Nikon Z 400 mm f/2:8S external TC 1.4 or 2X?

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).

Activert

Activert

Well-known member
Supporting Member
Marketplace
Member's gallery
Hi, I was told that my Z400mm TC f/2.8 will arrive soon ( How soon? Still don‘t know). I want to get all the accessories I need for this lenses specially there is still shortage with some products
I want to buy one TC that I will use mainly with this lens, I will also use the TC from time to time with my Z 70-200mm F/2.8S when I need to need more than 200mm.
I will use this lens mainly with and without its internal TC ( up to almost 600 mm). But from time to time I might need an extra reach for up to 800mm. For the 800 mm reach, here are my questions for those who own this lens and those who are thinking about getting it. I also appreciate any advice from everyone in this forum:
Scenario 1 : double TC 1.4, one internal and one external.
Scenario 2 : Only one External TC 2X and no internal one.

Which Scenario is the best one to get sharp photo and fast focus.

Thank so much for your help, It is very appreciated. Your advice has helped me a lot in all my post.
 
Member's gallery
cchuck said:

Nikon 400mm f/2.8 S TC VR Lens Review | Thom Hogan

Review of the Nikon (Nikkor) 400mm f/2.8 S TC VR lens for the Z mount
www.zsystemuser.com

Above link has info regarding your questions. I don't own the lens.
Click to expand...
Thank you so much! I read this article yesterday, but it did not compare the quality of the image with two times 1.4 or and 2X TC to get the 800 mm .
I appreciate your reply !
 
Member's gallery
Just wondering if yours is an NPS order. I’ve been waiting for my Z400 TC for quite a while (not NPS). I’m third on the list at my local store and the last time I checked, a few weeks ago, they had not received any.
 
Member's gallery
Bru said:
Just wondering if yours is an NPS order. I’ve been waiting for my Z400 TC for quite a while (not NPS). I’m third on the list at my local store and the last time I checked, a few weeks ago, they had not received any.
Click to expand...
Yes I am NPS platinum and I was told that I will get it soon, but still don’t have an arrival date.
at my dealer, I am the only one who ordered it. That give chance to get it once they receive any .
 
Member's gallery
If I was buying this lens I'd buy the 1.4TC and not the 2.0TC. The true value in the 400/2.8 is the built-in TC. If you use the 1.4TC you can still flip the 1.4 in and out and go from 560 to 784. If you use a 2x then you would be switching from 800 to 1120 and I don't think that would be very useful. I doubt I'd be happy with the 1120mm performance.

There have been threads (can't remember if on here or on FM) where people have posted comparisons. There doesn't seem to be much to choose between IQ so I'd go for the ability to do 560/784 instant switching.
 
Member's gallery
arbitrage said:
If I was buying this lens I'd buy the 1.4TC and not the 2.0TC. The true value in the 400/2.8 is the built-in TC. If you use the 1.4TC you can still flip the 1.4 in and out and go from 560 to 784. If you use a 2x then you would be switching from 800 to 1120 and I don't think that would be very useful. I doubt I'd be happy with the 1120mm performance.

There have been threads (can't remember if on here or on FM) where people have posted comparisons. There doesn't seem to be much to choose between IQ so I'd go for the ability to do 560/784 instant switching.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your advice! It makes a lot of sense!
 
Member's gallery
You can see test shots with both options by following this LINK -- my view is the ZTC14 is always better than the ZTC20. AND how often do you want to or need to shoot at 1180mm f/8.0.


Lightroom (20220512 092812 _Z904248 NIKON Z9 NIKKOR Z 400mm f-2.8 TC VR S 400mm ISO100 ¹⁄₅₀₀ s...jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

View attachment 46946
Lightroom (20220430 - 103246 - _Z903626 - NIKKOR Z 400mm f-2.8 TC VR S -¹⁄₂₀₀₀ sec at ƒ - 2.8 ...jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
Member's gallery
I would get the 1.4TC!! If you use a 2X you get 800, with the 1.4 you get 560 or 784 (or whatever it is) and just remove the 1.4 and you have your 400. Smaller to carry a 1.4 as well! I've had it since April and have only used the TC2.0X once to try it!

Oh and congratulations you're gonna LOVE it!
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
Prior to receiving my 400 in April I spent a bunch of time trying to figure out the 1.4TC vs 2.0TC question as well. (I was coming from F-mount for my wildlife work). At the time the consensus was that the 2X was the slightly cleaner way to get to ~800mm. Based on that I purchased the 2X. Shortly after I got the 400, I saw the data from @ajm057. Based on what I've seen in the various reviews/photos I'd say that the difference between the recommendations is probably down to sample variation. So if your only goal is to get to ~800mm then you really can't go wrong. I can guarantee that the 400+2X is plenty sharp (at least w/my samples.)

So if you accept the theory that you can't go wrong with either TC, then it comes down to what @arbitrage brings up. If you think you will be working in the 400mm to ~800mm range, then definitely go with the 1.4X. I have used the 400+2X combo at 1120mm, but not that often, so in retrospect I probably should have gotten the 1.4X - oh well - next purchase I guess.

