What do you think - are teleconverters worth it? Links below! Nikon Z 70-200mm f/2.8 S at Amazon: amzn.to/48EJ0Hb Nikon Z 70-200mm f/2.8 S at B&H: bhpho.to/3Q4sh7R Nikon 1.4x teleconverter at Amazon: amzn.to/46DTRzf Nikon 1.4x teleconverter at B&H: bhpho.to/3RGDZI6 Nikon 2.0x teleconverter at Amazon: amzn.to/46zOYar Nikon 2.0x teleconverter at B&H: bhpho.to/3Q49bj4 Nikon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 at Amazon: amzn.to/45hMpJa Nikon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 at B&H: bhpho.to/45oRa3w
I have the 2X F mount teleconverter on my 120-300 f/2.8 F mount lens with a F2Z adaptor on my Nikon Z8. It's absolutely brilliant, and surprisingly it's still showing f/2.8 minimum aperture on the camera. There is no reduction with focusing or image stabilisation on the lens either. It's fast and accurate.
The f-number is focal length divided by aperture diameter. So I see no way that doubling the focal length won't halve the number, regardless of what the camera shows.
Sony user. I have their 100-400GM, with their 2x converter. It definitely does soften images somewhat, sometimes noticeably, sometimes not. And it does slow down autofocus in anything but bright light. But that extra reach can make a world of difference between having to crop a little, or a lot, or just flat-out not even getting a usable shot. I tested the Sony 200-600, as a comparison, but it's a larger lens with a long minimum focus distance, and doesn't pack easily, while I can toss the 100-400 into my travel kit without a thought - and that TC gives me the added reach should I need it. And while due to its physical construction you can only use it with Sony's telephotos because the rear elements of most E-mount lenses would bonk the converter, it does work just fine with adapted DSLR and SLR film lenses, as well as some other oddballs like the Samyang 24mm tilt-shift lens. This means I can throw on my old Pentax or Minolta 200mm primes and reach out to 400mm with a very light weight kit (I learned on manual focus in the 80s). This offers a lot of versatility in a lighter-weight carry.
I use 1.4x TC with my Sony A7RV + 100-400mm/200-600mm. This is more challenging than it could be due to the high resolution of the sensor. However, this still allows much more detail to be resolved if stabilization and focusing are perfect. So I mostly use it for slow/static objects or perfect light conditions. It is worth noting that many lenses give the sharpest picture when the aperture is stopped down. Therefore, in real life, a TC can take away even more light if you want to compensate the quality loss. I can recommend Simon d'Entremont's video to those who want a more technical and detailed explanation of how the TC works and what the result depends on.
I have the z2x tel converter and the Z 70-200 . Firstly we have a F2 8 stop on the z 70-200 ...this matters because the loss of light is not that huge. Next I suggest you try this idea set up with the 2x converter on 70-200z take a couple of shots l at the different ranges using a tripod so you can shoot the same image ..Then switch the camera into DX .mode with the converter still on and take a couple of shoots at the various different settings on z 7 - 2 or Z 8 allows you to choose and change frame size setting from the camera menu. .so you use the 2x converter on Dx and test it again the Fx mode I was debating purchasing the 180-600z so I did the fore mentioned test to see what I got . I found the quality was reasonable but really I wanted the reach too,so I guess I was just messing around and may be a better sharpness was in DX mode (Square Setting give best results for me ) I found the 2,x converter is only reasonable oin Fx but better in2x DX . I don't like to do just ok stuff . .my advice is for now that lots may find the DX mode with the 2x converter is technically fine.using the DX mode with this converter ..... I would like. To know what your thoughts are on trying it this way. I hope your recovery is going well. I found the DX square setting the best with the 2 times converter. Also I would like to mention this .. important mistake I made got your attention got the z8 a few weeks ago l seemed to find the depth of field was not right somehow. So I decided I better run my lenses through their paces. I Did find that F 7. 