Anyone having success with this combo? ‘I’ve only seen 1 or 2 reports and the feeling is it’s a lackluster performer. I know most zooms don’t do well with TC’s. Any thoughts or hands on experience to report?
Nikon 100-400 + TC-2X
- Thread starter DougC
- 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).
Nah. I don't love the TC's on this lens. I find the lens is better with no filter and the hood on as well. I used to use the 1.4 in really good light, but now have the 600pf so stopped that as well.
Best thing you can do is test for yourself. You have to decide what ok for your use. Both in a controlled environment and well as natural one. I like shooting cactus as a controlled environment.
Some might find it ok for web posting IF the frame is filled.
Best thing you can do is test for yourself. You have to decide what ok for your use. Both in a controlled environment and well as natural one. I like shooting cactus as a controlled environment.
Some might find it ok for web posting IF the frame is filled.
My two cents worth about it:
Sorry to say that, but IMHO - simply and straight forward - forget it !
@Steve has shown in his comparisons with the Z180-600 that this lens doesn't like TC's very much and if you take a look to the review at Photogrphylife , you'll see that the lens already shows a slight drop solo at 400mm (which isn't critical though), but with 2x you loose more than 40 % of the resolution and you are at f11 wide open. This is not what I would call a lens anymore, because you are not only hampered in terms of IQ but also in relation to lighting conditions (--> Shutter speed / ISO) and object isolation (DOF).
Honestly, for the Z Tele zooms I decided to forget about TC's completely, being it for the Z 100-400 or the Z 180-600. If I need to get more reach I simply need to use another lens or - as a compromise - I accept to crop, because with this kind of quality loss introduced by using a TC the result with cropping a FX image shot at 400mm without TC might be just as good if not better. And to put this in context, this is not a really bad news.
Just take a look at what stunning mouthwatering images have been taken with cameras like the D4s in the DSLR days - with 16,2 MPixel !
I don't know which camera you are using, but assuming it would be a Z7 (II) , Z8 or Z9, if you shot in DX mode or made a crop to DX format in post you still have about 19,4 MPixel resolution left and this is about 20% more than the D4s had and just 6% less than a D5 or D6, and nobody would seriously argue about the fact, that they were pro grade bodies and the flagships of thier time.
If you like using zooms and wish to have more reach, then take a look at the Z 180-600. Considering that it costs about € 800,- more (sorry for the Euro but you get the idea) than just the two Z TC's together and at the same time gives you zoom flexibility, handoldability and IQ on a decent level with 200mm more reach, I am pretyy sure that this will most likely make you happier straight away and keep you happy in the longer term also.
I have them both for exactly the reason I pointed out above. I love having the flexibility with zoom lenses, but it is more or less a given, that most of them do not like TC's. Thus, if I have them both with me, I use the Z100-400 up to about 350mm and then let the Z 180-600 take over.
But the overlap in focal length range often makes ist easy to decide which one to take for what I want to do, if I have to go small/light and accept some compromise in IQ at the short or long end - but in a much, much smalller scale than I would have to accept it with using a TC's.
And there is something else that tends to be forgotten. Theoretically you use the TC only when your lens gets "too short". But if you use the zoom for its flexibility, in most cases people tend to have it mounted more or less permantly in a particlar situation giving you e.g. a 140-560mm lens with the TC-1,4x. But this comes at a price: The drop in IQ quality then applies to the entire zoom range and you end up shooting with maybe half the IQ you'd get with the lens solo at the same focal length - forgetting about loosing one or even two stops of light by using a TC.
As in many discussions around IQ, SNR etc. it always comes down to the same thing: "You can tweak data and write clever software to do it, but you just can't cheat of bypasss physics".
Sorry to say that, but IMHO - simply and straight forward - forget it !
@Steve has shown in his comparisons with the Z180-600 that this lens doesn't like TC's very much and if you take a look to the review at Photogrphylife , you'll see that the lens already shows a slight drop solo at 400mm (which isn't critical though), but with 2x you loose more than 40 % of the resolution and you are at f11 wide open. This is not what I would call a lens anymore, because you are not only hampered in terms of IQ but also in relation to lighting conditions (--> Shutter speed / ISO) and object isolation (DOF).
