I am ever more appreciative of the lovely relaxed and informative interplay between both of you. It must take a huge amount of work and I am very grateful for your videos. This one was really helpful
Thanks you so much. Yes it does takes days of work to make these videos and we try as high standard as possible. We also think we have a unique chat approach. Do you have a TC?
Stopping down to f8 at 560mm to get sharpness really adds to the question of buying the 400mm f4.5 unless you shoot at 400mm f4.5. The 500mm PF is sharper than 400mm 4.5 + TC and it lets in more light at f5.6 than f8. People don't like the FTZ but then they add the TC. I think you nailed the conclusions and that's why we're seeing more 400mm f4.5 on the used market now. Beautiful lens but less practical. Nikon was brilliant in releasing the 400mm f4.5 before the 600mm f6.3. 400mm f4.5 is probably best for sports if you don't have a 2.8.....but the 100-400mm lens is the more practical option for that use.
@@russandloz Likely big and expensive though. Which reminds me.....I'd love to see you both review the Sigma 200-500mm f2.8 if you can get your hands on one he he.
I have the Nikon Z 1.4x teleconverter. I also own three Nikon Z zooms that can utilize this teleconverter, the Z 70-200mm f2.8; the 100-400mm f4.5-5.6; and the 180-600mm f5.6-6.3. It works very well on all 3 lenses. I'm not much of a pixel-peeper. I find that paying attention to my technique is more important than worrying about marginal sharpness of focus. The most positive aspect for me is the larger view through the EVF when I want to retain maximum data on the file (as opposed to switching to DX mode). The negative is mostly about the available light issues and did my aging brain remember that I have the teleconverter at my disposal.
I got the 180-600 and love it. I had used a Sigma 150-600 with ftz. Focus improvement make a huge difference. The Nikon gear seems to work best together.
Wish you tested it with the Zf. I'm thinking it would be more effective on a lower rez camera. Cropping the image on a lower rez sensor will result in more pixelation, so the TC would probably be of more use there. I plan to get the Z6III whenever it comes out, so may get the 1.4TC at some point. Thanks for these tests.
So, I occasionally use the 1.4TC with my Z8 and Z 180-600mm, very happy with the results. Okay, yes I am stopped down to f/9 at the top end, but still get amazing results. Won’t be using it throughout the summer months though, due to heat defraction/heat haze!! It also knocks out good Astro Deep Space images.
I think it really comes down to printing. If you're printing large and need the pixels, then you slap on the TC... maybe. The more interesting comparison IMO is to use Gigapixel AI or similar to increase the resolution of the crop to match the resolution of the TC, and then compare prints. The AI scaling has gotten *so good* it's really difficult to see a difference on the upscaled crop vs. TC. Compare that as well to shots taken with the longer lenses you're discussing - in my case I shot the Sigma 150-600. Don't compare on a monitor, print some good size prints, A3 or A2. I own a Canon 100-400mm EF L mkII on and old EOS R and I sold the Canon TC ("extender" v3) after my wife laughed at me for asking "which one looks better?" when comparing an A3 print. I had the 150-600 in there too. I couldn't tell the difference either, not at all.
Yeah very good point. The video would be too long and confusing with AI enhancement but I’m trying that next to compare. Printing is a scarcity now really. Shame but it’s true. I intent to print small bird prints but no bigger than A4 or 20x16
I'd comment that the 1.4X is a great addition to my Z 800mm. I much prefer the Teleconverter to enlarging. However...it is so ridiculously limited for lens support, I could never recommend it to the general public. Oddly, I wasn't aware that the 1.4X didn't work on most Z lenses when I ordered it. The Teleconverter's optical stack protrudes way too far outwards for most Z lens mounting barrels to accommodate it. I originally purchased it for my 24-70mm...which obviously fails. However, it so impressed me on my 800mm, I'm keeping mine.
The 180-600 is a splendid lens that I use daily it would be interesting to compare it and the 400+TC both at f8. A member of our local birding group has posted some incredible shots of shore birds with the 180-600 pluss the 1.4 TC. I haven't tried the TC with mine, but if one came up second hand, I would pounce!