2 was really better on my z 8 than z7-2 so I had to be more careful about focus sharpness. Really I have a lot of primes z lenses but you may need to know this about the 135 samyang latest version . It came with an adapter mount.for up dating firm ware (The adapter. mount ring I purchased was from China and had an upgrade clamp for on line connection to the mounts .upgrade by clamp to ring via pc for firmware .it's a very primitive.the clip fix's onto the mount ring with a sprung clip to connect to the computer. I did everything right but it still damaged the ring during the down load of the ring was from then on unusable. ) So I had to replace the ring it so be warned . The lens its self is really great but I have a z camera so I needed a Converter. Be warned .The real question is the Nikon 2x converter at the cost is now worth the price or will DX do a similar job? And is DX mode with the converter a real bouns .I have the 180 -600 z on order here in the UK it's taking a lot longer to get Nikon lenses after their release. When it does arrive how well 2x'converter works on the 180-600 z will be a even bigger question. You see Nikon have been holding back so has to sell extras such as the 2 x converter. They want to make money that's why they sell their stuff. I have invested in a lot of their mirror less stuff . Last big tip The 40mm z on the z ,8 Is amazing . (I did not rate it on myz
Important to note, not all 2tc's work on all cameras. Cameras have an upper limit for autofocus and aperture. If your combo of camera/2tc/lens (usually a zoom takes the lowest working aperture beyond that limit, autofocus won't work b
Tele converter on full frame , on z mount . The idea of switching to DX to save on a teleconverter may at first hearing sound like an alternative. Till you have a z8 or z9 and want to shoot film . Video work for me it where a 2x times converter does its best work. If you have a camera that is mirrorless then filming is a most. Other wise you’re not getting the full moneys worth out of your camera . May be it’s with doing some how to make a still into a short movie . I find my best movies are those moments when nature gives you a wooooo moment
I use a 1.4 converter on my Olympus 40-150mm f2.8 lens. It gives me a very workable 112-420mm effective range at f4. I have noticed no appreciable loss in sharpness at all, and the focus speed is still very impressive.
I owned old and new Nikon TCs 1.4x and 2x. Both Z-TCs are far better than the old ones, but only the 1.4x reduces the quality just a bit. The 2x on the 2.8/70-200 is a lot worse than the 5.6/400. The same on the prime 4.5/400 compared to the 6.3/800. If you are looking for quality forget the 2x, but if you are on a budget it's a good option because the pichture are still useable. And if you are looking for a light-weight tele zoom option the combination of 2.8/70-200 with the 2x gives you the same reach with a advantage that you have a zoom with 2.8 aperture if you need only 200. If you are not cropping in, you can compare a combo 70-200+TC2X with a crop from the 70-200 alone with gives the advantage to the croped 70-200 - at least on a Z 9. The same is true on an old D850 with the AF-S 2.8/70-200 VR II and a TC2x, 1.7x and 1.4x. If you would compare a prime 1.2/85 with a TC2x and a 2.8/70-200 at 170mm I assume it would be on the same level, but unfortunately it doesn't fit.
I have the same setup (Z8, 2xTC, 70-200mm f/2.8) and it is awesome. I like fast lenses but their weight becomes an issue when you have three or more with you. The TC saves money, weight and space in my bag for the cost of 2 stops. Worth it for me. Might rent a fast 600mm when available and with my TC it can be 1200mm if I have enough light.
I have the Sigma 1.4 and 2.0x teleconverters for L Mount that I use with the Sigma 150-600mm on my S5II. I think the image quality is quite good, especially when I need the extra reach when it comes to wildlife that keeps their distance. If the animals are comfortable enough to approach you(or let you approach), then not using the teleconverters will definitely result in a sharper image, but the difference in image quality is minimal.
With Sigma's 10-to-1 ratio 60mm-600mm f/4.5-6.3 DG DN OS | S, I really don't see the need for a teleconverter. However, it certainly doesn't replace the need for medium telephoto prime lenses with their wider apertures. A 2X converter would make 600 f/6.3 something like 1200mm f/13. I don't know how well that would work. I usually use a long telephoto for landscape/seascapes of the seastacks on the Olympic Peniinsula's west end. If you ever go there, don't forget to take your long telephoto lenses. Beautiful images in your video, by the way!