Honestly, for the Z Tele zooms I decided to forget about TC's completely, being it for the Z 100-400 or the Z 180-600. If I need to get more reach I simply need to use another lens or - as a compromise - I accept to crop, because with this kind of quality loss introduced by using a TC the result with cropping a FX image shot at 400mm without TC might be just as good if not better. And to put this in context, this is not a really bad news.
Just take a look at what stunning mouthwatering images have been taken with cameras like the D4s in the DSLR days - with 16,2 MPixel !
I don't know which camera you are using, but assuming it would be a Z7 (II) , Z8 or Z9, if you shot in DX mode or made a crop to DX format in post you still have about 19,4 MPixel resolution left and this is about 20% more than the D4s had and just 6% less than a D5 or D6, and nobody would seriously argue about the fact, that they were pro grade bodies and the flagships of thier time.
If you like using zooms and wish to have more reach, then take a look at the Z 180-600. Considering that it costs about € 800,- more (sorry for the Euro but you get the idea) than just the two Z TC's together and at the same time gives you zoom flexibility, handoldability and IQ on a decent level with 200mm more reach, I am pretyy sure that this will most likely make you happier straight away and keep you happy in the longer term also.
I have them both for exactly the reason I pointed out above. I love having the flexibility with zoom lenses, but it is more or less a given, that most of them do not like TC's. Thus, if I have them both with me, I use the Z100-400 up to about 350mm and then let the Z 180-600 take over.
But the overlap in focal length range often makes ist easy to decide which one to take for what I want to do, if I have to go small/light and accept some compromise in IQ at the short or long end - but in a much, much smalller scale than I would have to accept it with using a TC's.
And there is something else that tends to be forgotten. Theoretically you use the TC only when your lens gets "too short". But if you use the zoom for its flexibility, in most cases people tend to have it mounted more or less permantly in a particlar situation giving you e.g. a 140-560mm lens with the TC-1,4x. But this comes at a price: The drop in IQ quality then applies to the entire zoom range and you end up shooting with maybe half the IQ you'd get with the lens solo at the same focal length - forgetting about loosing one or even two stops of light by using a TC.
As in many discussions around IQ, SNR etc. it always comes down to the same thing: "You can tweak data and write clever software to do it, but you just can't cheat of bypasss physics".
I have gotten sharp photos with the 100-400 + 1.4tc. Not sure about the 2.0tc.
If you are looking at shooting a maximum distance I think the 100-400 is the weakest of all the S lenses. I have the 100-400 S, 600pf s, 70-200S and 14-25 ad 24-70 S lenses. While the 100-400 is the weakest of the S lenses I have but it does have its attributes. The close focusing on the short end of the lens along with its versatility as a zoom is very good. For wildlife and action it is slow compared to the 70-200 and 600pf. In my opinion the 600pf is twice as fast autofocusing as the 100-400. While I say it is the weakest of the S lenses it is still no slouch. I use it for baseball and football and most of the time it does a very good job. Lets say I go to Football spring camp, I usually get 30 minutes of taking pictures, I can take the z9 and the 100-400 for plenty of good shots for a gallery for a fan site.
Now with the tele's it is even weaker. I'm not a big teleconverter fan anyway but this lens just doesnt seem to work as well with Tele's as the other S lenses. 2x is definitely a no go and 1.4 tele is weak. I would much rather put the camera in DX mode and shoot in this manner with the 100-400 over the tele's. Use with the teles usually ends up with soft and possibly noisy images.
Time and time again, I have thought about trading in my 100-400 S for the 400 f4.5. However, I think of the versatility of the lens along with its minimal focus distance is what keeps me from switching lenses. When I am shooting wildlife, i usually put the 100-400 on the Z9 and the 600pf on the Z8. If I am shooting by water then the close in shots come into play and the 100-400 works very well. Say a dragon fly lands on a reed a few feet from me the 100-400 is perfect or a bird lands just a few feet away then the lens works. Can't get those at times with the 600pf.
Now with the tele's it is even weaker. I'm not a big teleconverter fan anyway but this lens just doesnt seem to work as well with Tele's as the other S lenses. 2x is definitely a no go and 1.4 tele is weak. I would much rather put the camera in DX mode and shoot in this manner with the 100-400 over the tele's. Use with the teles usually ends up with soft and possibly noisy images.
