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).

Member's gallery
Patrick M said:
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 ! ;)🤞
Click to expand...
I hope you will win …..and change your mind :D
 
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...
Bruce…I agree, the 2.0 is in my bag but it's the least preferred option most of the time…I would always try and get closer after taking some insurance shots with the 2.0…but sometimes you just can't get any closer…and the reason to get closer is to cut down on heat haze or fog haze or whatever. There's always cropping and DX mode but there are just too many variables IMO to definitely state that the second 1.4 or just the 2.0 or cropping would be better…I think it's all situation and needs dependent. For me…while I would rather get closer I've found that the 2.0 works just fine on my 400/4.5 and 600PF…art also works just fine on the 100-400 but that's a less sharp lens anyway so to be expected. However…and I've said this before…the differences that one can or cannot see at 1:1 or 2:1 largely disappear if you're going to downsample the images for the screen output anyway…there still are some slight differences to be seen at 1024 wide but to my eyes they are more "different a little" than "objectively better or worse"…and unless you're looking at them side by side the differences don't get noticed anyway…and even side by side if one doesn't know which is which the difference between the 1.4, 2.0, and bare lens aren't sufficient at screen output resolution to reliably pick which is which. Believe me…I tried and worked to get the size of the subject the same in all the frames so that apparent size wasn't a clue…and as I said there are differences zoomed in but nobody really looks at images zoomed in when output…they're on a screen or printed…so does it really matter if they're better zoomed in?
 
Member's gallery
Revisiting this thread as I have recently purchased the z 400 f2.8 TC VR S and own the 1.4x TC.
I have read recently online reviews of the Z 400 f2.8 that suggest the TC 2x is better than the TC 1.4x.
It's been some time since this initial post so I'm curious if the TC1.4x is equal / better in IQ in use in the field than the TC 2x.
Many thanks for any information or recent reviews
 
Member's gallery
Gordan,
For what it's worth, I am still stacking 1.4x converters when I need to get out to 800mm. 90% of my shooting is with the 400 f2.8TC w/ or w/out the built in converter. However, when I know I will be shooting small subjects or bigger ones at a distance, I will add the external 1.4x. As such, I begin at 560mm f/4 and use the internal converter to get to 780 +/-. The stacked converters definitely impact AF acquisition speed, but once it locks on, the AFC works as it should. To optimize image quality with the stacked converters, I run the NEF files through DxO pure Raw.

regards,
bruce
 
Member's gallery
BLev65 said:
Gordan,
For what it's worth, I am still stacking 1.4x converters when I need to get out to 800mm. 90% of my shooting is with the 400 f2.8TC w/ or w/out the built in converter. However, when I know I will be shooting small subjects or bigger ones at a distance, I will add the external 1.4x. As such, I begin at 560mm f/4 and use the internal converter to get to 780 +/-. The stacked converters definitely impact AF acquisition speed, but once it locks on, the AFC works as it should. To optimize image quality with the stacked converters, I run the NEF files through DxO pure Raw.

regards,
bruce
Click to expand...
Thanks Bruce
As luck would have it the Wimberley MH100 arrived this afternoon so a good opportunity to test it out with the Z TC1.4x on the Z 400 f2.8 TC VR S with the internal TC engaged.
Quite happy with this one...
Z9_48340-1.4xTC.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
flashpixx said:
Revisiting this thread as I have recently purchased the z 400 f2.8 TC VR S and own the 1.4x TC.
I have read recently online reviews of the Z 400 f2.8 that suggest the TC 2x is better than the TC 1.4x.
It's been some time since this initial post so I'm curious if the TC1.4x is equal / better in IQ in use in the field than the TC 2x.
Many thanks for any information or recent reviews
Click to expand...
Don’t have that lens but I do have both TCs…and there is a difference in sharpness when pixel peeping between the two TCs with my now sold 400/4.5 and the 600PF I replaced it with. The differences are largely gone once the shots are downsampled for output with the exception of any DoF differences and that’s shot dependent. Both provide plenty good enough output…although the longer distance that might necessitate the 2.0 instead of the 1.4 also introduces potential situational heat haze. I will use the 2.0 if needed…but try to get closer and use the 1.4 or bare if possible. Again…situation may preclude that so then it becomes a question of take the shot or pass…and that depends of course on subject, area, etc. My normal choice there is take the shot because bit space is cheap and figure out later whether the shot becomes an environmental shot, medium range portrait, a no further processing shot, or a rejected in LrC shot.