Good video with lots of good detail, e.g., checking for compatibility. Kudos for being even handed. So many presenters just say never use one. They have their place. I use the same 2x you reviewed with the 70-200. It does nicely and is a good trade off since I don’t need that extra reach often.
Extremely interesting Leigh - I have toyed with the idea of the 2x TC for a long time, having found the 1.4x a great addition to my 400mm f4.5 Z lens. So I recently took advantage of an offer and purchased the 2x. Trial shots on my 400mm Z8 gave stunning results and confirmed my choice as adding a great bonus to my lineup, whilst appreciating that I need decent light to use at the smaller minimum apertures Think it will be a real bonus for my 70-200mm f2.8 Z lens too - as you said, giving greater range to my existing gear (Just a note on your 100-400 graphic - the bottom example should read 2x, not 1.4x ) Thank you for a such an insight
Excellent Leigh, thanks for what you do! I have considered adding a 1.4 to my kit for a long time. Now that I have all the lenses I can afford I intend to look at teleconverters again. I mean would love to have the 400 f2.8 or the 600 f4 but…. I’ll get by without them.
Leigh, I own the Nikon Z50 with both the kit lenses, so I don't own a teleconverter. Curios was all the videos you shot on this video handheld? You seem to moving pretty well. How is your back feeling.
Yes, all the video was handheld. I am doing pretty well, thanks for asking. I'm certainly not 100% but this outing was the first time I was out with a telephoto lens since surgery and I did okay! :)
What is your opinion or experience concerning the use of teleconverters with aps-c cameras? Some prominent educators say don't. Thank you for this video, it is helpful, Leigh.
I'm not sure of the reasons the educators you mentioned are giving, but I think it's too simple to say not to use a teleconverter on an APS-C camera. Every setup has it's place.
@@LeighAndRaymond Thank you for your input and opinion. I do not recall why they thought it not worth doing and I really wish I could because it would make the issue more usefully clear. I appreciate you responding, and thank you for that. This is a good channel.
Thanks you for this video. I recently moved to a Z6ii and bought the 24-120 f4 lens. I’d value your opinion on the following options please 100-400 f4 2x teleconverter or perhaps Tamron 70-300 I shoot mainly landscapes in Scotland Thanks
I'm not aware of a 100-400mm f/4 lens. There is a 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6. I mentioned this in the video and how, with the 2x teleconverter, you end up with a range of 200-800mm f/9-11. If you are in anything but bright conditions, you will have to increase your ISO Sensitivity quite a bit to maintain a fast enough shutter speed. That being said, a lot of folks love that combination! I haven't used the Tamron 70-300mm for Z mount yet, but I did use the Sony E mount version and it was great! You can see my video on it here: th-cam.com/video/7CmOg86tfGc/w-d-xo.html
So… I have a Canon 1500D (no judging it was for school) which has an EF mount. I saw the 2x teleconverter and thought BRILLIANT! … no, not brilliant, doesn’t fit the lens I have 😅 so it sits in my bag as a lesson till I find a lens that I like that fits… p.s. I upgraded to a canon m50 from that and then added the LUMIX S5II to the family recently…
The 1.4 x Z Convertor works a Dream on my Z 70-200 S lens and no doubt will be super good on my back ordered 180-600 Z for African Wild Life >> I dont think I will ever go with the 2.0 >> rather go DX after putting on the 1.4 on my Z7
Unfortunately I think teleconverters just like third party lens’s or zoom lenses of the past still still suffer a bad reputation which isn’t relevant today Modern teleconverters are a great cheaper option to increase focal length with minimal loss in image quality
What do you think - are teleconverters worth it? Links below!