Time and time again, I have thought about trading in my 100-400 S for the 400 f4.5. However, I think of the versatility of the lens along with its minimal focus distance is what keeps me from switching lenses. When I am shooting wildlife, i usually put the 100-400 on the Z9 and the 600pf on the Z8. If I am shooting by water then the close in shots come into play and the 100-400 works very well. Say a dragon fly lands on a reed a few feet from me the 100-400 is perfect or a bird lands just a few feet away then the lens works. Can't get those at times with the 600pf.
For a change of pace we went to the zoo for a long photo session. Because this requires less reach it allowed me to re-familiarize myself with a lens combination that seems to work well in the shorter ranges. The combination is the 70-200mm f2.8 and the 400mm f4.5.
The Z 70-200mm is one of the better zoom lenses out there. It is a rare lens that does well with a teleconverter. You also have a nice wide aperture.
The 400mm is a uniquely high IQ prime lens that does quite well with tc's which gives you out to 800mm.
I was using a dual-camera setup with one lens on each shoulder with blackrapid straps.
Everything was hand held. It was a joy working with such excellent lenses.
The Z 70-200mm is one of the better zoom lenses out there. It is a rare lens that does well with a teleconverter. You also have a nice wide aperture.
The 400mm is a uniquely high IQ prime lens that does quite well with tc's which gives you out to 800mm.
I was using a dual-camera setup with one lens on each shoulder with blackrapid straps.
Everything was hand held. It was a joy working with such excellent lenses.
I am assuming you own the 100-400 and thinking about getting the 2.0tc. I love the 100-400 and get great IQ from it. I a;so have both TCs. I pretty much leave the 2.0 at home now.
There is a paradigm shift between shooting with a zoom versus shooting with a high IQ prime.
With a zoom lens you try to zoom in or out so you don't have to crop. With a high IQ prime lens on a high megapixel camera you can accomplish the same result by cropping.
Leica makes a Q camera. I think they are up to Q3 right now. The camera has a really sharp fixed lens and a super high megapixel sensor.
The idea with this camera is, its IQ is so good you can shoot almost anything. You just crop the image to get the perspective you want. You don't need interchangeable lenses and you only have to carry the one compact camera.
So applying this to Nikon, if for instance I shoot with the Z 400mm f4.5 that lens is super sharp both on its own and with either a 1.4 or 2x tc. When I shoot for instance at 540mm I still have the ability to significantly crop and get a keeper. By contrast if I shot that image with one of the zooms, if i could not fill the frame I would not have much ability to crop further.
With a zoom if you can zoom in to get the shot full frame then you would be happy with the image quality. But if you need more reach it will not be there for you with a zoom.
Teleconverters do not work as well on some of these zooms (notable exception, the 70-200mm f2.8). This means if you use a teleconverter you may not be able to crop hardly at all if you need further reach.
The other issue is aperture. Often these high IQ primes have a wider maximum aperture. This means you can shoot in lower light and create better background effects. By contrast with some of the zooms you may have to stop down a few stops to get maximum sharpness which further limits your ability to control backgrounds.
What is true about all lenses is that if you have to add a tc your maximum aperture goes down. This pm effect of a TC is worse with lenses that are already much narrower.
The other issue is the decision whether to crop is made in the viewfinder when working a zoom. By contrast, with a high IQ prime I can examine the image at my leisure in post.
When I examine a series of images taken by a high IQ prime in post on a high resolution computer screen, I often have discovered keepers that were not obvious to me when the image was shot. It is kind of magic when it works that way.
With a zoom lens you try to zoom in or out so you don't have to crop. With a high IQ prime lens on a high megapixel camera you can accomplish the same result by cropping.
Leica makes a Q camera. I think they are up to Q3 right now. The camera has a really sharp fixed lens and a super high megapixel sensor.
The idea with this camera is, its IQ is so good you can shoot almost anything. You just crop the image to get the perspective you want. You don't need interchangeable lenses and you only have to carry the one compact camera.
So applying this to Nikon, if for instance I shoot with the Z 400mm f4.5 that lens is super sharp both on its own and with either a 1.4 or 2x tc. When I shoot for instance at 540mm I still have the ability to significantly crop and get a keeper. By contrast if I shot that image with one of the zooms, if i could not fill the frame I would not have much ability to crop further.
With a zoom if you can zoom in to get the shot full frame then you would be happy with the image quality. But if you need more reach it will not be there for you with a zoom.