It’s fun to use the TC and looks great in camera as there seems little negatives. But it’s a bit of reality check when comparing side by side. But I’m keeping mine for those slight improvements
While teleconverters obviously have their place, I'm more of a newspaper photographer, so the Nikon Z 180-600 5.6-6.3 is my next lens purchase. I sometimes don't have the time to take off a lens to put on a teleconverter, and I'd rather just go with two cameras in my bag featuring two different zoom focal lengths. As far as the images go, I saw no significant difference in quality that something like photo AI could not take care of, and I agree with @lozzom when he suggested putting the money into a more versatile lens that may actually produce better results. As always, thanks for the insight and for the banter.
Yeah for some occasions having two cameras is a good idea, but for a wondering wildlife photographer that is a bit of pain. Hopefully we'll get to try the 180-600 soon
The VR on the 500PF on a Z8 is fantastic, much better than the 300PF. Still, when flying and space is limited, I’ll take the 300PF plus 1.4TCIII. The 500PF is a tiny bit sharper than that combo, but it weighs more and takes up more space. I’ve considered replacing both with the 400 f/4.5 and 1.4TC, but the cost is unjustifiable at this time.
I heard lots of people swap from a 500 to the 400 plus tc. But yes it costs twice as much and I bet there isn’t much difference and maybe even not so good for long range
Always great videos. This is a great channel! I’ve found a similar performance as you have. In my experience, S-Line lenses work exceptionally well with teleconverters. In contrast, non-S-Line lenses, such as the 180-600mm, perform poorly with teleconverters. I was particularly surprised by how significantly worse the 180-600mm lens performed when using the teleconverter; it seemed like a completely different lens. However, using the teleconverter with the 400mm f/4.5 lens, I noticed almost no difference in performance.
@@russandloz that’s a good question. When I had the Z6ii as my main camera, I was more excited about using my TC when I needed more reach. However, since upgrading to the Z8 with more croppable resolution, I’ve only used my TC for test shots. :)
That was the best deal at the Photography show event last month but it’s rare to see it that price. If I traded in I would only get half my money back and can’t justify that really
On these comparison results I'd say the teleconverter probably isn't worth the money. If 400mm isnt long enough perhaps your suggestion of adapting the f mount 500mm PF would be better with the added benefit of getting a very sharp f5.6 instead of f8 with your current combo. You have the Z8 so leverage its resolution to crop further if you need to get a bit closer. On the basis of your results today thats the direction I'd go personally. The 500 PF is known to be a great performer with the FTZ adapter so I don't believe you'd see issues with poor AF using the Z8 ( or Z9 ). 😉
@@russandloz Yes, for a Z 100-400mm. Main reasons are flexibility (400mm is very good but I'm a zoom guy!), weight (1,5 kg is ok, 2kg is also ok, but ...) and length (the 180-600 is huge, 9cm is a big difference). But I'm still debating.
I am also struggling as I own a 100-400mm and the 1.4 TC, and do a lot of aviation photography, either at the airport or shows. For shows I need a longer reach and using the 100-400 with tc, doesn’t cut it, however, this is just a hobby and purchasing the 600mm doesn’t make any sense to me, so always thinking if I should buy the 400mm and live with that, or buy a 180-600mm and never use it as is very heavy and long. Other issue is, I photograph basketball for my Basketball Club here in Switzerland, and sometimes would like to have something longer than 200 with f/4, so for that the 70-200mm with the TC is great.
@@russandloz not bad, but nothing special, as photographing F18 jets it is not bad, but will not win any trophy, tried the 2 times and that was horrible, as focusing was almost impossible.
@dasalazarle Yeah, the 100-400 is pretty nice, but at times can be too short for things like aviation. But a 600mm prime is not so versatile. The 180-600 is a great range, but a lot bigger and about 20grams heavier than 100-400 with the 1.4x... No great solution.
The Z 1.4 teleconverter is better than the F mount one but needs careful testing on every individual lens. I only use mine with my 180-600, first time I've used a TC with a zoom, and it is pretty good but the sweet spot is f10. It's OK WO at f9,est at f10 and OK at f11 but diffraction sets in after that. It would be different on a good prime.