Regarding the lens…I’ve seen comments overall generally favoring stacking the 1.4s over the use of only the external 2.0…but realistically any differences are going to be small and mostly only seen when pixel peeping from what I’ve generally seen in comments.
 
Member's gallery
I’m headed to British Columbia for a trip focused on spirit bears. Hope we see some. There may also be wolves, black and brown bears, various marine mammals and birds.

I’m taking a Z 400 mm TC as my main lens. (Will also bring the Z 100-400 mm, Z 24-120 mm and Plena.) I will bring the two Z external TCs.

Last week, I took the Z 400 mm TC and the two external TCs on a couple of trips to local zoos to test combinations. In my own neighborhood, I’d get mostly squirrels, songbirds and my uncooperative dog (who wants to be petted rather than pose).

If you want 560 mm f4, it seems to me that using the internal TC alone or using an external 1.4x TC (without engaging the internal TC) are pretty much the same in image quality. I would be equally happy with either combination.

If you want 800 mm or 784 mm f5.6, it’s a little more complicated. With my copies (and there could be copy variance), I’d say using the 2x TC (800 mm f5.6) is a bit better than using the external 1.4x TC and the internal 1.4x tC (784 mm f5.6). But I would still say that using both the 1.4x TCs is very usable. And the ability to toggle between 560 mm f4 and 784 f5.6 is likely in many cases to be more useful than being at 800 mm f5.6 with the option to toggle to 1120 f8. (I do find 1120 mm in this case to be useable if you need it and atmospheric conditions are decent, but the Z 800 mm PF plus the 1.4x TC seems to me to be a better way to get to 1120 mm, at f9. But at times it is hard to bring both the Z 400 mm TC and the Z 800 mm PF.)

As Bruce pointed out and Brad Hill (who is leading the BC trip I am about to go on) has said, using the DxO optics modules with PureRaw (I have version 4, the current version) or PhotoLab Elite (the current version is 7 and does not have the latest noise reduction algorithm) can improve output noticeably. With PureRaw applied and the relevant optics module installed, I think there is little or no difference between using the 2x TC or stacking the internal 1.4x TC and an external 1.4x TC. I also think the DxO optics modules improve the results at 560 mm f4, with either the internal TC or an external 1.4x TC. And DxO’s noise reduction is quite good, although there are other good alternatives too.
 
Member's gallery
Previously I posted in this thread that I bought the 2X based on a review which said it was sharper at 800mm than the stacked 1.4's. Since that point though I've purchased a 1.4X TC and I honestly haven't used the 2X TC since then. Not that the quality is that much different (I can't really tell the difference in real life shots), but because the flexibility and range of the 1.4X stacked or non-stacked is what I need. If I really needed to go between ~800mm and ~1200mm, I would have gone with the 600/4 TC and a 1.4X. As it stands now, most of my shots are 400mm-560mm with some at 780mm. (Unless I punish myself and try to take photos of small birds :cool: )
 
Member's gallery
I owned the 400TC for about a year before swapping to the 600TC.

In my experience, I found the internal TC a bit better than the external 1.4x, and I found the 2x a bit better than stacking 1.4x. It was never enough that you could "tell" just by looking at a single image, but if you had comparisons side by side it was always a clear difference.

Even though I knew in my head what reality was, it always "felt" bad to use the external 1.4x, so I often didn't. I would choose between 400/560 or 800/1120 as needed.

Since 600/840 ended up being my most used lengths, I opted for the 600 instead.

Nowadays I pretty much only use my 2x TC, and just leave the 1.4x at home.
 
Member's gallery
Not to get into a psing match over this, I think we can get a bit carried away about sharpness. If I spent more than 30% of my time at 784-800mm, I'd repurchase the 800PF or consider the 600mm f4TC. Since I shoot most of my work between 400-560mm and employ DX crop to check for even tighter framing, I'm good with using the extra TC when I need to get longer.
For some, it's all about getting the sharpest possible optics, others are all about versatility, and some exist on an spectrum between the two. I lean more towards versatility and "packability" than optical supremacy. Were I not to own the 400 f2.8TC, I'd have kept my 400 f4.5 and use the 180-600 to maintain versatility. As it is, I now use a 100-400, 400TC, and 180-600... the latter of which is rarely used.

