Hey Everyone ! This was a really important video for me because this is a big choice for my photography going forward. So hopefully this video also helps those of that are also struggling to decide on the best long lens set up for your Z camera ! What would you choose out of these three options??? let me know As always thanks so much for watching !
Thank you for these great comparisons. They are so helpful. Probably not the answer you are looking for, but I'm choosing to wait for the Z mount 100-400mm before making a decision. My new 24-200mm will tide me over for the time being.
Hi! Thanks for your detailed match-up of these lenses. It raised one question in my mind about the 70-200. Z mount lenses are supposed to be extremely sharp but in your test, it seems on par with the 200-500 and below the 500mm prime. Is it due to the lens itself or do the teleconverters affect the optical performance? I am looking at the 85mm 1.8s and 50mm or the 70-200mm for studio work, shooting furniture. The zoom offers me flexibility but is it a good performer for my intended use? Thanks for your help.
Great review. I have the 200-500 and use it for birds and airshows. Recently had a heart condition(recovering) so I haven't been able to lug around my big mindshift pack with 3 big lenses (about 15 lbs). I need to stop carrying all of that gear. I think the 2x tc will work nicely on the z70-200 and is about 2 lbs lighter than the 200-500 setup. So just two lenses (24-70 and 70-200 with 2x tc ) should be much more manageable. With topaz sharpen in post, all should be tack sharp.
If you can live with the variable aperture - the new Z 100-400 will out-perform. I had a TC20EMkIII on a 70-200/2.8 VR II - the combo didn't like bright highlights - got blooming on a D700. The Z TC x2 will be better but still a compromise too far, IMO. I suspect the Z TC x1.4 is going to give far better results.
This is the style of comparison review that we don't see enough of; the pros and cons of each clearly set out with the viewer being better equipped to make their decision. Contrast with the all too common style of "this one is the clear winner and this one is complete rubbish, it will make you a third class photographer" - totally ignoring use case / circumstances and typically coming from people whose photos (if they ever get out of the studio long enough to actually *take* any) leave a lot to be desired. Thank you Ricci!
I have the 70-200mm f2.8 S lens for the Z system and the OG Z6. After watching this, I sold my 200-500 f5.6 and purchased the 2.0x tele, not because I think it is “better” but because it is excellent quality for the low weight. I will be purchasing the 200-600 S lens when it comes out, and for the really long shots I will use that, but for the times I want a light weight and excellent reach i will use the 70-200mm with the 2X tele.
The takeaway from your videos is you are not trying to sell me anything, and I respect that. Everything the you have suggested in your videos have pan out when I applied it to my photography. So thanks again.
The 500mm 5,6 glued to my d850,unbeatable combo,with the 70/200 with or without a 2x tc a close second on the Z7.I hated the 200-500 but that’s just me.Great comparative video.
Very useful comparison. I’d love to know how the 24-200mm Z lens stacks up in comparison as a much cheaper alternative to all the lens that you featured.
I own the Nikon 200-500 5.6 and it's an amazing lens, also the sigma 70-200 2.8 with the FTZ, both of them are pretty sharp, I don't have any problem to carry on two big lenses and two bodies in my backpack. Great video.
Very useful comparison! Thank you for this! I have both the 200-500 and 500 PF - both fantastic on my Z6. The 500 PF almost never comes off my camera - optical performance and AF in a lightweight package is amazing - it might be the perfect run-and-gun wildlife lens. Even satisfactory with the 1.7x converter, when I need extra reach. On the other hand, the 200-500 was a great performer on safari, where backing off the focal length was useful with big subjects. All this said, I am looking forward to native Z mount telephotos so I can eventually ditch the FTZ. From what I see here, the Z 70-200 looks great, but not really a replacement for what I currently use. Looking forward to future developments in the Z mount tele department. Thanks again for the balanced and informative review!
I'm px'ing my AF-P 70-300 for a 2nd hand 200-500 tomorrow - both lenses are bargains. That 500PF is proving to be extremely popular on the Z9. The Z 400/2.8 TC despite the cost will sell extremely well but is well beyond my pay grade!
Thank you for this really great comparison and all the other that I watched so far! I will wait for the 200-600 and will use my 3rd party lense with FTZ. Greetings from South Germany ;-)
I was waiting this video before taking my final decision... very happy to have waited! Those Tc are very good for teleconverter... but still not as good as real lenses... I will wait the next lenses before buying (24-105 and the 100-400)... thanks for your good work;)
Another great video Ricci, after watching I went with the 2 teleconverters to go with my Z 70-200mm but also bought the 500mm f5.6 pf for that extra reach. Very happy with the set ups.
