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

[O]

The 2xTC is a last resort tool in the photography toolkit.
The 70-200 is the only lens that it works really well with it, and I use it here and there instead of buying the 100-400. The combo becomes heavier though.

But for those who need the 100-400 range on a daily basis, I recommend investing in the 100-400.

I do remember it working quite nicely with the 400/4.5 prime.

I found even the DSLR 70-200 FL with a 2X TC III worked very well, the Z series TCs are a step up on that again.

 

[Lance B]

I asked because you said "the 180-600 is near the limits of what I deem acceptable IQ with the lens bare" and I had thought that you were more positive about it before. I remember a lot of people saying it was almost indistinguishable from their 500 or 600pfs, for instance, and I thought you may may have said something similar to that, but I could be wrong about that specifically.

I am still very positive about the lens and the resolution of the lens bare is still at around the limits of what I would want from a lens at that focal length. That is not to say it is poor, it definitely isn't, just that I have high standards. In other words, I am happy to accept the 600TC with a 1.4xTC. I am happy to accept the 600PF with a 1.4xTC. I am not happy to accept the 180-600 with a 1.4xTC or a 2xTC.

 

[maxxus46]

There is definitely something odd with the 200-600mm. I have seen numerous photographers having issues with the 200-600mm, but most people seem to have a positive experience with it. I even met a photographer who uses it as his second lens when using his 600mm f4 on an A1. I wonder if it has something to do with shooting style or AF preferences that can explain some of the mixed experiences.

Good to know that you found AF better on the Nikon 180-600 and Sony 400-800mm. One of them will probably be finding their way into my bag. This whole tariff situation has me questioning which way to go as a dual Nikon and Sony user.

Chat with Arbitrage, he is often on this forum. He is a highly experienced BIF photographer with Sony. Ask him for his thoughts on the 200-600G. I am certain he will mention the poor AF issues with that lens. It's actually a very common complaint with that particular lens. Good luck on your choices. Tyl

 

[Len Shepherd]

I am still very positive about the lens and the resolution of the lens bare is still at around the limits of what I would want from a lens at that focal length. That is not to say it is poor, it definitely isn't, just that I have high standards. In other words, I am happy to accept the 600TC with a 1.4xTC. I am happy to accept the 600PF with a 1.4xTC. I am not happy to accept the 180-600 with a 1.4xTC or a 2xTC.

I feel your comment identifies a dilemma.

There seems no doubt that the 180–600 with a 2X TC can with good techniques meets the standard of sharpness assumed in depth of field tables.

On the one and this standard goes back over 50 years to long before even slide film reached its resolution pinnacle and on the other hand depth of field tables remain appropriate for a reliable impression of sharpeners - viewing an image at 1.5 times its diagonal or further away - which is OK for everyday viewing.

Photographers with higher resolution equipment viewing at perhaps 200% often apply more rigorous criteria to sharpness than in the "good for everyday use" depth of field tables based on around 0.03mm.

Even the relatively "blurred" standard in popular MTF 50 indicates high resolution lenses at or near optimum aperture and high resolution sensors at low ISO's can resolve detail far smaller than the 0.03mm depth of field table threshold - though only in the zone close to the point of focus that is distinctly narrower than the wider zone using standard in depth of field tables.

This brings us nearly full circle - there seems nothing wrong with the 180-600 - when accepting the "no brainer" that as a very affordable good though still consumer grade lens it does not quite reach the high resolution pinnacles that higher priced primes achieve when viewing at much higher standards than used in DoF tables.

Similar observations apply to using a 1.4x or cropping 45 MP to 19.5 MP compared to using a 2x or cropping 45 MP to 11.25 MP.

Each photographer can set their own standards on whether £525 for a 2x or (in my case) £13,500 for the 600 mm f4 TC is the best option.
Nikon gives us choices - as I cannot afford the £13,500 option I took the lesser grade £525 option