Teleconverters do not work as well on some of these zooms (notable exception, the 70-200mm f2.8). This means if you use a teleconverter you may not be able to crop hardly at all if you need further reach.
The other issue is aperture. Often these high IQ primes have a wider maximum aperture. This means you can shoot in lower light and create better background effects. By contrast with some of the zooms you may have to stop down a few stops to get maximum sharpness which further limits your ability to control backgrounds.
What is true about all lenses is that if you have to add a tc your maximum aperture goes down. This pm effect of a TC is worse with lenses that are already much narrower.
The other issue is the decision whether to crop is made in the viewfinder when working a zoom. By contrast, with a high IQ prime I can examine the image at my leisure in post.
When I examine a series of images taken by a high IQ prime in post on a high resolution computer screen, I often have discovered keepers that were not obvious to me when the image was shot. It is kind of magic when it works that way.
Thanks folks but I was asking about hands on, real world experience with this comb which I got from Jerry Watson.
Almost same here - But I'm sure about the 2.0X TC - and sold it for a loss to get rid of it. I like the 1.4 just fine.
Depends on your needs. Sure…it does lose a little IQ with the 2x over bare and there's the 2 stop loss of light…but with today's noise reduction and sharpening software you can improve shots a lot. And while comparing IQ and sharpness and everything else at Steve's recommended 2:1 in LR on a good monitor you will see some minor differences…it depends on your output medium. For screen or reasonably sized prints the pixels are gonna be downsampled anyway and a lot of those 2:1 difference get downsampled away.
While using the 2x on my 100-400 wouldn't be my first choice if I had my 600PF and the 1.4…if the light is reasonably decent then I would use the former if that's what I had that time out. Those 2 lenses are generally my first choices for wildlife outings here in FL over my 400/4.5 and I take the TCs along as well…but I'll admit the 2x doesn't get used much, I have zero issues using the 1.4 on either lens but the 2x only comes out if I just can't get any closer. How that lens carry will vary when my 180-600 eventually shows up I can't tell you…but it might (along with the 1.4x) become the single lens carry for let's call it less one time outings like to DeSoto or Corkscrew if I wanted a lighter kit that day.
I've seen lots of complaints about the 2x and also lots of people that like theirs…maybe it's an individual specimen of the 2x thing or maybe some people are more interested in final output as opposed to pixel peeping or only put their shots on the blog or whatever. I'm not interested in the size and weight of either the 800PF or any of the exotic lenses though…as an amateur and old guy that's just too much weight to carry and the exotics don't meet my bang for the buck test.
nmerc_photos
Well-known member
I wouldn't use the 2x on the 100-400 unless it was an absolute last ditch effort.
I don't find the 100-400 IQ to be amazing without a TC. With the 1.4x it gets noticeably worse, and with the 2x it's basically not worth using in my mind. At that point you're looking for "proof of life" shots, rather than anything you'd be happy to share with others - or print out.
I'd always prefer to get closer to the subject, or crop from 45MP down to like 5MP if needed. If you need to get closer, crop, and add a 2x - you're probably just not getting that picture (not a good one anyways), and would be better suited getting a lens intended for the situation you're in.
And this is just talking about image quality, not making any mention of the fact that you'll be shooting at f9 - f11. your ISO will likely be high, which compounds the reduced IQ.
This was from my personal testing with the lens. In the end, I think I'm opting to go with the 180-600 which offers better IQ from about 300mm - 840mm.
I don't find the 100-400 IQ to be amazing without a TC. With the 1.4x it gets noticeably worse, and with the 2x it's basically not worth using in my mind. At that point you're looking for "proof of life" shots, rather than anything you'd be happy to share with others - or print out.
I'd always prefer to get closer to the subject, or crop from 45MP down to like 5MP if needed. If you need to get closer, crop, and add a 2x - you're probably just not getting that picture (not a good one anyways), and would be better suited getting a lens intended for the situation you're in.
And this is just talking about image quality, not making any mention of the fact that you'll be shooting at f9 - f11. your ISO will likely be high, which compounds the reduced IQ.
This was from my personal testing with the lens. In the end, I think I'm opting to go with the 180-600 which offers better IQ from about 300mm - 840mm.
Last edited:
Well, not a lot of wildlife this time of the year here. I took a couple of shots today with the combination. I ran LR denoise and that was all. As you can see the images are soft but focused.
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.