You have overwhelming thanks by folks with this video. I join the positive crowd! Thanks for comparisons that are relevant to me. Thanks for your time and effort. I’m so glad to learn from an intelligent, experienced and personable teacher. I’ve found all your videos helpful as well as entertaining. I’d be thrilled if you continue to ignore the occasional negative comment and remain an important part of the Nikon learning community! Best always, Ricci.
Thank you so much for this comparison! I've been trying to figure out if $3500 for the 500mm PF is worth the jump from my 70-200mm S with the TC-2.0x, think ill hold off.
Thanks for the Video. I have a Z6II and 200-500, to complement it purchased another Z6II body with 70-300 AF-P 4.5-5.6E ED VR. Budget is main concern but I find 200-500 very heavy. I have two questions First, should I go for 500 PF or 100-400 Z lens to replace 200-500 and secondly, 70-300 compares to 70-200 F/2.8? I now mainly shoot wildlife and birds.
Thanks, Ricci! I’ve never owned the 200-500, but it looks like a great value. I’m trying to decide whether to hold onto my D850 for use with my 500 PF and 600 f/4E or just sell it. I still have my 6&7 and the new mark II versions as well (and the 70-200 + TCs). As a seasoned Nikon veteran, are you happy with long glass on the Z6/7 II’s? Anything to really miss AF-wise in parting with the D850? Thanks for your opinion on this.
I use my 600 f4E and my 500mm PF on my Z7 and Z7ii and Iv not wanted to go back to D850. Iv had the same conversation with lots of people and it mainly seems to be down to feeling at home with the D850 af system once you really get to know the af system of the Z it seems people really embrace it and move on from their DSLR
Can you mount this way for maximum distance? Z6 body> Z mount 2x teleconverter > FTZ converter > Nikon 200-500. Would this all mount together properly in that order? Would light loss be too great to get good photos?
Well I just ordered both (minus the tele), 70-200 2.8 S and the F 200-500 🥳 Current sales & promos were bananas so I couldn't pass them up 🙂 So my Z glass is all in place from 20mm through 200, planning to add an Expeed7 body in 2023, and I'll plan for the Z 200-600 in the next couple years. Thanks so much for your helpful & informative content!
Great Video and reinforces what I assumed would be the result of 500PF vs 70-200 (X2). BUT what about 300PF vs 70-200 (1.4)? I have both and debating which to carry for casual walk about. If the 70-200 was equal/better that would probably be my choice as you have a zoom and 200-400. Very interested in Z 200-600! If it is better than 500PF and lighter than 200-500 I would be in line to buy. I really appreciate your videos- best and broadest comparos I have seen. JimB
Thank you for this useful video. Right now the Z tele converters can only be used on the Z 70-200 S. Going forward, will they be compatible with other Z lenses?
Thanks for your time and expertise. I recently purchased the Z 70-200 f2.8 and am in the process of deciding which teleconverter to get. Your video comparisons have really helped me. I'm leaning towards the 1.4. Thanks again for such great videos.
Indeed so! But, even if Nikon absolutely nails it with the 100-400, let's not forget all you can do with the 70-200 f2.8. I think that lens with the 2.0 tc is a fantastic combo! But then again.. what if the 100-400 works flawlessly with the TC.. :D
Nice review! I recently picked up the 500pf to us with my z6 and d810. I also got the fringer Nikon -> Fuji adapter to try out my Nikon lenses on some Fuji bodies I have.
Thanks for the video, I am unable to decide between 100-400z & 500PF for my Z6II to replace my 200-500 which is a great lens but very heavy to hand hold for me. I need the lens for bird photography & wildlife. Although, I am inclined towards 500Pf. I will be grateful for your valuable opinion.
