm f5.6 lens. I used this (along with the F 500 mm PF) to photograph brown bears in Katmai NP before the Z 100-400 came out. I think the Z 100-400 is better than the Z 70-200 with the 2x TC, but I might still use the 2x TC in some circumstances. For example, on a raft trip through the Grand Canyon a couple of years ago I wanted the Z 70-200 for landscapes. But I wanted to be able to get to 400 mm for possible wildlife shooting. I did not have room to throw in the Z 100-400 mm lens. So I brought the 2x TC along and used it some.

I have also used the 2x TC with my Z 400 mm TC lens. It gives you a very good 800 mm f5.6 lens. Not as good as the Z 600 mm TC lens with its internal TC engaged or the Z 800 mm PF. But good enough for me to use it happily. There are times when I want access to 400 mm f2.8, 560/600 f4 and 800/840 f5.6/6.3. In some situations, I take both the Z 400 mm TC and my Z 800 mm PF. But there are times when size and weight restrictions, particularly on small planes, mean that is not possible. I have taken the Z 400 mm TC lens and 2x TC to Botswana (where I used the 2x TC in some cases for birds) and the Great Bear Rain Forest (where I used the 2x TC to photograph coastal grey wolves).

I don’t particularly like the 2x TC on my Z 100-400 mm lens, although I might use it in a pinch if I had no better alternative. I’ve not tried the 2x TC on my Z 180-600. The 1.4x TC works reasonably well on my Z 100-400.

I’ve used both TCs with the Z 400 mm f4.5, mostly before I got the Z 400 mm TC and Z 600 mm PF. I liked both combinations. I used the 2x TC on this lens to get 800 mm f9 in my kayak. I got a number of nice shots of loons with their chicks and other water birds with this combination.

I have used both TCs with the 600 mm PF. The 1.4x TC gives you a very good 840 mm, but is f9. The 2x TC gives you 1200 mm f13. I haven’t used the 2x TC enough for a fully formed opinion, but think it might be useable in a pinch with good light. When I want 1120/1200 mm, I tend to use my Z 800 mm PF as noted in the next paragraph.

I’ve used both TCs on my Z 800 mm PF. With the 1.4x TC, it becomes a very good 1120 mm f9 lens. I prefer it to cropping. I’ve also used the 2x TC to get to 1600 mm f13 in one location to photograph great blue heron chicks in their nest. Got some good shots, but I need to use a good tripod and have good light and atmospheric conditions. (Note, that is also true, although to a lesser extent, with the 1.4x TC and Z 800 mm PF.)

DxO lens modules, used through DxO PhotoLab or PureRaw, can improve the results of most of these combinations. I got this suggestion from Brad Hill, both in person on his trips and through his website.

As Lance notes, there are many compromises to deal with in photography, depending on circumstances. I find it useful to have both the 1.4x and 2x TCs.

 

[DigitalWorldOfPaul]

Slightly different system, but my experiences seem to align with many of the posters in this thread.

I have the Sony 200-600mm f6.3 and use it offten with the TC 1.4x and sometimes with the TC 2x and have adapted it to my Z8 at times too.

Often for me birds are far away with no way to get closer and I have found the TC 1.4 very helpful. The TC 2x doesn't really extend my usable reach because atmospherics and loss of light then start becoming an issue, especially if you plan on cropping. I find the TC 2x mostly helpful for filling the frame with a subject in good light.

Personally, I like having the TC 2x in my bag for those times I think it's worth using, but it's not something I use often. Is $600 worth it for something you may only use occasionally is something only you can answer for yourself. If you think you may end up buying faster telephoto zooms or primes, they usually take a TC 2X better, so it can gain in usefulness over time as you grow your kit too.

 

[Calson]

I have used the 2x with the 100-400mm lens and it is a trade-off between greater image size and more demands placed on image quality and the photographer's technical skill. This is where a tripod is a good idea regardless of image stabilization from the lens and camera. With double the image magnification there is double the ability to see any issues with an image. This was true with a 600mm f/4 and not just a zoom lens. Diffraction is also more likely to be present in images but I have usually been able to see this through the viewfinder and make adjustments before taking the shot.

Taking more time to slowly get closer to a subject is going to yield better results and should be considered.

 

[viper699]

much the same iphone 13pro 12Mp sensor

So very true, and typical of Apple and their “improvements”, I rarely update iPhone models

 

[maxxus46]

I currently own The Z 180-600, and the Z 1.4X. It gets me closer for some bird photography, but sometimes not close enough. I recognize that there's a significant reduction in f/ stop, and therefore an increase in noise because ISO would probably go up for many shots. So, the tradeoff becomes "filling the frame" as @Steve calls it and not having to crop, and the potential decrease in optical quality, and possible increase in noise. I did look, and didn't find where @Steve had tested either the 1.4 or the 2X in the Z version.