By the way, at 1120mm, the results are not bad. Fifteen years ago I would have said they were perfectly sharp, but everything has improved. I'd say the results are "acceptable" but not amazing - definitely good enough for sales.
 
Member's gallery
gdecamp said:
I would get the 1.4TC!! If you use a 2X you get 800, with the 1.4 you get 560 or 784 (or whatever it is) and just remove the 1.4 and you have your 400. Smaller to carry a 1.4 as well! I've had it since April and have only used the TC2.0X once to try it!

Oh and congratulations you're gonna LOVE it!
Click to expand...
Thank you so much! I appreciate your advice l
dupcak said:
Prior to receiving my 400 in April I spent a bunch of time trying to figure out the 1.4TC vs 2.0TC question as well. (I was coming from F-mount for my wildlife work). At the time the consensus was that the 2X was the slightly cleaner way to get to ~800mm. Based on that I purchased the 2X. Shortly after I got the 400, I saw the data from @ajm057. Based on what I've seen in the various reviews/photos I'd say that the difference between the recommendations is probably down to sample variation. So if your only goal is to get to ~800mm then you really can't go wrong. I can guarantee that the 400+2X is plenty sharp (at least w/my samples.)

So if you accept the theory that you can't go wrong with either TC, then it comes down to what @arbitrage brings up. If you think you will be working in the 400mm to ~800mm range, then definitely go with the 1.4X. I have used the 400+2X combo at 1120mm, but not that often, so in retrospect I probably should have gotten the 1.4X - oh well - next purchase I guess.

By the way, at 1120mm, the results are not bad. Fifteen years ago I would have said they were perfectly sharp, but everything has improved. I'd say the results are "acceptable" but not amazing - definitely good enough for sales.
Click to expand...
thank you so much for all the good info. I appreciated a lot
 
Member's gallery
After all your advice I bought today the TC 1.4 at my dealer and it was the only one left. I was lucky!
Thanks for everyone who share his knowledge and his opinion and replied to me. Your advice helped me a lot. I am so grateful for this forum. Everyone is very generous of his time and his share of info.
 
Member's gallery
Activert said:
Hi, I was told that my Z400mm TC f/2.8 will arrive soon ( How soon? Still don‘t know). I want to get all the accessories I need for this lenses specially there is still shortage with some products
I want to buy one TC that I will use mainly with this lens, I will also use the TC from time to time with my Z 70-200mm F/2.8S when I need to need more than 200mm.
I will use this lens mainly with and without its internal TC ( up to almost 600 mm). But from time to time I might need an extra reach for up to 800mm. For the 800 mm reach, here are my questions for those who own this lens and those who are thinking about getting it. I also appreciate any advice from everyone in this forum:
Scenario 1 : double TC 1.4, one internal and one external.
Scenario 2 : Only one External TC 2X and no internal one.

Which Scenario is the best one to get sharp photo and fast focus.

Thank so much for your help, It is very appreciated. Your advice has helped me a lot in all my post.
Click to expand...
The 400mm f2.8 Z teleconverter works differently to most TCs - it fits between the elements and is really well optimized.
I've only used it and its an impressive lens albeit a bit heavy like my F version.
If adding another Tc to it then i'd only consider the 1.4x - it would be sacrilege to spoil it with the 2x...🦘
 
Member's gallery
Roy said:
The 400mm f2.8 Z teleconverter works differently to most TCs - it fits between the elements and is really well optimized.
I've only used it and its an impressive lens albeit a bit heavy like my F version.
If adding another Tc to it then i'd only consider the 1.4x - it would be sacrilege to spoil it with the 2x...🦘
Click to expand...
You are absolutely right. Thank you so much. I bought the TC 1.4 if and when I need more reach .
 
  • Like
Reactions: Roy
Member's gallery
I have the 70-200 and the 400 f2.8. The 1,4 tele is a great addition to the 70-200. I keep the 1.4 on the 70-200 most of the time. On the other hand my 400 f2.8 produces excellent images using the 2X teleconverted both with and without the internal 1.4 teleconverter engaged! I personally think you need both teleconverters. I was dumbfounded at the sharpness I can get from the 400mm lens with a 2X teleconverter. With both teleconverter used you can cover 100mm all the way to 1180 (400 X 1.4 X 2 ) if necessary. Amazing tools!
 
Member's gallery
wsr said:
I have the 70-200 and the 400 f2.8. The 1,4 tele is a great addition to the 70-200. I keep the 1.4 on the 70-200 most of the time. On the other hand my 400 f2.8 produces excellent images using the 2X teleconverted both with and without the internal 1.4 teleconverter engaged! I personally think you need both teleconverters. I was dumbfounded at the sharpness I can get from the 400mm lens with a 2X teleconverter. With both teleconverter used you can cover 100mm all the way to 1180 (400 X 1.4 X 2 ) if necessary. Amazing tools!
Click to expand...
Thank you for your comments., I appreciate them a lot
 