Hi Ricci I have just rewatched this video and since it was posted I have ordered a Z9, but still waiting like so many…my question is in relation to the 500pf, I am told the lens focuses much faster and more accurately on the Z9 even with a TC fitted, would you say it would be better to fit the f mount 1.4TC to the 500pf then to the FTZ adapter or would it all work better to have the FTZ adapter fitted direct to the lens and then use a Z mount 1.4 TC to get express reach….thanks for all you great advice in your vids….John
Hello Ricci, can you please summary your fining up. After watching the video, it seem the 70-200mm with a 1.4x TC is a good option. 500mm lens standalone is good choice, but heavy and long, because on the Z camera you need the adaptor. I am not a professional and just hobbyist, so the Z lens 70-200mm with the 1.4 TC would give me the extra reach for photographing the wildlife. Price is the factor. It seem you prefer the 200-500mm.
hi ricci, thank you for all the videos!!! im interested on motorsports racing and i have a z6 with 70-200 tamron G2... what is the best route going forward? getting a d500? 200-500mm f5.6? or a teleconverter and 70-200z lens? beacuae if i use the tamron i have to use ftz adapter and teleconverter.... please send me your thoughts...thank you
After this video I decided to buy the 2x Z TC!!! Obviously I have the Z 70-200. I also have the sigma C 150-600…would you compare it with the 70-200+2x TC? Thks a lot!
Hi Ricci, can we use teleconverter with Z9 and Nikon F mount lenses like 70-200 FL, 200-500 mm? If yes, which TC, Z mount TC or F mount TC with FTZ II adaptor? How to do the attachment?
I've been using the 200-500 on my D500 for a long time now and am more than happy with it. I don't often use the 1.4TC, but you can still get sharp pictures hand held when it's fitted.
Very helpful video. I've been thinking of buying that expensive Z TC but never really likes TCs. The 200-500mm is great value. I may have had a bad copy of the 500mm pf but I found it a little soft compared to my 600mm f4. I've just ordered the 2x TC...
Wow, you answered all my questions! I just ordered a z7ii after years of DSLR in order to go lighter. I was looking at possibility of z 70-200 with a 2X. However, I already have a 200-500. I'm going on safari and debated about hauling it around. Your video may have saved me some money, and I'll probably now take it. It seems there is always a compromise when it comes to lenses!
Thanks for your input. I recently shot some waterfowl with the 200-500 on my Z7 with a 2x teleconverter and the FTZ, which made the lens almost too long. A monopod really helped and I got more than respectable photos. I was considering the 70-200 and the 2x but now it doesn't seem to be much of a gain for upwards of $3G. I have 4 native Z lenses, 14-30, 24-70, 50 and 85 which do 90% of what I want. I think you just saved me a lot of money. It would be great if Nikon came out with a native 70-200 F4 for a fraction of the price of the 2.8.
I have the 200-500. It’s great but I rarerly use it because it’s almost too big to fit into my bag. So one day , when it is realesed, I will probably buy a 70-200/4 Z lens and a 2 times converter. But first, I have to save up to that Z camera... Have a d750 now. Huge thanks, Ricci. I really like your videos. They really make me wanna be a lottery winner.
I need 600mm for birding. I am not interested in cheap lens now and i don't have the budget to buy a 500mm 5.6 or 600mm f4 at the moment. Planning to use z7 ii with 70 200mm and 2X in DX mode until i can afford a big prime. Would the DX mode amplify the lack of sharpness?
Great video. I wonder if you can make comparison between Nikon 200-500 and F mount 70-200/2.8 with TC. As I have the 'old' 70-200 lens (first gen) and thinking of Z 70-200 is still too expensive to buy this year. Or you could just reply your thought here. Thanks.
I would say the 200-500 would be better than the older f-mount Tc as that does reduce sharpness more than the Z mount TC does. So a 200-500 should be an improvement from what Iv seen but obviously Iv not fully tested that set up side by side
Another extremely useful video. Ricci, you did a great video on the Z lens roadmap a year ago. Have you heard any update on when the 100-400mm is likely to be shipping to the UK? Thanks
Great video! Just found it as I'm deciding on pretty much exactly what you covered! One quick question. I shoot with a Z6II since the resolution is lower than the Z7 or Z7II will optical differences be between the 200-500 and the 500 PF be noticeable? Or am I starting to split hairs and fall into pixel peeping? Lol
Thanks Ricci. Can you show us the spherical abberations of these combinations? I have the 70-200 zmount (+1.4tc and also the 300mm PF with a 1.4x tc III) and I think the spherical abberations are very distracting. You can easily see these errors if you photograph a tree and look at the out of focus branches. They look double or ghosting. Once you've seen it, its hard to unsee. It is visible in many lenses. Some are better and some are worse.
Really useful video, just what I have been waiting for. When comparing the 70-200 with the TC 2.0 against the 200-500, if you stopped down from f5.6, do you think the difference between them would have narrowed further. It appeared to when using the TC 1.4 I just sold my 200-500 so I could get a 70-200 plus the TC 2.0 so I'm hoping I made the right call.
