Nikon Z9 with FTZii, 500mm f5.6 PF and TC 1.4iii X Acceptable results?

[KP Birder]

I’m posting 3 photos scaled down to 1 MB in order to show my results using the Nikon Z9 in DX mode with a 500mm PF and TC1.4iii. Image 1 is full frame from the camera, image 2 is cropped from the full frame, and image 3 is a slight touch up with Topaz DeNoise, sharpening and removing noise. I am happy with the results…what do others think? (And normally I would do a few more tweaks to the final image which I have not done here.)

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.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[EricBowles]

That looks good. I found the 500 PF and 1.4 TC worked well.

 

[KP Birder]

That looks good. I found the 500 PF and 1.4 TC worked well.

Thanks, Eric! I am toying with the idea of going to the 400mm f/4.5 Z and TC, but I don’t know if I can give up the extra reach the 500mm gives me. I would appreciate having a little less weight, though.

 

[Charles Loy]

Nice images. I use the 500 PF and 1.4 TC set too, satisfied.

 

[KP Birder]

Nice images. I use the 500 PF and 1.4 TC set too, satisfied.

Thank you, Charles. Yes, the combo works way better on the Z9 than my DSLRs.

 

[MotoPixel]

I've had a 500pf and TC14E III for many years and what you've shared here seems about what you can expect from that combo when used with a Z9, D850 or D500, which is what my experience is based on. If you're happy with it for your intended usage, that's what matters.

The above being said, going with the 400 and a TC1.4 or TC2, I'd rather have the 500pf for a shot like the one you shared. A small subject filling 25% of the frame when in DX mode with a TC is marginal at best, with or without a TC, compared to filling the frame and not having to crop in post. Again, it comes back to what YOUR expectations are and what the intended need is. If you're going for bird ID or sharing on social media, it's fine...if you want to print the image at anything much beyond 5x7, not so much. Again, what works for you. I have a Z 100-400 zoom and the TC1.4 for it, but I'm not about to give up my 500pf and TC1.4 until I get something longer and for now, that's an open question.

Hope that perspective is useful to you...

Cheers!

 

[KP Birder]

I've had a 500pf and TC14E III for many years and what you've shared here seems about what you can expect from that combo when used with a Z9, D850 or D500, which is what my experience is based on. If you're happy with it for your intended usage, that's what matters.

The above being said, going with the 400 and a TC1.4 or TC2, I'd rather have the 500pf for a shot like the one you shared. A small subject filling 25% of the frame when in DX mode with a TC is marginal at best, with or without a TC, compared to filling the frame and not having to crop in post. Again, it comes back to what YOUR expectations are and what the intended need is. If you're going for bird ID or sharing on social media, it's fine...if you want to print the image at anything much beyond 5x7, not so much. Again, what works for you. I have a Z 100-400 zoom and the TC1.4 for it, but I'm not about to give up my 500pf and TC1.4 until I get something longer and for now, that's an open question.

Hope that perspective is useful to you...

Cheers!

I understand that shooting small birds with this combo is pushing the limits. However, since birds are my thing, sharing on social media as well, but not too into printing, I am happy with this result. Of course I would love an 800mm, but I would find it even heavier than my current setup, so I will stick with this for now. Thanks for weighing in!

 

[Krümelkraft]

I have used the TC14 III with 500PF on the D850 and it is evident that there is more detail compared to an image without TC enlarged to fit 700mm.
So, on a Z9 it should be at least as good.

 

[EricBowles]

Thanks, Eric! I am toying with the idea of going to the 400mm f/4.5 Z and TC, but I don’t know if I can give up the extra reach the 500mm gives me. I would appreciate having a little less weight, though.

For me, the backgrounds of the 500mm PF were a problem. Having a chance to swap the 500mm PF for the 400mm f/4.5 was a very good move because while I gave up reach, I improved backgrounds, I have a faster aperture, and the lens fits in the Z system where I already have the 1.4 TC. My choice for birding is the 400mm f/4.5 with 1.4 TC in my pocket. For bird photography, I carry the 800mm PF. The backgrounds on the 800mm PF are much improved compared to the 500mm PF. So you are giving up a little reach, but with the TC you have good options and better backgrounds in a lighter kit using the 400mm f/4.5. Topping it off, the market value of the 500mm PF is still very good so the trade is not expensive.

 

[KP Birder]

I have used the TC14 III with 500PF on the D850 and it is evident that there is more detail compared to an image without TC enlarged to fit 700mm.
So, on a Z9 it should be at least as good.

Yes, I am finding the combo better on the Z9 than the D850…pleasantly surprised!