Nikon Z 70-200mm f/2.8 S at Amazon: amzn.to/48EJ0Hb
Nikon Z 70-200mm f/2.8 S at B&H: bhpho.to/3Q4sh7R
Nikon 1.4x teleconverter at Amazon: amzn.to/46DTRzf
Nikon 1.4x teleconverter at B&H: bhpho.to/3RGDZI6
Nikon 2.0x teleconverter at Amazon: amzn.to/46zOYar
Nikon 2.0x teleconverter at B&H: bhpho.to/3Q49bj4
Nikon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 at Amazon: amzn.to/45hMpJa
Nikon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 at B&H: bhpho.to/45oRa3w
I have the 2X F mount teleconverter on my 120-300 f/2.8 F mount lens with a F2Z adaptor on my Nikon Z8. It's absolutely brilliant, and surprisingly it's still showing f/2.8 minimum aperture on the camera. There is no reduction with focusing or image stabilisation on the lens either. It's fast and accurate.
weird that it’s still saying 2.8 as you are most definitely losing those 2 stops. either way that’s a killer combo!
The f-number is focal length divided by aperture diameter.
So I see no way that doubling the focal length won't halve the number, regardless of what the camera shows.
Sony user. I have their 100-400GM, with their 2x converter. It definitely does soften images somewhat, sometimes noticeably, sometimes not. And it does slow down autofocus in anything but bright light. But that extra reach can make a world of difference between having to crop a little, or a lot, or just flat-out not even getting a usable shot. I tested the Sony 200-600, as a comparison, but it's a larger lens with a long minimum focus distance, and doesn't pack easily, while I can toss the 100-400 into my travel kit without a thought - and that TC gives me the added reach should I need it. And while due to its physical construction you can only use it with Sony's telephotos because the rear elements of most E-mount lenses would bonk the converter, it does work just fine with adapted DSLR and SLR film lenses, as well as some other oddballs like the Samyang 24mm tilt-shift lens. This means I can throw on my old Pentax or Minolta 200mm primes and reach out to 400mm with a very light weight kit (I learned on manual focus in the 80s). This offers a lot of versatility in a lighter-weight carry.
I use 1.4x TC with my Sony A7RV + 100-400mm/200-600mm. This is more challenging than it could be due to the high resolution of the sensor. However, this still allows much more detail to be resolved if stabilization and focusing are perfect. So I mostly use it for slow/static objects or perfect light conditions. It is worth noting that many lenses give the sharpest picture when the aperture is stopped down. Therefore, in real life, a TC can take away even more light if you want to compensate the quality loss.
I can recommend Simon d'Entremont's video to those who want a more technical and detailed explanation of how the TC works and what the result depends on.
I have the z2x tel converter and the Z 70-200 . Firstly we have a F2 8 stop on the z 70-200 ...this matters because the loss of light is not that huge. Next I suggest you try this idea set up with the 2x converter on 70-200z take a couple of shots l at the different ranges using a tripod so you can shoot the same image ..Then switch the camera into DX .mode with the converter still on and take a couple of shoots at the various different settings on z 7 - 2 or Z 8 allows you to choose and change frame size setting from the camera menu. .so you use the 2x converter on Dx and test it again the Fx mode I was debating purchasing the 180-600z so I did the fore mentioned test to see what I got . I found the quality was reasonable but really I wanted the reach too,so I guess I was just messing around and may be a better sharpness was in DX mode (Square Setting give best results for me ) I found the 2,x converter is only reasonable oin Fx but better in2x DX . I don't like to do just ok stuff . .my advice is for now that lots may find the DX mode with the 2x converter is technically fine.using the DX mode with this converter ..... I would like. To know what your thoughts are on trying it this way. I hope your recovery is going well. I found the DX square setting the best with the 2 times converter. Also I would like to mention this .. important mistake I made got your attention got the z8 a few weeks ago l seemed to find the depth of field was not right somehow. So I decided I better run my lenses through their paces. I Did find that F 7. 2 was really better on my z 8 than z7-2 so I had to be more careful about focus sharpness. Really I have a lot of primes z lenses but you may need to know this about the 135 samyang latest version . It came with an adapter mount.for up dating firm ware (The adapter. mount ring I purchased was from China and had an upgrade clamp for on line connection to the mounts .upgrade by clamp to ring via pc for firmware .it's a very primitive.the clip fix's onto the mount ring with a sprung clip to connect to the computer. I did everything right but it still damaged the ring during the down load of the ring was from then on unusable. ) So I had to replace the ring it so be warned . The lens its self is really great but I have a z camera so I needed a Converter. Be warned .The real question is the Nikon 2x converter at the cost is now worth the price or will DX do a similar job? And is DX mode with the converter a real bouns .I have the 180 -600 z on order here in the UK it's taking a lot longer to get Nikon lenses after their release. When it does arrive how well 2x'converter works on the 180-600 z will be a even bigger question. You see Nikon have been holding back so has to sell extras such as the 2 x converter. They want to make money that's why they sell their stuff. I have invested in a lot of their mirror less stuff . Last big tip The 40mm z on the z ,8 Is amazing . (I did not rate it on myz
Z6ii, 70-200/2.8, 2x TC. Love the combo! Not really suitable for low light, but 5.6 is very workable outdoors, and images are still plenty sharp.