@@russandloz understand but how do you get to 840mm? TCs are only to get small things bigger in the frame, not for very far distance really and in adequate light.
I just got my 180-600 Z with the 1.4x teleconverter yesterday. I haven't had a chance to really try it out yet and would love to see your reaction to the combo.
1.4x def looks better, when you crop and blow instead it looks like a blown up digital image. Also my 1.4x is awesome on the Z 70-200/2.8 and I know some reviews that show that.
Interesting as I found the 1.4 made the image worse with the 70-200. Guess different ways of shooting and light conditions change things. But I agree the tc fine well with my 400 lens
@@russandloz Ok, @MTBD80 says that the 1.4 on 70-200 is awesome, and you say it was sub par. You think maybe you had a faulty 1.4 when you tried it? Makes no sense to have such a wide range of opinion.
@@Quidisi I'm keeping my 1.4, but there are many reasons why people experience different results. Including conditions of shoot, settings and what you are satisfied with which is subjective.
@@russandloz Not sure how that could be with the Z 70-200. I initially rented the 1.4x for a trip out west because I couldn't buy one for a year as it was highly regarded. Loved it and it never left the 70-200 the whole trip for landscape. It was so well regarded it was unobtainable for at least a year when tried to get one for that 2022 trip. Finally I was able to acquire one last year as I needed it for an event and that copy was just as stellar. It did come off the lens but only because I wanted more separation w/ 2.8 for certain shots. I have some quite good examples to share as well. I knew the 1.4x was great before even renting, it was the 2x I was always curious about. I ended up renting it and a Zfc (very slight higher pixel density than Z8/Z9) and finding that it was overall better on the Z 70-200/2.8 than my F mount Tamron 100-400. Also it is hard to really extract detail in low-light/soft-light/higher-iso combo situations which theses images look like. That alone will paint a dull picture. In the comparison where you mentioned the pupil being more visible, notice the sky reflection on the eyeball has far more sharpness/detail on the TC image. I have great example of Z 70-200 @ 200 enlarged to match it with the 2.0x TC and the difference is clear and looks the same as what you have shown. These however were shot across a lake (like a landscape) which highlights detail more vs filling a frame (as in a sum there are more details to look at).
Filling the frame, bingo! It seems like some people use a TC to reach over a continent. Get close, get more focal length and use a TC for higher magnifications (on short distances)
If you have to search at 100% to see any difference then as a layman I would say that it is satisfactory . Is it cost effective is a more serious question because you can often crop
I wouldn't use the 1.4x on my 400 f/4.5 or even on my 600 f/6.3. But I do use it on the 800 f/6.3 for skittish shore birds where I can't get closer without disturbing them and want a lot of pixels on the bird. This also means I have excellent light for stopping down. I would also add that if you put it on the 70-200 f/2.8 you get IQ that looks like it came out a native lens. The TC is very lens dependent.
I sold my 400mm 4.5 and and purchased a 600pf. Feels about the same weight and use the 1.4 teleconverter in bright sunlight. Amazing sharpness and stabilisation for slower shutter speed still birds. I’ve taken pin sharp images at slower shutter speeds At 840mm. Even considered selling my 800pf, but I’m going to hang on to it because I like using it with the 1.4 teleconverter
@@martinsarre Yes it seems a good way to go but I hate losing so much trading in or selling privately. If I didn’t have any I’d go for the 600. But as it is I’ll stick for now
@@russandloz there are a few reasons, but lets start with that I also own the 600 PF and 800 PF. So if I need a 600, I'll use the 600 which has much better IQ and it feels better in the hands. The 400 f/4.5 doesn't 'feel' great with the TC attached. The 800 on the other hand seems to just feel like a native 1100mm with the TC and I don't feel any IQ or AF loss, if I am using the 800 it also means I need to start at 800 for the subject and getting closer isn't on the cards.
The Z 1.4TC is mind blowing. Been using it for about 2 years now and even on my 400 f/2.8 with the built in TC (560 f/4) I can add this external TC to get to almost 800mm and be sharp and clean. This ain't your fathers TC! It beats the pants of the AF version. The 2.0 TC isn't as good although I have used it when I need to push in. Definitely buy the 1.4 TC!