 

[KP Birder]

For me, the backgrounds of the 500mm PF were a problem. Having a chance to swap the 500mm PF for the 400mm f/4.5 was a very good move because while I gave up reach, I improved backgrounds, I have a faster aperture, and the lens fits in the Z system where I already have the 1.4 TC. My choice for birding is the 400mm f/4.5 with 1.4 TC in my pocket. For bird photography, I carry the 800mm PF. The backgrounds on the 800mm PF are much improved compared to the 500mm PF. So you are giving up a little reach, but with the TC you have good options and better backgrounds in a lighter kit using the 400mm f/4.5. Topping it off, the market value of the 500mm PF is still very good so the trade is not expensive.

Thanks again for that perspective, Eric. I used to have a 200-500mm and I really hated the backgrounds with it, so the 500mm PF is a big improvement for me that way and the backgrounds don’t bother me too much. Can you give me an idea of the weight of the 400mm f/4.5 plus TC compared to the 500mm PF plus FTZ plus TC, all on the Z9? Would the all Z combo be much lighter?

 

[MotoPixel]

I come up with an approximate 10oz difference between the 500pf+FTZ+TC14E III @ 62 oz vs around 52 oz for the 400+TC14. Those weights are rounded to the nearest full oz and obviously don't include the Z9. For reference, the 200-500mm zoom is around 82 oz alone. I don't know your age or physical condition, but unless we're talking multiple pounds, weight will never be a factor in which lens I buy...I'm 73 and in great health, btw. YMMV

 

[KP Birder]

I come up with an approximate 10oz difference between the 500pf+FTZ+TC14E III @ 62 oz vs around 52 oz for the 400+TC14. Those weights are rounded to the nearest full oz and obviously don't include the Z9. For reference, the 200-500mm zoom is around 82 oz alone. I don't know your age or physical condition, but unless we're talking multiple pounds, weight will never be a factor in which lens I buy...I'm 73 and in great health, btw. YMMV

Thank you! Not as much weight difference as I thought, perhaps a little shorter in length for easier handling, though.

 

[EricBowles]

Thanks again for that perspective, Eric. I used to have a 200-500mm and I really hated the backgrounds with it, so the 500mm PF is a big improvement for me that way and the backgrounds don’t bother me too much. Can you give me an idea of the weight of the 400mm f/4.5 plus TC compared to the 500mm PF plus FTZ plus TC, all on the Z9? Would the all Z combo be much lighter?

The 500mm PF is 1460 grams
The FTZ II is 125 grams
That's a total of 1585 grams

The 400mm f/4.5 is 1245 grams - lighter than the 70-200 f/2.8.

The Z 1.4 TC is 220 grams

The 400mm f/4.5 is 22% lighter than the 500mm PF and FTZ II. Even adding the TC, it is 8% lighter.

If weight is important, there are a lot of ways to reduce weight in other ways. I cut weight by 4 pounds by changing camera bags. Clothing can add as much as 5 pounds, and while you can't leave it at home, you can choose lighter weight clothing.

 

[KP Birder]

The 500mm PF is 1460 grams
The FTZ II is 125 grams
That's a total of 1585 grams

The 400mm f/4.5 is 1245 grams - lighter than the 70-200 f/2.8.

The Z 1.4 TC is 220 grams

The 400mm f/4.5 is 22% lighter than the 500mm PF and FTZ II. Even adding the TC, it is 8% lighter.

If weight is important, there are a lot of ways to reduce weight in other ways. I cut weight by 4 pounds by changing camera bags. Clothing can add as much as 5 pounds, and while you can't leave it at home, you can choose lighter weight clothing.

Thank you for that info, Eric! Seems like a slightly lighter setup with the Z lens and TC. I am hoping the local dealer will get one in so I can try it out. (And by local, I mean 85 miles away, lol, as I live in a rural area.) Unfortunately, I am not as young and strong as I used to be and the equipment weight is important to me.

 

[Anjin San]

Many reports that this is an excellent combo…and in fact might be what I end up doing. My main lens these days is the 100-400 and 1.4TC but that only gets me to 560…so this season I'm evaluating whether I really need something longer and if so what. I think the 800 would be too limiting since most of what I shoot doesn't need that much reach…but for a relatively small price (compared to a new lens)I can get myself a 750/f8…and while it is a stop slower than the 80)PF it's also about $8,000 cheaper and that makes it a much more sensible option. I had made up my mind to sell it back in Oct/Nov…but on further review as the replay ref sez decided to do some serious investigation in the field this season to see if spending the bucks for the 800 or a TC or whatever made sense. So far…not looking like it but then we've only been on a single outing since the holidays and at the Venice Rookery you don't really need that much reach…most of my shots there last Thursday were without the TC and while I had both the 1.4 and 2.0 with me if I didn't really need my normal 1.4 then the 2.0 was definitely overreach.