At 8:33 your chart lists a 1.4 TC for both examples. Shouldn't the second example be a 2.0 TC instead of 1.4TC?
Important to note, not all 2tc's work on all cameras. Cameras have an upper limit for autofocus and aperture. If your combo of camera/2tc/lens (usually a zoom takes the lowest working aperture beyond that limit, autofocus won't work b
Tele converter on full frame , on z mount . The idea of switching to DX to save on a teleconverter may at first hearing sound like an alternative. Till you have a z8 or z9 and want to shoot film . Video work for me it where a 2x times converter does its best work. If you have a camera that is mirrorless then filming is a most. Other wise you’re not getting the full moneys worth out of your camera . May be it’s with doing some how to make a still into a short movie . I find my best movies are those moments when nature gives you a wooooo moment
I use a 1.4 converter on my Olympus 40-150mm f2.8 lens. It gives me a very workable 112-420mm effective range at f4. I have noticed no appreciable loss in sharpness at all, and the focus speed is still very impressive.
1.4TC on 50-140mm 2.8 Fujifilm APSC and no issues, however the 2x can become soft in some instances. Nice one Leigh 👍
I owned old and new Nikon TCs 1.4x and 2x. Both Z-TCs are far better than the old ones, but only the 1.4x reduces the quality just a bit. The 2x on the 2.8/70-200 is a lot worse than the 5.6/400. The same on the prime 4.5/400 compared to the 6.3/800. If you are looking for quality forget the 2x, but if you are on a budget it's a good option because the pichture are still useable. And if you are looking for a light-weight tele zoom option the combination of 2.8/70-200 with the 2x gives you the same reach with a advantage that you have a zoom with 2.8 aperture if you need only 200. If you are not cropping in, you can compare a combo 70-200+TC2X with a crop from the 70-200 alone with gives the advantage to the croped 70-200 - at least on a Z 9. The same is true on an old D850 with the AF-S 2.8/70-200 VR II and a TC2x, 1.7x and 1.4x.
If you would compare a prime 1.2/85 with a TC2x and a 2.8/70-200 at 170mm I assume it would be on the same level, but unfortunately it doesn't fit.
I have the same setup (Z8, 2xTC, 70-200mm f/2.8) and it is awesome. I like fast lenses but their weight becomes an issue when you have three or more with you. The TC saves money, weight and space in my bag for the cost of 2 stops. Worth it for me. Might rent a fast 600mm when available and with my TC it can be 1200mm if I have enough light.
I have the Sigma 1.4 and 2.0x teleconverters for L Mount that I use with the Sigma 150-600mm on my S5II. I think the image quality is quite good, especially when I need the extra reach when it comes to wildlife that keeps their distance. If the animals are comfortable enough to approach you(or let you approach), then not using the teleconverters will definitely result in a sharper image, but the difference in image quality is minimal.
With Sigma's 10-to-1 ratio 60mm-600mm f/4.5-6.3 DG DN OS | S, I really don't see the need for a teleconverter. However, it certainly doesn't replace the need for medium telephoto prime lenses with their wider apertures. A 2X converter would make 600 f/6.3 something like 1200mm f/13. I don't know how well that would work. I usually use a long telephoto for landscape/seascapes of the seastacks on the Olympic Peniinsula's west end. If you ever go there, don't forget to take your long telephoto lenses. Beautiful images in your video, by the way!