@@russandloz I see a lot of these reviews with pixel peeping differences that don't really register when a viewer looks at the entire picture. Also, coming from the older AF lenses which were originally designed for film cameras (about 6MP) the new Z sensors are significantly improved and now support the higher pixel counts and improved dynamic range. Of course, all eyes are different and you may see things that I don't and vice versa.
@@craig_m_mi500 f4g ed vr sells for around £1500-2000 in a decent condition. Plenty sharp and very quick to focus. Takes 1.4tc way better than recent 500f5.6. It’s obviously an older lens from 2007 and heavier than newer versions but difference is negligible and well, it works for me with birds in flight very well with z8
There is no way I am going to use f8 in bird photography. The backgrounds would absolutely suck for perching birds. And the ISO would be sky high. Since I got the Z9 I use Dx mode (I have it assigned to the Fn4 button) so my ISO doesn't change. I went from using the 1.7x teleconverter 90% of the time on my D4 (f6.3) to never using one on the Z9.
I don't understand your use case, get a longer focal length or get closer to the subject. To me the 1.4 is a crusial tool for higher magnifications at close distance. Nice video though, good laughs.
I wish I could get closer to the subjects but they fly away! It does seem using the teleconverter closer gets better results but then I won’t need the converter?
@@russandloz they do fly away for sure! :-) On a serious note, I saw some examples of heavy cropping, and my experience is that getting that extra reach over a distance is a very bad idea. I've done a lot of testing through the years with different tc combos and on fast primes they (read 1.4) work well, but I wouldn't bother with 5.6 or slower. Example: my old 300/4 ED is exceptional, but pairing it for birding e g, would ruin the shots. Inconsistent results with af-c and at +15 meters cropping would yield better or same quality. But using the same setup for 'macro' work at f8-f11 was flawless. Contrast, sharpness and color as good as without tc. And we are talking FF of course. I should also mention temperature, I have some prints (A2) from my 20 years of photography that are OK quality wise and taken with tc, and all are taken during winter (Sweden). Heat distortion is a culprit that no lens can tackle, but with tc it seems a magnitude worse. Just an observation through the years. Now, keep that bird close and keep up the good work.
I've not seen enlarged images to same size of what a TC brings (2.0x & 1.4X) be better than the TC as they look like digitally enlarged images (so they look worse).
Best prices I’ve seen on used market and Photography Show last month. I got my 400 from wex used for £2500 and 1.4 for £450 used too. I seen the 600 for £3400 at the Birmingham photography show. Got Loz’s z8 for £3200 there
I am ever more appreciative of the lovely relaxed and informative interplay between both of you. It must take a huge amount of work and I am very grateful for your videos. This one was really helpful
Thanks you so much. Yes it does takes days of work to make these videos and we try as high standard as possible. We also think we have a unique chat approach. Do you have a TC?
Thanks !
Stopping down to f8 at 560mm to get sharpness really adds to the question of buying the 400mm f4.5 unless you shoot at 400mm f4.5. The 500mm PF is sharper than 400mm 4.5 + TC and it lets in more light at f5.6 than f8. People don't like the FTZ but then they add the TC. I think you nailed the conclusions and that's why we're seeing more 400mm f4.5 on the used market now. Beautiful lens but less practical. Nikon was brilliant in releasing the 400mm f4.5 before the 600mm f6.3. 400mm f4.5 is probably best for sports if you don't have a 2.8.....but the 100-400mm lens is the more practical option for that use.
I wish Nikon released a 500 4.5, that would have been a killer lens
@@russandloz Likely big and expensive though. Which reminds me.....I'd love to see you both review the Sigma 200-500mm f2.8 if you can get your hands on one he he.
@@russandlozI love my 500mm f/4
@@toojeffcjs It’s quite big and heavy? Only for tripod use?
@@russandlozI use it hand held. It doesn't give me any problems. But it is very heavy
I have the Nikon Z 1.4x teleconverter. I also own three Nikon Z zooms that can utilize this teleconverter, the Z 70-200mm f2.8; the 100-400mm f4.5-5.6; and the 180-600mm f5.6-6.3. It works very well on all 3 lenses. I'm not much of a pixel-peeper. I find that paying attention to my technique is more important than worrying about marginal sharpness of focus. The most positive aspect for me is the larger view through the EVF when I want to retain maximum data on the file (as opposed to switching to DX mode). The negative is mostly about the available light issues and did my aging brain remember that I have the teleconverter at my disposal.
