Z Teleconverter 2.0

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).

solaner

solaner

Active member
Member's gallery
Hi,

I‘m looking for sample images and/or experiences of using a Z 100-400 in combination with the TC Z 2.0 preferably attached to a Z7ii. According to Nikon, that lens is entitled to be used with the TC 2.0. But, what about the image quality and the AF performance?

I'm used to having the old TC-20E in combination with the 80-400G attached to my D500.

So, I‘m familiar with the downsides of using a TC, especially a 2x. I don’t want to start a discussion about TC. I already know about the successful usage of 1.4x.

André
 
Member's gallery
lots about this already and Youtube gas loads of comments
with the 1.4xTC there's not IQ change but marginal with the 2x. There's also a 2 stop cost....so my z70-200 f2.8 become a 5.6 and a slowdown in AF too...though for my use case, I generally don't do BIF but woodland animals, its just fine

Is the z70-200 + 2xTC Sharp enough

Lots of debate on this. Here's a couple of images . Okay, maybe not great but light was rubbish - really overcast day, cold too...so elbows on window sill. Whatever. For me, they're sharp enough. I'm probably never going to print and at best they'll pop up in a form like this. What you're...
bcgforums.com bcgforums.com
 
Member's gallery
Thanks, Patrick for the link in your other thread to Ricci talks. In gerneal, there are too many people on YT saying simply nonsens. So, I'm only searching for those, I already know and trust.
Nevertheless, I'm still open for further experiences.
 
Member's gallery
solaner said:
Hi,

I‘m looking for sample images and/or experiences of using a Z 100-400 in combination with the TC Z 2.0 preferably attached to a Z7ii. According to Nikon, that lens is entitled to be used with the TC 2.0. But, what about the image quality and the AF performance?

I'm used to having the old TC-20E in combination with the 80-400G attached to my D500.

So, I‘m familiar with the downsides of using a TC, especially a 2x. I don’t want to start a discussion about TC. I already know about the successful usage of 1.4x.

André
Click to expand...
I have both the 1.4 and 2.0 TCs for my Zs but unless the subject is really, really far out there and/or it's one of those you've never seen this thing before I think that I would stick with the 1.4 and do a more environmental shot and/or use the higher MP available in my Z7II and Z9 to crop in post rather than use the 2.0. For screen output which is where mine almost exclusively goes…the 1.4 doesn't really show any degradation in IQ compared to the bare lens but the 2.0 is a little less sharp overall and the corners noticeably less sharp…hence my 'use it only in emergencies' standpoint. I had the 800PF on order but cancelled it due to who knows when it's coming and how much it would actually get used as opposed to the 500PF or the 560 I get with the Z 100-400 and 1.4…might eventually end up with the 800PF anyway but it's not a priority at this point. If I did a lot of hummers or songbirds the extra reach would be worth it…but I don't do many of either.

OTOH…the flicker posts are pretty darned good so I'll do some more testing and see…I just haven't been out much lately as here in SW FL the summer weather is terrible and the birds are mostly not out. Got a trip to Corkscrew scheduled in a couple. weeks so I'll take the TCs and deliberately take some comparison shots bare and with both TCs then crop to match subject size and see how they look…now that I think about it when I did my previous testing I was comparing at 1:1 and that isn't what you see for screen (i.e., blog mostly) destined output.
 
Member's gallery
solaner said:
Hi,

I‘m looking for sample images and/or experiences of using a Z 100-400 in combination with the TC Z 2.0 preferably attached to a Z7ii. According to Nikon, that lens is entitled to be used with the TC 2.0. But, what about the image quality and the AF performance?

I'm used to having the old TC-20E in combination with the 80-400G attached to my D500.

So, I‘m familiar with the downsides of using a TC, especially a 2x. I don’t want to start a discussion about TC. I already know about the successful usage of 1.4x.

André
Click to expand...
Have you considered renting one and trying it out for your use? I am planning to do that with the 400mm f/4.5. Your criteria may differ from others. It seems to be available at a reasonable cost from the big rental companies ($37 for a week). Just a thought.
 
Member's gallery
Michelle Valberg, a Nikon Ambassador, posted a number of shots with the 100-400 and 2x Z TC on her Instagram account. I also recall she commented on it on a video presentation or two with Paul’s Photos. She seemed to like it. Of course, as an ambassador, her job was to promote it, but the photos were great whether promoted or not (not that you can evaluate it well on IG). I think some were with the Z9 and some with the Z7II.