Good video with lots of good detail, e.g., checking for compatibility. Kudos for being even handed. So many presenters just say never use one. They have their place. I use the same 2x you reviewed with the 70-200. It does nicely and is a good trade off since I don’t need that extra reach often.
Extremely interesting Leigh - I have toyed with the idea of the 2x TC for a long time, having found the 1.4x a great addition to my 400mm f4.5 Z lens. So I recently took advantage of an offer and purchased the 2x. Trial shots on my 400mm Z8 gave stunning results and confirmed my choice as adding a great bonus to my lineup, whilst appreciating that I need decent light to use at the smaller minimum apertures
Think it will be a real bonus for my 70-200mm f2.8 Z lens too - as you said, giving greater range to my existing gear
(Just a note on your 100-400 graphic - the bottom example should read 2x, not 1.4x )
Thank you for a such an insight
Excellent Leigh, thanks for what you do! I have considered adding a 1.4 to my kit for a long time. Now that I have all the lenses I can afford I intend to look at teleconverters again. I mean would love to have the 400 f2.8 or the 600 f4 but…. I’ll get by without them.
Leigh, I own the Nikon Z50 with both the kit lenses, so I don't own a teleconverter. Curios was all the videos you shot on this video handheld? You seem to moving pretty well. How is your back feeling.
Yes, all the video was handheld. I am doing pretty well, thanks for asking. I'm certainly not 100% but this outing was the first time I was out with a telephoto lens since surgery and I did okay! :)
What is your opinion or experience concerning the use of teleconverters with aps-c cameras? Some prominent educators say don't. Thank you for this video, it is helpful, Leigh.
I'm not sure of the reasons the educators you mentioned are giving, but I think it's too simple to say not to use a teleconverter on an APS-C camera. Every setup has it's place.
@@LeighAndRaymond Thank you for your input and opinion. I do not recall why they thought it not worth doing and I really wish I could because it would make the issue more usefully clear. I appreciate you responding, and thank you for that. This is a good channel.
Thanks you for this video. I recently moved to a Z6ii and bought the 24-120 f4 lens.
I’d value your opinion on the following options please
100-400 f4
2x teleconverter or perhaps
Tamron 70-300
I shoot mainly landscapes in Scotland
Thanks
I'm not aware of a 100-400mm f/4 lens. There is a 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6. I mentioned this in the video and how, with the 2x teleconverter, you end up with a range of 200-800mm f/9-11. If you are in anything but bright conditions, you will have to increase your ISO Sensitivity quite a bit to maintain a fast enough shutter speed. That being said, a lot of folks love that combination! I haven't used the Tamron 70-300mm for Z mount yet, but I did use the Sony E mount version and it was great! You can see my video on it here: th-cam.com/video/7CmOg86tfGc/w-d-xo.html
@@LeighAndRaymond thank you for getting back to me, appreciate it
Thank you for sharing ❤❤❤ 8:06 8:07
So… I have a Canon 1500D (no judging it was for school) which has an EF mount. I saw the 2x teleconverter and thought BRILLIANT! … no, not brilliant, doesn’t fit the lens I have 😅 so it sits in my bag as a lesson till I find a lens that I like that fits… p.s. I upgraded to a canon m50 from that and then added the LUMIX S5II to the family recently…
Will it work with Z5 24-200 lens.
No, it won't work with the 24-200mm.
@@LeighAndRaymond Thanks
The 1.4 x Z Convertor works a Dream on my Z 70-200 S lens and no doubt will be super good on my back ordered 180-600 Z for African Wild Life >> I dont think I will ever go with the 2.0 >> rather go DX after putting on the 1.4 on my Z7
Thinking the same way.
I use my 2x converter mostly on my nikon 200-500 lens
Unfortunately I think teleconverters just like third party lens’s or zoom lenses of the past still still suffer a bad reputation which isn’t relevant today
Modern teleconverters are a great cheaper option to increase focal length with minimal loss in image quality
❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤
Why do Americans say 2ex? What does this say 2x2=??
?? Km zoom