I got the 180-600 and love it. I had used a Sigma 150-600 with ftz. Focus improvement make a huge difference. The Nikon gear seems to work best together.
Wish you tested it with the Zf. I'm thinking it would be more effective on a lower rez camera. Cropping the image on a lower rez sensor will result in more pixelation, so the TC would probably be of more use there.
I plan to get the Z6III whenever it comes out, so may get the 1.4TC at some point.
Thanks for these tests.
Yes I could test the zf with the 1.4 but i felt it was too much for one video. I feel most wildlife photographers use the z8/z9 really
So, I occasionally use the 1.4TC with my Z8 and Z 180-600mm, very happy with the results. Okay, yes I am stopped down to f/9 at the top end, but still get amazing results. Won’t be using it throughout the summer months though, due to heat defraction/heat haze!! It also knocks out good Astro Deep Space images.
I think it really comes down to printing. If you're printing large and need the pixels, then you slap on the TC... maybe.
The more interesting comparison IMO is to use Gigapixel AI or similar to increase the resolution of the crop to match the resolution of the TC, and then compare prints. The AI scaling has gotten *so good* it's really difficult to see a difference on the upscaled crop vs. TC. Compare that as well to shots taken with the longer lenses you're discussing - in my case I shot the Sigma 150-600. Don't compare on a monitor, print some good size prints, A3 or A2. I own a Canon 100-400mm EF L mkII on and old EOS R and I sold the Canon TC ("extender" v3) after my wife laughed at me for asking "which one looks better?" when comparing an A3 print. I had the 150-600 in there too. I couldn't tell the difference either, not at all.
Yeah very good point. The video would be too long and confusing with AI enhancement but I’m trying that next to compare. Printing is a scarcity now really. Shame but it’s true. I intent to print small bird prints but no bigger than A4 or 20x16
I'd comment that the 1.4X is a great addition to my Z 800mm. I much prefer the Teleconverter to enlarging. However...it is so ridiculously limited for lens support, I could never recommend it to the general public. Oddly, I wasn't aware that the 1.4X didn't work on most Z lenses when I ordered it. The Teleconverter's optical stack protrudes way too far outwards for most Z lens mounting barrels to accommodate it. I originally purchased it for my 24-70mm...which obviously fails. However, it so impressed me on my 800mm, I'm keeping mine.
Fair enough. It is fun to use and the results seem satisfying when using. But comparing side by side it’s not much different.
The 180-600 is a splendid lens that I use daily it would be interesting to compare it and the 400+TC both at f8. A member of our local birding group has posted some incredible shots of shore birds with the 180-600 pluss the 1.4 TC. I haven't tried the TC with mine, but if one came up second hand, I would pounce!
It’s fun to use the TC and looks great in camera as there seems little negatives. But it’s a bit of reality check when comparing side by side. But I’m keeping mine for those slight improvements
While teleconverters obviously have their place, I'm more of a newspaper photographer, so the Nikon Z 180-600 5.6-6.3 is my next lens purchase.
I sometimes don't have the time to take off a lens to put on a teleconverter, and I'd rather just go with two cameras in my bag featuring two different zoom focal lengths.
As far as the images go, I saw no significant difference in quality that something like photo AI could not take care of, and I agree with @lozzom when he suggested putting the money into a more versatile lens that may actually produce better results.
As always, thanks for the insight and for the banter.
Yeah for some occasions having two cameras is a good idea, but for a wondering wildlife photographer that is a bit of pain. Hopefully we'll get to try the 180-600 soon
The VR on the 500PF on a Z8 is fantastic, much better than the 300PF. Still, when flying and space is limited, I’ll take the 300PF plus 1.4TCIII. The 500PF is a tiny bit sharper than that combo, but it weighs more and takes up more space. I’ve considered replacing both with the 400 f/4.5 and 1.4TC, but the cost is unjustifiable at this time.