Thanks.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
A recent backyard photo, handheld on the Z8 with the 100-400S on the 2xTC at iso 9000.
jhallettbc
Well-known member
That's been my experience
Without the slightest hesitation, my hands on experience is the 100-400 with the 1.4 TC is extremely useful where there is no easily comparable alternative.
Primary examples are based around the 100-400 at 400mm covering a 4 inch wide subject at 2 feet 6 inches focus distance, or under 3 inches wide with the 1.4 TC - useful for insects that can take several minutes to approach close with the 105 S macro.
When small birds are close the 7 foot 10 inch MFD of the 180-600 at 600mm can be an issue.
On image quality; A2 print quality is not difficult with the 100-400 and 1.4 TC.
Some generally bigger, heavier and more expensive lenses and lens combinations can do better - but do you always welcome the increased size, weight and price - or need to print as big as a door?
Using the 2x I find a challenge not so much for a modest drop in image quality as finding a subject at 800mm angle of view when hand holding.
There is also some loss of AF ability with an f11 widest aperture combination.
Primary examples are based around the 100-400 at 400mm covering a 4 inch wide subject at 2 feet 6 inches focus distance, or under 3 inches wide with the 1.4 TC - useful for insects that can take several minutes to approach close with the 105 S macro.
When small birds are close the 7 foot 10 inch MFD of the 180-600 at 600mm can be an issue.
On image quality; A2 print quality is not difficult with the 100-400 and 1.4 TC.
Some generally bigger, heavier and more expensive lenses and lens combinations can do better - but do you always welcome the increased size, weight and price - or need to print as big as a door?
Using the 2x I find a challenge not so much for a modest drop in image quality as finding a subject at 800mm angle of view when hand holding.
There is also some loss of AF ability with an f11 widest aperture combination.
I saw this thread and thought I would give my input as to the setup you mention of the Z100-400 with 2.0 teleconverter. I have had some great results and some good. It's much better than a former setup of Sigma 150-600 & 1.5 converter. The first one was a cloudy , wet , cold day with not the best light.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Lakeman
Active member
This is from an older discussion which has some Z 100-400 with TC2.0. https://bcgforums.com/threads/z-teleconverter-2-0.17256/#post-192047
I have gotten good photos with the 100-400mm lens with 2x teleconverter. On long walks, looking for any interesting animals, the lightness and versatility of the zoom lens is a great advantage for me. Other reviewers have noted that the 2x doesn't work well with some lens but is a good match for the 100-400.
jhallettbc
Well-known member
Wow. That is very impressive. I think I'll see if I can rent one and look at my results.
thraxisp
New member
I have the Z100-400mm and the 2.0xTC. As mentioned above, it is usually good for sharpness and AF. It takes some patience sometimes.
I have a Z6ii body, and this combination really doesn't work well. I discussed this with a Nikon rep, and he said that this body really doesn't auto-focus well below f/8, so the combination is hit and miss. This isn't the case with the Z8. AF works well, unless there is thermal interference, or as I noted the other day, falling snow.
Here is an example:
I have a Z6ii body, and this combination really doesn't work well. I discussed this with a Nikon rep, and he said that this body really doesn't auto-focus well below f/8, so the combination is hit and miss. This isn't the case with the Z8. AF works well, unless there is thermal interference, or as I noted the other day, falling snow.
Here is an example:
Attachments
wassa1957
Active member
I found the 2x lost me a shot of an osprey fishing as I couldn't get focus but for a stationary object. I'll still use the z 180-600 instead. Steves's detailed report on comparisons of z lenses was enough for me
apakett
Member
I have the 100-400mm lens and purchased the 1.4 TC. I ran some extensive tests comparing the lens both with and without the TC on a Z7. In all instances the bare lens proved slightly sharper. Results would be different on the Z6 or Z5.
Flipping the camera to DX mode (1.5x) is a lot faster than adding a TC. I returned the teleconverter.
There is one instance where the TC is better. If you can maintain base ISO (reducing exposure time one stop to make up for the TC’s aperture loss) with the TC you gain one stop of dynamic range.
Flipping the camera to DX mode (1.5x) is a lot faster than adding a TC. I returned the teleconverter.
There is one instance where the TC is better. If you can maintain base ISO (reducing exposure time one stop to make up for the TC’s aperture loss) with the TC you gain one stop of dynamic range.
Remember that changing to DX mode is cropping the photos.