I have the 2x Z TC and used it on the 70-200 Z lens mostly with the Z7II. It worked quite well and I used it in Katmai last summer before I got the 100-400. The combination was not quite as good as the 100-400 mm lens, which of course is not surprising.

I have used the 1.4x Z TC on the 100-400 and like the results with the Z9 and Z7II, if you are in circumstances where you can deal with the loss of a stop of aperture/light, as it is 560 mm and f8 at the looking end. Optically quite good.

I have used the 2x Z TC with the 100-400 some, but not a lot. At the long end it is 800 mm and f11. Planning to do some more work with it from my kayak over the next month or two. My initial impression was that it was pretty good and good enough to be useful when you need zoom flexibility and longer reach, but not as good as the 100-400 with the 1.4x Z TC. And probably not as good as the 500 mm PF with the 1.4x TCIII in F mount (used on a Z body) — but of course that is a prime with no zoom flexibility.

Thom Hogan seemed to find the 100-400 with the 2x Z TC useful. https://www.zsystemuser.com/z-mount...leconverters/a-teleconverter-quick-asses.html
 
Member's gallery
I own the Z TC 2.0 and had an afternoon to try it with a friend who has the 100-400 mm Z lens. The most noticeable impace was noise. Cloudy day and I had to bump ISO up quite a ways at the long end. Shaprness in the center remained pretty good and responded well to sharpening during editing. There was some softening in the corners but for most bird images this was not an issue. I was using a Z9 and he was using a Z7 ii. I I shot with this again, I might switch to DX crop mode and just not worry about the corners. Thi would be easier to get the composition I want. Focus felt a little slow but I think this was more due to the low light conditions than the lens + TC. I do use the TC 2.0 with my 70-200 mm 2.8 S and the center is good enough to print but I can see corner softness. It seems better than any of the F mount 2.0 TCs I used.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
The 100-400 was the first telephoto Z system lens I owned and for quite a time - the only one. It’s wonderful lens – very sharp, versatile, quite light and altogether - joy to use. I used it daily with Z9 and both teleconverters, so I gathered some experience with it. The main problem I had to tackle when I used it with TCs was cleaning pictures with high ISO (6400-25600) which was quite challenging. Other editing problems: increasing contrast, sharpness and saturation was easier to overcome. When you use the lens with TC 2.0 you lose 2 full aperture stops which makes it f/11 at 270+mm – the focal lengths I mostly used.

The AF was another problem. I found it quite difficult to get a very sharp picture (which was necessary to remove noise in high ISO shots later on) when there wasn’t much light – most of the time for me. AF would get much slower. Sometimes it just couldn’t get the initial focus without help, especially when I photographed dark birds in late afternoon and early evening when the birds were most active. I had to learn some little tricks to overcome that and wasn’t always successful when I had only few seconds to get the photo. In my opinion those are not minor caveats and today – having other options - I don’t use 100-400 with TCs. Still it doesn’t mean you can’t get very decent photos with it when you need to. The pictures I attached to this post were taken (to illustrate my post) yesterday in late afternoon.
Blackbird_1200.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Big Tit_1200.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Wood Pigeon_1200.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
I own a Z 100-400 and a Z 2.0 TC. In my opinion, the 2.0 TC on the 100-200 is not any better than cropping from an image taken with the same lens and the Z 1.4 TC. However, the same 2.0 TC is outstanding on the Z 400/2.8 w/o the internal TC engaged.
 
Member's gallery
solaner said:
Thanks, Patrick for the link in your other thread to Ricci talks. In gerneal, there are too many people on YT saying simply nonsens. So, I'm only searching for those, I already know and trust.
Nevertheless, I'm still open for further experiences.
Click to expand...
Often if we look long and hard enough on the web we eventually find what we want to hear.
We accept there is a compromise using a 2xTC, its suggested in the order of 25 to 35%.
Is this really tolerable, i don't think so, Images can be off on exposure as we can fix that, but if off on focus or sharpenss you really cant, unless your using a Google Pixel Phone LOL.

The Magnification ratio of a 100-400 F4.5 to F6.3 lens is 4 to1 add a two times TC and those F4.5-F6.3 figures F9 to F12.6 may not really sing as sweet as one would hope unless its blindingly bright sunlight.