I heard lots of people swap from a 500 to the 400 plus tc. But yes it costs twice as much and I bet there isn’t much difference and maybe even not so good for long range
Always great videos. This is a great channel!
I’ve found a similar performance as you have. In my experience, S-Line lenses work exceptionally well with teleconverters. In contrast, non-S-Line lenses, such as the 180-600mm, perform poorly with teleconverters. I was particularly surprised by how significantly worse the 180-600mm lens performed when using the teleconverter; it seemed like a completely different lens. However, using the teleconverter with the 400mm f/4.5 lens, I noticed almost no difference in performance.
Thanks a lot Michael, appreciate the YT support.. So no difference means not worth using it?
@@russandloz that’s a good question. When I had the Z6ii as my main camera, I was more excited about using my TC when I needed more reach. However, since upgrading to the Z8 with more croppable resolution, I’ve only used my TC for test shots. :)
Russ, You can get a 600 6.3 for 3400? its 4700 here in the states .Sooner or later youll go 600mm. 400 often doesnt cut it for small birds or BIF.
That was the best deal at the Photography show event last month but it’s rare to see it that price. If I traded in I would only get half my money back and can’t justify that really
@@russandloz at 3400 next time pick one up for me and Ill wire it to you.😀
On these comparison results I'd say the teleconverter probably isn't worth the money. If 400mm isnt long enough perhaps your suggestion of adapting the f mount 500mm PF would be better with the added benefit of getting a very sharp f5.6 instead of f8 with your current combo. You have the Z8 so leverage its resolution to crop further if you need to get a bit closer. On the basis of your results today thats the direction I'd go personally. The 500 PF is known to be a great performer with the FTZ adapter so I don't believe you'd see issues with poor AF using the Z8 ( or Z9 ). 😉
Yes I'm very interested to try the 500pf, i'd rather shoot at 5.6 than f8. But maybe therw wouldn't be much in it
Very useful, thank you.
Thinking of getting one?
@@russandloz Yes, for a Z 100-400mm. Main reasons are flexibility (400mm is very good but I'm a zoom guy!), weight (1,5 kg is ok, 2kg is also ok, but ...) and length (the 180-600 is huge, 9cm is a big difference). But I'm still debating.
@@luispacheco9683 I also don’t want a heavy lens again but maybe the 180-600 isn’t so bad. Hopefully find out soon
I am also struggling as I own a 100-400mm and the 1.4 TC, and do a lot of aviation photography, either at the airport or shows. For shows I need a longer reach and using the 100-400 with tc, doesn’t cut it, however, this is just a hobby and purchasing the 600mm doesn’t make any sense to me, so always thinking if I should buy the 400mm and live with that, or buy a 180-600mm and never use it as is very heavy and long.
Other issue is, I photograph basketball for my Basketball Club here in Switzerland, and sometimes would like to have something longer than 200 with f/4, so for that the 70-200mm with the TC is great.
It’s not easy to didn’t he right lens is it. Isn’t the 100-400 with tc any good?
@@russandloz not bad, but nothing special, as photographing F18 jets
it is not bad, but will not win any trophy, tried the 2 times and that was horrible, as focusing was almost impossible.
@dasalazarle Yeah, the 100-400 is pretty nice, but at times can be too short for things like aviation. But a 600mm prime is not so versatile. The 180-600 is a great range, but a lot bigger and about 20grams heavier than 100-400 with the 1.4x... No great solution.
The Z 1.4 teleconverter is better than the F mount one but needs careful testing on every individual lens. I only use mine with my 180-600, first time I've used a TC with a zoom, and it is pretty good but the sweet spot is f10. It's OK WO at f9,est at f10 and OK at f11 but diffraction sets in after that. It would be different on a good prime.
F10 would be really difficult to shoot for light even with great VR. I’d rather have my setup I think
@@russandloz understand but how do you get to 840mm? TCs are only to get small things bigger in the frame, not for very far distance really and in adequate light.
I just got my 180-600 Z with the 1.4x teleconverter yesterday. I haven't had a chance to really try it out yet and would love to see your reaction to the combo.
Yes, how can we do that?