I am attaching 3 picture that demonstrate that the stacked 1.4x converters are more than decent and are useable if you chose to go with the 400TC instead of the 600TC.
cheers,
bruce
3Great Horned Owls 3 Owlets-BJL_0190-NEF_DxO_DeepPRIMEXD.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
3Annas Hummingbird-BJL_1466-NEF_DxO_DeepPRIMEXD.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Pigeon GuillemotBJL_0290-NEF_DxO_DeepPRIMEXD-Edit.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
Thank everyone for taking the time to respond, Bruce for the images - excellent!
I wrote to Brad Hill as I couldnt find his original review on his web page, he responded:

Hi Gordon,

In my own testing I found the Z TC 2.0 plus Z 400mm f2.8S was slightly sharper than using the two 1.4x TC combo. While the differences in sharpness were quite small, they were extremely consistent over all apertures and test distances. I suspect you read about the opposite results elsewhere (as you thought might be possible).

One other point might be worth making: I have performed this test twice - once with my own Z 400mm f2.8 and one Nikon sent me for testing purposes. The results were identical (as described above).

Cheers…

Brad
_

Brad Hill - iPad Pro

Natural Art Images

www.naturalart.ca
Click to expand...
 
Member's gallery
I have the 400 TC 2.8 and both teleconverters. I recently added a Z8 as a back-up for my Z9. I decided to revisit this issue with both cameras. I have fewer than 10 images shot at 1120 mm. none of them are outstanding. I didn't bother to evaluate this any further. 800 mm with the TC 20 was different thaan the stacked TCs at 784 mm. Center and mid frame sharpness was still very good in both cases. The stacked TC case was not quite as sharp in the corners but I had to pixels peep at 200% on a UHD monitor to even see the difference. I could not measure any difference in achieving focus but I felt the TC 20 combination was faster by a very small margin. I would be happy using either combination. I take both TCs on destination trips rather than carry a 800 mm lens. As far as using either an internal or external TC to get 560 mm at f/4, the results were so close that I could barely see any difference at 100% views. So my choice for a session dependson expected distance. For birds or when I expect to be at longer distances from subjects, I install the TC 14 and have 560 mm @ f/4 and ability to flip to 784 mm at f/5.6. For bears, deer, elk sea lions or larger subjects where I might be too close to get the framing I want, I use the bare 400 TC 2.8 and have the ability to flip to 560 mm at f/4. I rarely use the TC20. I feel good about everything from 400 to 784 mm. My concern is the 250 to 350 mm range. 70-200 mm with TC20 is not sharp enough for me. I owned the 100-400 but the aperture limited low light shooting significantly. My interim fix is an adapted 300 mm PF F mount. I would love to have a Z mount zoom in this range at f/4 or a Z mount 300 f/4. It does not look promisingg in the near future.
 
Member's gallery
I have been using my 4002.8 TC with both the 1.4 and 2.0 external converters for about 1.5 years now and I feel the 2X TC at 800mm is slightly better than stacking the internal and external 1.4TCs, both in terms of the AF consistency and optical performance. The difference is not significant but if i know i will need 800mm, i prefer the 2.0 for its consistency. I was in Kenya for about 10 days beginning september and only carried my 2X TC. In my case, i more or less know before going on a trip if i need 400mm/560mm or 800mm and so it is an easy choice. Anyone that wants the 560 vs 784 should consider stacking the 1.4TCs. In fact they must consider the 600 TC lens instead of the 400.

I was using my lens at either 400mm/2.8 or 560mm/f4 for about 90% of the time but i did carry my 2X TC to get tight portraits and i used the 2X at 800mm as well as stacked with the internal TC at 1120mm. I have seen some of them mentioning they don’t like the performance at 1120mm but in my case, I wouldn’t mind using it when there are cooperative subjects and very good light and I am very happy with the optical performance when you stop it down to F10/11. Attaching a couple of images shot at 1120mm.

ISO 900, F11, 1/800 sec, shot at 1120mm

Untitled by Ganesh B, on Flickr

ISO 800, F11, 1/640 sec, shot at 1120mm

Untitled by Ganesh B, on Flickr
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top