Any shooters out there have this converter lens combination, or this converter with any other of the Z lenses? What are your thoughts? Worth saving up for it?

Personally, I feel the 1.4x tc on the 180-600 has a noticable impact on both IQ and AF, therefore I wouldn't consider using a 2x TC on that zoom, or any zoom for the matter. I've attached the MTF charts done by photographylife for this zooms review. You can see the IQ hit with the 2x TC is significant

 

[maxxus46]

I have both the Z TCs. I initially used the 2x TC with the Z 70-200 mm lens, where it gave me a very useable 140-400 mm f5.6 lens. I used this (along with the F 500 mm PF) to photograph brown bears in Katmai NP before the Z 100-400 came out. I think the Z 100-400 is better than the Z 70-200 with the 2x TC, but I might still use the 2x TC in some circumstances. For example, on a raft trip through the Grand Canyon a couple of years ago I wanted the Z 70-200 for landscapes. But I wanted to be able to get to 400 mm for possible wildlife shooting. I did not have room to throw in the Z 100-400 mm lens. So I brought the 2x TC along and used it some.

I have also used the 2x TC with my Z 400 mm TC lens. It gives you a very good 800 mm f5.6 lens. Not as good as the Z 600 mm TC lens with its internal TC engaged or the Z 800 mm PF. But good enough for me to use it happily. There are times when I want access to 400 mm f2.8, 560/600 f4 and 800/840 f5.6/6.3. In some situations, I take both the Z 400 mm TC and my Z 800 mm PF. But there are times when size and weight restrictions, particularly on small planes, mean that is not possible. I have taken the Z 400 mm TC lens and 2x TC to Botswana (where I used the 2x TC in some cases for birds) and the Great Bear Rain Forest (where I used the 2x TC to photograph coastal grey wolves).

I don’t particularly like the 2x TC on my Z 100-400 mm lens, although I might use it in a pinch if I had no better alternative. I’ve not tried the 2x TC on my Z 180-600. The 1.4x TC works reasonably well on my Z 100-400.

I’ve used both TCs with the Z 400 mm f4.5, mostly before I got the Z 400 mm TC and Z 600 mm PF. I liked both combinations. I used the 2x TC on this lens to get 800 mm f9 in my kayak. I got a number of nice shots of loons with their chicks and other water birds with this combination.

I have used both TCs with the 600 mm PF. The 1.4x TC gives you a very good 840 mm, but is f9. The 2x TC gives you 1200 mm f13. I haven’t used the 2x TC enough for a fully formed opinion, but think it might be useable in a pinch with good light. When I want 1120/1200 mm, I tend to use my Z 800 mm PF as noted in the next paragraph.

I’ve used both TCs on my Z 800 mm PF. With the 1.4x TC, it becomes a very good 1120 mm f9 lens. I prefer it to cropping. I’ve also used the 2x TC to get to 1600 mm f13 in one location to photograph great blue heron chicks in their nest. Got some good shots, but I need to use a good tripod and have good light and atmospheric conditions. (Note, that is also true, although to a lesser extent, with the 1.4x TC and Z 800 mm PF.)

DxO lens modules, used through DxO PhotoLab or PureRaw, can improve the results of most of these combinations. I got this suggestion from Brad Hill, both in person on his trips and through his website.

As Lance notes, there are many compromises to deal with in photography, depending on circumstances. I find it useful to have both the 1.4x and 2x TCs.

I use both 1.4 and 2x TCs with my Z 600 PF lens (light permitting) and results are superb. Obviously a Prime can handle teleconverters much better than any zoom.

 

[ricardo00]

I currently own The Z 180-600, and the Z 1.4X. It gets me closer for some bird photography, but sometimes not close enough. I recognize that there's a significant reduction in f/ stop, and therefore an increase in noise because ISO would probably go up for many shots. So, the tradeoff becomes "filling the frame" as @Steve calls it and not having to crop, and the potential decrease in optical quality, and possible increase in noise. I did look, and didn't find where @Steve had tested either the 1.4 or the 2X in the Z version.

Any shooters out there have this converter lens combination, or this converter with any other of the Z lenses? What are your thoughts? Worth saving up for it?