@@russandloz Ask Nikon real nice if you can borrow them. Or, pay for my airline ticket and I'll bring them to you myself!
1.4x def looks better, when you crop and blow instead it looks like a blown up digital image. Also my 1.4x is awesome on the Z 70-200/2.8 and I know some reviews that show that.
Interesting as I found the 1.4 made the image worse with the 70-200. Guess different ways of shooting and light conditions change things. But I agree the tc fine well with my 400 lens
@@russandloz Ok, @MTBD80 says that the 1.4 on 70-200 is awesome, and you say it was sub par.
You think maybe you had a faulty 1.4 when you tried it?
Makes no sense to have such a wide range of opinion.
@@Quidisi I'm keeping my 1.4, but there are many reasons why people experience different results. Including conditions of shoot, settings and what you are satisfied with which is subjective.
@@russandloz Not sure how that could be with the Z 70-200.
I initially rented the 1.4x for a trip out west because I couldn't buy one for a year as it was highly regarded. Loved it and it never left the 70-200 the whole trip for landscape. It was so well regarded it was unobtainable for at least a year when tried to get one for that 2022 trip. Finally I was able to acquire one last year as I needed it for an event and that copy was just as stellar. It did come off the lens but only because I wanted more separation w/ 2.8 for certain shots. I have some quite good examples to share as well.
I knew the 1.4x was great before even renting, it was the 2x I was always curious about. I ended up renting it and a Zfc (very slight higher pixel density than Z8/Z9) and finding that it was overall better on the Z 70-200/2.8 than my F mount Tamron 100-400.
Also it is hard to really extract detail in low-light/soft-light/higher-iso combo situations which theses images look like. That alone will paint a dull picture. In the comparison where you mentioned the pupil being more visible, notice the sky reflection on the eyeball has far more sharpness/detail on the TC image.
I have great example of Z 70-200 @ 200 enlarged to match it with the 2.0x TC and the difference is clear and looks the same as what you have shown. These however were shot across a lake (like a landscape) which highlights detail more vs filling a frame (as in a sum there are more details to look at).
The 1.4 works well with the 600 pf @ F9. TCs work better when you fill the frame. Get yourself the 600 and do the vid again 😉🤩
I wouldn't need the tc with the 600mm, but yes i'd love to try
Filling the frame, bingo! It seems like some people use a TC to reach over a continent. Get close, get more focal length and use a TC for higher magnifications (on short distances)
If you have to search at 100% to see any difference then as a layman I would say that it is satisfactory . Is it cost effective is a more serious question because you can often crop
I guess the opposite of that is, why use it if you can't see any differences? It's a strange one really.
Very interesting. Still interested to get the 100-400 to pair with my 24-120 and add the 1.4 maybe for when I need to shoot some wildlife?
Zooms are less capable with teles in my experience. Least with the 70-200. Hopefully we’ll have different lenses to try soon
I wouldn't use the 1.4x on my 400 f/4.5 or even on my 600 f/6.3. But I do use it on the 800 f/6.3 for skittish shore birds where I can't get closer without disturbing them and want a lot of pixels on the bird. This also means I have excellent light for stopping down. I would also add that if you put it on the 70-200 f/2.8 you get IQ that looks like it came out a native lens. The TC is very lens dependent.
Interesting, Why wouldn't you use it on the 400 but on the 800?
I sold my 400mm 4.5 and and purchased a 600pf. Feels about the same weight and use the 1.4 teleconverter in bright sunlight. Amazing sharpness and stabilisation for slower shutter speed still birds. I’ve taken pin sharp images at slower shutter speeds At 840mm. Even considered selling my 800pf, but I’m going to hang on to it because I like using it with the 1.4 teleconverter
@@martinsarre Yes it seems a good way to go but I hate losing so much trading in or selling privately. If I didn’t have any I’d go for the 600. But as it is I’ll stick for now
@@russandloz there are a few reasons, but lets start with that I also own the 600 PF and 800 PF. So if I need a 600, I'll use the 600 which has much better IQ and it feels better in the hands. The 400 f/4.5 doesn't 'feel' great with the TC attached. The 800 on the other hand seems to just feel like a native 1100mm with the TC and I don't feel any IQ or AF loss, if I am using the 800 it also means I need to start at 800 for the subject and getting closer isn't on the cards.