A 200-500 has a magnification ratio of 2.5 to 1, it performed admirably using a TCx2 III on a d850 in surfing photography with good light, but it was sensitive to cloudy conditions or fall off on light that pushed the ISO dramatically, i would assume this would be a little worse with a 100-400 despite it being a Z lens and it will also be dependent on what Camera your using, i hear that the Z TCs on a Z9 works exceptionally well, so maybe it wont be as abd as i feel.
My 70-200 FL with a TC 2 III on a Z9 or D850 works brilliantly again the math for the 70-200 fl F2.8 becomes F5.6 with a magnification ratio of 2.86 - 1 which brings it very close in line with a 200-500 performance area not using a TCx2, just a 100mm short, however the high res sensors tolerate cropping very well..


The answer is simple, rent a 100-400 with a TC x2 for a day, shoot what you normally shoot before you spend serious money.

Only an opinion
 
Member's gallery
solaner said:
Hi,

I‘m looking for sample images and/or experiences of using a Z 100-400 in combination with the TC Z 2.0 preferably attached to a Z7ii. According to Nikon, that lens is entitled to be used with the TC 2.0. But, what about the image quality and the AF performance?

I'm used to having the old TC-20E in combination with the 80-400G attached to my D500.

So, I‘m familiar with the downsides of using a TC, especially a 2x. I don’t want to start a discussion about TC. I already know about the successful usage of 1.4x.

André
Click to expand...

"But, what about the image quality and the AF performance?"

AF function is not directly impacted by the use of a ZTC20, but the loss of 2 stops of light does impact.
Mirrorless camera are proving to be very sensitive to below ideal exposure when focussing, particularly when subjects are low contrast (like wildlife) so one "has" to bump up ISO to brighten the image.

The ZTC20 uses larger diameter mount than F-mount TCs.
The diameter (as measured by me) of the front lens (the part that goes into the lens) is 26.2mm F-TC20III, F-TC17 28.9mm and 29.3mm for the F-TC14III whereas the diameter of the front lens is 26.5mm on the ZTC14 and 21.15mm on the ZTC14.
So much smaller. However, as a result of the much shallower flange depth in z-bodies (16mm vs 46.5mm) the rear lens in the ZTC is much larger than the F-mount and has a shield built in to reduce stray light (I measured this as 35.7mm x 30.4 -- see image below).
Attaching a ZTC 30 mm closer to the sensor than the F-mount and the overall performance is very similar.
AND this is entirely as expected.

I find the S-line Z-lenses to be sharper edge to edge and faster focusing than the equivalent AF-S E or G lenses.
Adding any generic external TC will not normally provide equivalent optical performance as the bare lens. Where a lens has an internal TC these are matched to the other glass in the lens and the results are always sharper. That said adding a ZTC14 to any Z-glass that takes it has almost no discernable adverse impact (other than the loss of 1 stop of light and the "need" to compensate for the extra focal length buy adding 1 stop of shutter speed -- combined effect 2 stops of added ISO when shooting slow - no change of shutter speed at 1/1600th or faster. But a big change at 1/250th). But adding a TC14 to a 400/2.8 makes the lens a 560/4.0 -- well this is close to my 600/4.0 but not as optically good.
Whereas since adding a ZTC20 will have an even larger adverse impact on ISO from needing to increase shutter speed one more stop for the extra effective focal length and the loss of another stop of light leads to a potential 4 stop adverse impact from using the TC. BUT comparing MY ZTC20 to MY AF-S TC20III I find the ZTC20 to have less adverse impact. (This is was while using 70-200 and 400/2.8).

You will find the NIKKOR Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S is already slightly softer at 400mm than at 300mm or 200mm. When adding a ZTC20 and using it fully zoomed out the widest aperture of this lens goes from f/5.6 to f/11 and this is very important when it comes to the impact on the ISO levels one has to use to maintain good AF.

I own and regularly use both ZTCs - but I only use the ZTC20 when I absolutely have to.

Rather like Moose Peterson who famously stated the TC17 was permanently attached to his 600/4.0 - I seem to leave the ZTC14 on my 100-400. This is because, for example, when shooting Hawks racing or training I normally have one Z9 with a Z 70-200mm f/2.8 S and another Z9 with the NIKKOR Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S and ZTC14 -- which makes the lens a 140-560mm f/9.0-11.0 AND very hand holdable.
(I have an order for an 2nd ZTC14 so that I can put in on other lenses in the field and not have to open the camera to dust when on game drives)


IMG_1295.JPG
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top