 

[KP Birder]

Many reports that this is an excellent combo…and in fact might be what I end up doing. My main lens these days is the 100-400 and 1.4TC but that only gets me to 560…so this season I'm evaluating whether I really need something longer and if so what. I think the 800 would be too limiting since most of what I shoot doesn't need that much reach…but for a relatively small price (compared to a new lens)I can get myself a 750/f8…and while it is a stop slower than the 80)PF it's also about $8,000 cheaper and that makes it a much more sensible option. I had made up my mind to sell it back in Oct/Nov…but on further review as the replay ref sez decided to do some serious investigation in the field this season to see if spending the bucks for the 800 or a TC or whatever made sense. So far…not looking like it but then we've only been on a single outing since the holidays and at the Venice Rookery you don't really need that much reach…most of my shots there last Thursday were without the TC and while I had both the 1.4 and 2.0 with me if I didn't really need my normal 1.4 then the 2.0 was definitely overreach.

So you are thinking the 500mm PF and 1.4 TC would give you 750mm for less than the price of an 800mm PF, if I understand you correctly? I think the combo works great, which is what I was illustrating with my photos above.

 

[Anjin San]

So you are thinking the 500mm PF and 1.4 TC would give you 750mm for less than the price of an 800mm PF, if I understand you correctly? I think the combo works great, which is what I was illustrating with my photos above.

Yes…but only because I’ve already got the 500PF…if I didn’t and needed longer the 800PF would be the pick. It’s my last remaining F mount lens and it’s excellent because…well…500PF…but I’m just not using it much right now and as I said I’m using this season to decide r the 100-400 and 1.4 is adequate with occasional use of the 2.0 T since I have both of them is the right answer…or whether keeping the 500PF nd marrying it with the F 1.4 TC is better. The 800 is more weight than the 500/TC combo…but the latter is a lot cheaper since I’ve already got the lens. My output is almost all screen and not print…and to be honest at 1024 wide output size for the screen there is really no discernible difference in quality between the 500, the 100-400, and the latter with either Z TC. Yeah…some DoF differences but for screen use it’s not a matter of better worse, just a little different. And for me…utility, cost, weight, and what carrying xxx does to me because I won’t carry yyy if I have xxx depending on how far the old fart is hiking all factor into the decision. While realistically I could buy a second Z9 as my backup body and could easily have both the 400/2.8, 600/4 and 800PF Z lenses…bang for the buck comes into play for wife and I and spending $14K for the 400/2.8 lens for instance if I would use it a couple times a year due to weight and age of me and hike distance means that maybe it’s not a good choice for a blog output person.

if I didn’t already have the 500 and needed more reach than the 100-400 and TC…the 800 would be a much easier decision.

 

[KP Birder]

Yes…but only because I’ve already got the 500PF…if I didn’t and needed longer the 800PF would be the pick. It’s my last remaining F mount lens and it’s excellent because…well…500PF…but I’m just not using it much right now and as I said I’m using this season to decide r the 100-400 and 1.4 is adequate with occasional use of the 2.0 T since I have both of them is the right answer…or whether keeping the 500PF nd marrying it with the F 1.4 TC is better. The 800 is more weight than the 500/TC combo…but the latter is a lot cheaper since I’ve already got the lens. My output is almost all screen and not print…and to be honest at 1024 wide output size for the screen there is really no discernible difference in quality between the 500, the 100-400, and the latter with either Z TC. Yeah…some DoF differences but for screen use it’s not a matter of better worse, just a little different. And for me…utility, cost, weight, and what carrying xxx does to me because I won’t carry yyy if I have xxx depending on how far the old fart is hiking all factor into the decision. While realistically I could buy a second Z9 as my backup body and could easily have both the 400/2.8, 600/4 and 800PF Z lenses…bang for the buck comes into play for wife and I and spending $14K for the 400/2.8 lens for instance if I would use it a couple times a year due to weight and age of me and hike distance means that maybe it’s not a good choice for a blog output person.

if I didn’t already have the 500 and needed more reach than the 100-400 and TC…the 800 would be a much easier decision.

I understand completely! I would love an 800mm, but am worried the weight would be a challenge right now, so I am adjusting to the 500mmmPF with the 1.4 TC for almost the same reach. So far, I like it, but if I won the lottery, I would be going for the 800mm and a personal trainer to get my muscles up to the task, lol. Thanks for your response.

 

[EricBowles]

I understand completely! I would love an 800mm, but am worried the weight would be a challenge right now, so I am adjusting to the 500mmmPF with the 1.4 TC for almost the same reach. So far, I like it, but if I won the lottery, I would be going for the 800mm and a personal trainer to get my muscles up to the task, lol. Thanks for your response.

There is nothing wrong with the 500mm PF + 1.4 TC. I've used that combination for thousands of images before getting the 800mm PF. Focus can be a little slow, but if you pre-focus and start following the subject early, it works very well.