Not sure about using it on a Z180-600mm (don't own this lens). As others have noted, TCs work better on a prime. I have the 1.4TC and 2.0TC and have used both on my 400mm f/4.5 and even on my 800mm PF (yep, 1600mm). There are sometimes you can't get closer, nests, birds high up in a tree, etc. For sure don't use it all that often but do on occasion. Examples are in two of my flickr albums if interested, one with photos taken with the 2.0 TC on a 400mm f/4.5 and the other with the 800mm lens:

Nikon 800mm PF plus the 2.0TC

Explore this photo album by ricardo00 on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

Nikon 400mm f/4.5 with the Z TC 2.0

Explore this photo album by ricardo00 on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

 

[StarTracker50]

I agree with that. I use DX a lot of the time also to see things better, to improve AF, to deepen my buffer and to save on card space.
But I think we need to be careful in wording it as some way to do the same thing a TC does.
I’ve lost count of how many times people in the field make comments about heir DX mode or their DX sensor increasing their focal length or reach. I’ve given up even trying to explain it to them anymore.

Ya. Even Nikon suggests that! Totally cracks me up! Folks, DX mode is the SAME as cropping on your computer! All it does is save you some memory. It does NOT change the focal length!

 

[maxxus46]

Slightly different system, but my experiences seem to align with many of the posters in this thread.

I have the Sony 200-600mm f6.3 and use it offten with the TC 1.4x and sometimes with the TC 2x and have adapted it to my Z8 at times too.

Often for me birds are far away with no way to get closer and I have found the TC 1.4 very helpful. The TC 2x doesn't really extend my usable reach because atmospherics and loss of light then start becoming an issue, especially if you plan on cropping. I find the TC 2x mostly helpful for filling the frame with a subject in good light.

Personally, I like having the TC 2x in my bag for those times I think it's worth using, but it's not something I use often. Is $600 worth it for something you may only use occasionally is something only you can answer for yourself. If you think you may end up buying faster telephoto zooms or primes, they usually take a TC 2X better, so it can gain in usefulness over time as you grow your kit too.

Interesting, because I owned the Sony 200-600G on multiple Sony bodies including the A1 and that lens was the single worse auto focus lens I ever owned. Very inconsistent (often back focusing) or missing frames entirely. So much so I eventually sold my first copy, decided to re purchase another but the problem was always there. That 200-600G is maligned and well known within the Sony circle . Using that lens with the 1.4TC made the issue even worse. Not a setup id ever recommended after years of experience with that combo. I will also add the newer Nikon 180-600 does not share this problem. The AF motors with the Nikon lens are far more consistent . This is my observation from actual hands on use . That said , Sony did fix the issue in the form of the 400-800G. YMMV

 

[marc]

2xTC are best left to the very best, expensive, fast prime lenses and in most cases only sparingly even then.
I've only owned a few lenses that I really liked the 2xTC on and those are the Canon 300 f/2.8 ISII, Canon 400DOII and Sony 300GM.
That is it...everything else has been mostly "meh".
I would certainly never buy one to use on a lens that was slower than f/4.

Totally agree here,

Whilst the Z2.0TC is a major step up from the old F mount 2.0TCIII, it produces it's best results on the f/2.8 long primes such as my Z400TC f/2.8.
That's not to say, you won't get good results given the right conditions on the f/4 or 400 f/4.5 primes.
I have no hesitation to use it with my Z400TC, but would draw the line when it comes to implementing it on the Z180-600 @f/13 IMO. And as others have said IF you're trying to use
the Z2.0TC on far distance subjects, you'll be disappointed.

 

[JWest]

I'm not sure if anyone actually answered the thread question though.
"

Is a Nikon - Z TELECONVERTER TC-2.0x, optically worth the money?"​

Well, simply put, it's not super expensive and does something that is not doable in any other way, so the basic answer is "yes, of course".

Even on a 70-200/2.8, "worth the money"? Well, it's $600, how else are you getting to 400mm/f5.6 for only $600 ? On the 400/4.5, now $600 gives you 800mm/f9. Not bad for $600 !

Even on the $$$$$ Z 600/4 TC, you get 1680mm at f11 for $600.
In good air, good stability, and good light, 1680mm can be amazing but so is 1200/f8.

A lot on the thread went into the nuances, but the question in my mind was pretty straight forward and a fairly simple answer when taken at face value.

 

[StarTracker50]

I'm not sure if anyone actually answered the thread question though.
"

Is a Nikon - Z TELECONVERTER TC-2.0x, optically worth the money?"​

Well, simply put, it's not super expensive and does something that is not doable in any other way, so the basic answer is "yes, of course".

Even on a 70-200/2.8, "worth the money"? Well, it's $600, how else are you getting to 400mm/f5.6 for only $600 ? On the 400/4.5, now $600 gives you 800mm/f9. Not bad for $600 !