Member's gallery
Hello,
I bought this lens about a month ago and have been using it quite a lot. I can share some "real" pictures, as opposed to test shots (not a dig @agrumpyoldsod ... I don't have the space or patience for charts). I don't do analytical tests because there are too many controlled variables (normally a good thing) that can make an analytical test make images look better than they actually are. For me, the real test is how the lens plus converters work in the field under both good and horrid light.
At the time of my purchase, I had the 1.4x because I had been using the 400 f4.5 and 800PF. The 2x resulted in the loss of too much light, so I passed on it.
After my trip to Bosque del Apache, I reached out to Brad Hill, as we have had a friendly relationship since I traveled with him in 2017. He, unequivocally stated that in his testing the 400 f2.8S w/ 2x would produce a marginally sharper image than stacking 1.4x converters (internal + external). He reasoned that there were fewer glass elements in the 2x than the combination of both 1.4x converters... this made sense to me. He also wrote up his full analysis of converters here: http://www.naturalart.ca/artist/cameragear2.html#anchor_lenses_current
Scroll down to the section Titled: "K. Nikkor Z 400mm f2.8 TC VR S"
However... the next day he reached out to me to ask if I was using DxO Pure Raw III... my answer was no. He then wrote to explain, that if I wasn't... I should, AND... if I used DxO Raw III, the difference between the 400 + 2X vs 400 + stacked 1.4x disappears... 100%.
Because I want to easily slot in or out the 1.4x and have a faster aperture, I've decided to stick with my current set up. To be honest, I've never met a 2x converter that I've liked... but I have used some very good 1.4x converters.
Oh... and one more thing... regarding Thom Hogan v Brad Hill... I see Brad Hill more in line with Steve Perry. Both are serious wildlife photographers that shoot under trying circumstances more often than not. Gear testing is secondary to their practice as shooters, while high quality image production is primary. For "real use" photography, the opinions and thoughts of Steve and Brad weigh higher in my calculus than does Thom.
cheers,
bruce
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
I have the 400/2.8 TC and agree with wsr’s comments. The 400 is excellent with both the 1.4 and 2.0 TC’s. Brad Hill has comments in his blog. Scroll down to the sections on 600 and 800mm sharpness.

Natural Art Images: Voice: Brad Hill Blog

The Blog of Brad Hill, wildlife photographer. Cameras, lenses, camera gear, field tests, conservation, photo tours, and other bits of questionable wisdom from a young-at-heart nature photographer!
www.naturalart.ca www.naturalart.ca
 
Member's gallery
BLev65 said:
Hello,
I bought this lens about a month ago and have been using it quite a lot. I can share some "real" pictures, as opposed to test shots (not a dig @agrumpyoldsod ... I don't have the space or patience for charts). I don't do analytical tests because there are too many controlled variables (normally a good thing) that can make an analytical test make images look better than they actually are. For me, the real test is how the lens plus converters work in the field under both good and horrid light.
At the time of my purchase, I had the 1.4x because I had been using the 400 f4.5 and 800PF. The 2x resulted in the loss of too much light, so I passed on it.
After my trip to Bosque del Apache, I reached out to Brad Hill, as we have had a friendly relationship since I traveled with him in 2017. He, unequivocally stated that in his testing the 400 f2.8S w/ 2x would produce a marginally sharper image than stacking 1.4x converters (internal + external). He reasoned that there were fewer glass elements in the 2x than the combination of both 1.4x converters... this made sense to me. He also wrote up his full analysis of converters here: http://www.naturalart.ca/artist/cameragear2.html#anchor_lenses_current
Scroll down to the section Titled: "K. Nikkor Z 400mm f2.8 TC VR S"
However... the next day he reached out to me to ask if I was using DxO Pure Raw III... my answer was no. He then wrote to explain, that if I wasn't... I should, AND... if I used DxO Raw III, the difference between the 400 + 2X vs 400 + stacked 1.4x disappears... 100%.
Because I want to easily slot in or out the 1.4x and have a faster aperture, I've decided to stick with my current set up. To be honest, I've never met a 2x converter that I've liked... but I have used some very good 1.4x converters.
Oh... and one more thing... regarding Thom Hogan v Brad Hill... I see Brad Hill more in line with Steve Perry. Both are serious wildlife photographers that shoot under trying circumstances more often than not. Gear testing is secondary to their practice as shooters, while high quality image production is primary. For "real use" photography, the opinions and thoughts of Steve and Brad weigh higher in my calculus than does Thom.
cheers,
bruce
Click to expand...
I totally agree with you Bruce. The best test for any photography gear is in the field. It is where we use them and where we don’t have a controlled environnement.
 
Member's gallery
interesting to see that how Hogan wrote If you didn't catch that: the only external teleconverter I would tend to use with this lens is the 2x. That gives you 400mm, 560mm, 800mm, and 1120mm options.
He, Thomas Hogan, didn't explain why (or I missed it), but Bruce's post (#22) gives Brad Hill's reason. That doesn't explain why the reviews always say the 1.4 is better than the 2.0

While I do have only the 2x and I'm perfectly happy with it.
In any event, for me it's moot - I'd never buy this lens as my use case couldn't justify it, even if I did win the lottery ! ;)🤞
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top