 

[KP Birder]

There is nothing wrong with the 500mm PF + 1.4 TC. I've used that combination for thousands of images before getting the 800mm PF. Focus can be a little slow, but if you pre-focus and start following the subject early, it works very well.

The combo is working well for me so far, Eric.

 

[Ovidiu Optik]

I’m posting 3 photos scaled down to 1 MB in order to show my results using the Nikon Z9 in DX mode with a 500mm PF and TC1.4iii. Image 1 is full frame from the camera, image 2 is cropped from the full frame, and image 3 is a slight touch up with Topaz DeNoise, sharpening and removing noise. I am happy with the results…what do others think? (And normally I would do a few more tweaks to the final image which I have not done here.)View attachment 54258View attachment 54261View attachment 54262

I also have two small problems:
I recently bought a TC 1.4 III from Amazon which I put on a 500mm f/5.6 PF. I'm new to Nikon, I have an acyum Z9 and I have a bit of "play", that is, when I rotate the lens it moves a bit in the ftz adapter and probably in the TC as well. It is normal? Have you met before?
And problem number 2: the Tc has a small metal lever that moves freely and makes a noise, both when it's on its own and when it's mounted on the camera with the lens. Is this normal?

 

[Ovidiu Optik]

Yes…but only because I’ve already got the 500PF…if I didn’t and needed longer the 800PF would be the pick. It’s my last remaining F mount lens and it’s excellent because…well…500PF…but I’m just not using it much right now and as I said I’m using this season to decide r the 100-400 and 1.4 is adequate with occasional use of the 2.0 T since I have both of them is the right answer…or whether keeping the 500PF nd marrying it with the F 1.4 TC is better. The 800 is more weight than the 500/TC combo…but the latter is a lot cheaper since I’ve already got the lens. My output is almost all screen and not print…and to be honest at 1024 wide output size for the screen there is really no discernible difference in quality between the 500, the 100-400, and the latter with either Z TC. Yeah…some DoF differences but for screen use it’s not a matter of better worse, just a little different. And for me…utility, cost, weight, and what carrying xxx does to me because I won’t carry yyy if I have xxx depending on how far the old fart is hiking all factor into the decision. While realistically I could buy a second Z9 as my backup body and could easily have both the 400/2.8, 600/4 and 800PF Z lenses…bang for the buck comes into play for wife and I and spending $14K for the 400/2.8 lens for instance if I would use it a couple times a year due to weight and age of me and hike distance means that maybe it’s not a good choice for a blog output person.

if I didn’t already have the 500 and needed more reach than the 100-400 and TC…the 800 would be a much easier decision.

I also have two small problems:
I recently bought a TC 1.4 III from Amazon which I put on a 500mm f/5.6 PF. I'm new to Nikon, I have the Z9 now and I have a bit of "play", that is, when I turn the lens it moves a bit in the ftz adapter and probably in the TC. It is normal? Have you met before?
And problem number 2: the Tc has a small metal lever that moves freely and makes a noise, both when it's on its own and when it's mounted on the camera with the lens. Is this normal?

 

[KP Birder]

I also have two small problems:
I recently bought a TC 1.4 III from Amazon which I put on a 500mm f/5.6 PF. I'm new to Nikon, I have an acyum Z9 and I have a bit of "play", that is, when I rotate the lens it moves a bit in the ftz adapter and probably in the TC as well. It is normal? Have you met before?
And problem number 2: the Tc has a small metal lever that moves freely and makes a noise, both when it's on its own and when it's mounted on the camera with the lens. Is this normal?

I think both of those things are normal, the small bit of play and the rattle from the lever on the TC…I just saw a discussion about that the other day. The combo works better on the Z9 than on my DSLR. Just enjoy it!

 

[DRwyoming]

I also have two small problems:
I recently bought a TC 1.4 III from Amazon which I put on a 500mm f/5.6 PF. I'm new to Nikon, I have the Z9 now and I have a bit of "play", that is, when I turn the lens it moves a bit in the ftz adapter and probably in the TC. It is normal? Have you met before?
And problem number 2: the Tc has a small metal lever that moves freely and makes a noise, both when it's on its own and when it's mounted on the camera with the lens. Is this normal?

Yes, both those things are normal.

A bit of rotational play with the FTZ adapter and F mount lenses is fairly normal. It varies from lens to lens with some being quite snug and others having a bit of play. There shouldn't be a lot of rotational movement with the lens mounted and no real movement in other axes (e.g. you shouldn't be able to tilt the lens up and down relative to the FTZ adapter) but a bit of rotational play is normal and just comes from normal manufacturing tolerances.

And yes the aperture controlling lever in the TC-14e III does not have its own return spring and rattles when not connected to a lens. That is also normal and not a problem.