Even on the $$$$$ Z 600/4 TC, you get 1680mm at f11 for $600.
In good air, good stability, and good light, 1680mm can be amazing but so is 1200/f8.

A lot on the thread went into the nuances, but the question in my mind was pretty straight forward and a fairly simple answer when taken at face value.

Thank you J and everyone else that answered. A lot of good information provided. Some, more than I needed, but I thank you as well. I'm not hung up on pixel peeping, and if I can get the picture I couldn't otherwise get I will be happy. A 600mm prime Z is in my future some time, so a 2X TC is probably something I will get as well. Thank you ALL again. This forum really rocks!

 

[marc]

I'm not sure if anyone actually answered the thread question though.
"

Is a Nikon - Z TELECONVERTER TC-2.0x, optically worth the money?"​

Well, simply put, it's not super expensive and does something that is not doable in any other way, so the basic answer is "yes, of course".

Even on a 70-200/2.8, "worth the money"? Well, it's $600, how else are you getting to 400mm/f5.6 for only $600 ? On the 400/4.5, now $600 gives you 800mm/f9. Not bad for $600 !

Even on the $$$$$ Z 600/4 TC, you get 1680mm at f11 for $600.
In good air, good stability, and good light, 1680mm can be amazing but so is 1200/f8.

A lot on the thread went into the nuances, but the question in my mind was pretty straight forward and a fairly simple answer when taken at face value.

IF @StarTracker50 is ONLY going to use this on his 180-600, then the simple answer is NO. IMO.
I believe I made that pretty clear in my response.

 

[Len Shepherd]

Totally agree here,

Whilst the Z2.0TC is a major step up from the old F mount 2.0TCIII, it produces it's best results on the f/2.8 long primes such as my Z400TC f/2.8.
That's not to say, you won't get good results given the right conditions on the f/4 or 400 f/4.5 primes.

I find results are not so much the TC in isolation as the lens combination combined, together with what is acceptable to any individual.

Using a 2x TC reduces the optical quality of the lens it is attached to, makes auto focus less efficient, reduces depth of field etc with the trade-off it puts a lot more pixels on the intended subject than cropping.

Depending on the situation I find using a 1.4 TC can be fairly straightforward.
Using a 2XTC I find more challenging but nevertheless in the right conditions with the right lens I find a 2x can produce better results than cropping.

What final result is acceptable is personal choice.
When there is a significant atmosphere heat distortion, I know it doesn't not matter which prime or zoom I use "bare" - at much more than 50 yards distance the results will be unacceptable for most purposes.

 

[JWest]

IF @StarTracker50 is ONLY going to use this on his 180-600, then the simple answer is NO. IMO.
I believe I made that pretty clear in my response.

Hey, sorry if my reply sounded dismissive. Even then, I still think if there is any time, that a shot can still work, then the $600 is "worth it". It may not be often but 1200mm. is a lot different than 600 and in the right light, ability to use f16 no problem, then it could be very nice., better than cropping a bunch.

 

[Lance B]

I thought I gave a fairly even-handed response letting the OP make up his own mind - one man's meat is another man's poison, as they say. What I (and maybe a few others) may think is not up to scratch may be perfectly fine for the OP. I linked to a review of the 180-600 where it showed results with the 1.4x TC and 2x TC and then advised that the lower res of the 180-600 compared to primes meant that the 2x TC would impact the res quite severely:

"Looking at the results, if we say the 1.4x TC has say a 6-14% impact on resolution on the 400TC depending on whether you use the internal or external TC, it is from an extremely high non-TC starting point. The 180-600 is already about 20% behind in resolution with the 400TC with TC engaged! When you use the 2x TC on the 400TC, its resolution is almost as good as the 180-600 without any TC!! The 180-600 takes about a 18% hit in resolution with the 1.4x TC added. As can be seen by the results, adding the 2x TC does impact the 180-600 quite severely in resolution dropping it about 33% and then finally in higher ISO which can be seen by the 180-600 + 2x TC results."

 

[maxxus46]

I'm not sure if anyone actually answered the thread question though.
"

Is a Nikon - Z TELECONVERTER TC-2.0x, optically worth the money?"​

Well, simply put, it's not super expensive and does something that is not doable in any other way, so the basic answer is "yes, of course".

Even on a 70-200/2.8, "worth the money"? Well, it's $600, how else are you getting to 400mm/f5.6 for only $600 ? On the 400/4.5, now $600 gives you 800mm/f9. Not bad for $600 !

Even on the $$$$$ Z 600/4 TC, you get 1680mm at f11 for $600.
In good air, good stability, and good light, 1680mm can be amazing but so is 1200/f8.