I am still thinking about getting it for my 180-600 on the Zf with 24MP ... what do you think ?
Haven’t tested on ZF but usually not so good on zoom lenses. But also haven’t tested on that lens either 🤷♂️
Whynot use apsc or dx mode instead?
Dx mode gives you a better field of view but a teleconverter gives you full megapixels on a 40% reach. Dx mode just cuts off the sides
The Z 1.4TC is mind blowing. Been using it for about 2 years now and even on my 400 f/2.8 with the built in TC (560 f/4) I can add this external TC to get to almost 800mm and be sharp and clean. This ain't your fathers TC! It beats the pants of the AF version. The 2.0 TC isn't as good although I have used it when I need to push in. Definitely buy the 1.4 TC!
So you've seen more difference than we did? Why would that be do you think?
@@russandloz I see a lot of these reviews with pixel peeping differences that don't really register when a viewer looks at the entire picture. Also, coming from the older AF lenses which were originally designed for film cameras (about 6MP) the new Z sensors are significantly improved and now support the higher pixel counts and improved dynamic range. Of course, all eyes are different and you may see things that I don't and vice versa.
Ftz ii with 500f4 and you’re good to go. Stop it down to f4.5 and it’s as sharp as the z8 can render. Well under £3k. Happy days
A 500 f/4 for "well under 3k"...? Must know someone.
@@craig_m_mi500 f4g ed vr sells for around £1500-2000 in a decent condition. Plenty sharp and very quick to focus. Takes 1.4tc way better than recent 500f5.6. It’s obviously an older lens from 2007 and heavier than newer versions but difference is negligible and well, it works for me with birds in flight very well with z8
There is no way I am going to use f8 in bird photography. The backgrounds would absolutely suck for perching birds. And the ISO would be sky high. Since I got the Z9 I use Dx mode (I have it assigned to the Fn4 button) so my ISO doesn't change. I went from using the 1.7x teleconverter 90% of the time on my D4 (f6.3) to never using one on the Z9.
Yeah but like I said you can use very low shutter speeds to get those ISO’s down which I’ve shown. But sure it’s hard work
I don't understand your use case, get a longer focal length or get closer to the subject. To me the 1.4 is a crusial tool for higher magnifications at close distance. Nice video though, good laughs.
I wish I could get closer to the subjects but they fly away! It does seem using the teleconverter closer gets better results but then I won’t need the converter?
@@russandloz they do fly away for sure! :-) On a serious note, I saw some examples of heavy cropping, and my experience is that getting that extra reach over a distance is a very bad idea. I've done a lot of testing through the years with different tc combos and on fast primes they (read 1.4) work well, but I wouldn't bother with 5.6 or slower. Example: my old 300/4 ED is exceptional, but pairing it for birding e g, would ruin the shots. Inconsistent results with af-c and at +15 meters cropping would yield better or same quality. But using the same setup for 'macro' work at f8-f11 was flawless. Contrast, sharpness and color as good as without tc. And we are talking FF of course. I should also mention temperature, I have some prints (A2) from my 20 years of photography that are OK quality wise and taken with tc, and all are taken during winter (Sweden). Heat distortion is a culprit that no lens can tackle, but with tc it seems a magnitude worse. Just an observation through the years. Now, keep that bird close and keep up the good work.
Sold it. Z9 crop is better.
I've not seen enlarged images to same size of what a TC brings (2.0x & 1.4X) be better than the TC as they look like digitally enlarged images (so they look worse).
I've seen very mixed results, some better, some worse, then maybe without it the best answer
i am watching this on the lowest quality possible and it show crop is way better try it
Where did you get these prices from? On Wex tonight the 400mm + TC would be £3600 (not £3000) and the 600mm is £5000 (not £3400)
Best prices I’ve seen on used market and Photography Show last month. I got my 400 from wex used for £2500 and 1.4 for £450 used too. I seen the 600 for £3400 at the Birmingham photography show. Got Loz’s z8 for £3200 there
@@russandloz Cool, thanks for the info. I obviously need to shop around more!