A lot on the thread went into the nuances, but the question in my mind was pretty straight forward and a fairly simple answer when taken at face value.

I would summarize it's worth the money depending on the lens your planning to attach it to, since your severely affecting both IQ and AF with a 2x TC if the intention is to use with a Zoom lens. If it were a Prime lense then no question teleconverters are much more usable. Even then , there are slower primes that start at f6.3 where use of a 2x TC is still limited based on available light. At end of the day your the only one who can decide, based on your intended use case. Good luck

 

[BertieB]

I have both and simply put the 2x TC on even the 70-200 s is not too my liking, hardly used and monies wasted, but I still have it in my bag, why I dont know, so time for a decision I think

 

[fcotterill]

There are opportunities and situations in wildlife photography when a TC2 makes possible images, which would be impossible otherwise. One example is this unique interaction between a leopard and crocodile taken across a pool at least 100m from the vehicle - ZTC2 + 800 f6.3S PF on a Z9 so 1600 f13

As I progressed with Used telephoto to a new more versatile model, my venerable TC2 III (bought Used) allowed me to use a 300 f2.8G as a 600 f5.6 and a 400 f2.8E as a 800 f5.6; both combinations were extremely capable and captured no end of keepers

View attachment 43331

 

[BertieB]

Nice interaction Mr Cotterill!

Maybe I must give it another try on the 800mm in bright light and see if it is worth keeping just in case ....
It would then necessitate an on off situation which is not preferred and time consuming.

 

[maikm]

I have and use both TCs on the 400/2.8 and don't hesitate to do that any time I need the focal length. I don't see a serious quality loss with the TC20, but AF accuracy and speed suffers a bit, of course. I suppose the same is true with the 600/4.

I also have the 180-600, and I use it with the TC14 often, but don't use the TC20 on it after having tried it a bit. I don't think it's worth it with that combo, at least not on a 45MP body, because the optical resolution isn't there any more and you have to deal with f/13 (diffraction and often high ISO noise) on top of that.

In any case, don't make the mistake of trying to overcome long distances with that. Too much air in between you and the subject with high magnifications will ruin the image regardless of your gear's optical quality.

 

[EricBowles]

We have had a good series of comments. Taking it a step further, IF you choose to use a 2X teleconverter, what are the tips to get the best results?

 

[BillW]

We have had a good series of comments. Taking it a step further, IF you choose to use a 2X teleconverter, what are the tips to get the best results?

I’ve used the Z 2x TC for shooting (not only testing) on the following Z lenses: 70-200, 400 f4.5, 400 mm TC, 600 mm PF, and 800 mm PF. I’ve tried it with the Z 100-400 mm, but don’t use it for shooting.

I find that using DxO lens correction models (through PhotoLab or PureRaw) helps improve the results of these combinations. Of course, these modules can also improve the bare lens performance, so the difference remains. I mentioned this in a post above, but it seems relevant here. I have no stake, financial or otherwise, in DxO and its software business. Brad Hill, the Canadian professional wildlife photographer and trip leader recommended this to me and discusses it at some length on his website.

The 2x TC works better on primes than zooms. If you want to use the 2x TC to get to 800 mm, you are better off using it on the 400 mm f4.5 lens (or the 400 mm TC) than the Z 100-400 mm lens. The 400 mm f4.5 with the 2x TC is a good combination at 800 mm and may be the smallest package to get to 800 mm. Loved it in my kayak.

Stopping down a bit might help. But this works best if you are starting with a relatively faster lens, say the 70-200, 400 mm f4.5 or 400 mm TC.

If I use the 2x TC on the 800 mm PF (1600 mm f13) atmospheric conditions are important and I get better results using a tripod. I use this combination at a great blue heron rookery on the Mississippi River. The heron nests are in trees on islands (the islands are closed to people). The height of the nests above the water tends to minimize the heat haze otherwise produced by the sun and the cool river water.

 

[maikm]

We have had a good series of comments. Taking it a step further, IF you choose to use a 2X teleconverter, what are the tips to get the best results?

I found that the best practice from DSLR times to stop down when using a 2X TC is no longer true. Stopping down doesn't improve image quality any more, except of course for added depth of field that might compensate for lost AF accuracy. So I no longer stop down when using a 2X (unless I want to stop down for other reasons anyway), because the additional loss of light just isn't worth it.

That AF accuracy though can be a problem in certain situations, and you usually don't see it happening in the viewfinder. If I have the time, I use techniques like manual defocusing and re-aquiring AF, and sometimes longer bursts.