Thanks for this! You answered literally all of my questions on every variation I was curious about. Now I'm gonna try to hold off and see how the Z 100-400 looks before I start eyeing the PF too closely haha
Hi Ricci I have just watched and enjoyed your video on TC, I am a wildlife enthusiast I do have a 500 PF lens and I am intending to get a 300 PF and a 1.4 TC, to use for closer photo,s and when I am walking lonf distances. I am also considering getting Nikon 600 prime lens? , please could you give me your opinion as to how much better in picture quality this would be against my 500 PF. I have recently purchased a Z 6 11 and I also have a Nikon D500 camera. I would appreciate your thoughts and comments on the above. Thank You
I've noticed that you also use the colour checker passport. Have you managed to use that with the Nikon NX Studio software when processing Z9 raw images?
Hey Ricci, I just got my new Nikon WR-R11b remote. It’s much bigger than the older model, and unfortunately it doesn’t fit very well with my ReallyRightStuff L-bracket. I have to extend the L-side quite a bit in order for it to fit.
I have recently bought the 1.4 Tele converter. I must say that I’ve been a bit disappointed as I can’t see any difference between using it and leaving it off and cropping the photo to achieve the same effective focal length. I will carry on trying it and hopefully I will see a difference at some point but at the moment I’m wondering whether I did the right thing in buying it
I think the difference varies between the camera sensor if you have a 45mp sensor then cropping will probably be better but with a 20mp sensor a tele converter might be a better option, atleast this is what I've been told
The point that ur missing is that some photographers have a minimum megapixel requirement if you have 45mp and crop that eats in to ur megapixels leaving you with less MP for printing ect If you use a tele converter not only do you get the extra focal length but you can then crop on top of that getting you even closer to the subject The best advise I can give is get as close as you can optically then crop to get the best results
@@RicciTalks thanks for the reply. I’m using a Z6ii. I don’t have a minimum megapixel requirement, have just been testing it by cropping with and without the TC to get the same end result and can’t see a difference. Where there is one, it seems slightly better without the TC. Just my experience so far 😞
The best way to look at it would be to use the Tc to get you closer to a subject when cropping can’t So if you take a picture of a bird and then crop and it’s the shot you like then great but if you crop and it’s still too small in the frame that would be the time to add the Tc to get the extra focal length and then Crop on top of that to get closer :)
Good job. Thank you for the useful performance comparisons. Seeing the performance of the f-mount 500mm pf and ftz combo helps greatly when trying to decide to spend that much for the lens. Another thing that would be useful to know: weight and volume comparisons of the different setups. For example, if I'm packing for a day of wildlife photography, I would bring along the 500 pf. But if I'm going on an extended trip where I'll be expecting highly varied conditions and everything from landscape to wildlife, and the size and weight of my kit is limited, am I better off with the the teleconverter options? One other comparison to this same end would be teleconverter performance of the more affordable, multi-purpose z 24-200mm vs. the z 70-200. In other words, is the combo of the former and one or two teleconverters worth the reduction in cost, weight, and volume for the discerning photographer?
hello Ricci, i have ordered a Z TC2 for my Z6ii + Z 70-200mm F/2.8 because 200mm is really too shrot for birds... I hesitated to orer a refurbished 200-500mm but not very fan using FTZ... I have read that Z TC2 works best with Z7ii. correct ? Does it make sense to set Z6ii to DX mode to have a 600mm ? I have seen youtube videos from Taylor jackson doing it. But I have read that collimators are so big in Z6ii that it shouldn't work well and Z7ii should be better in that sense again with smaller dots.
I've chosen the Nikon Z 70-200mm F2.8S and 2X teleconverter (awaiting arrival of latter). My decision is based on the fact that I already own the F-mount equivalent (w/ older 2.8G II VR), so there's an improvement there. Since wildlife is not presently my prime interest, I think I'll be happy with the combo ... at least until that Z 600mm is released 😃
You always bring very accurate information that I use to decide on my upgrades. I have the Z6 with 299-500mm f5.6 and super sharp for what I do. Wow I can’t imagine the 500mm f5.6 prime wow. Anyhow, thank you 🙏 for your videos. Keep them coming 👍👍👍
Great video Ricci, what did the 200-500 look like in comparison to the 70-200 when they were both stopped down to f/8? All of the 200-500 shots were wide open so I wondered if things sharpened up even more at f/8.
Thanks for the video! I got a question: s it worth to wait for new z 200-600 lens or go now and pick 200-500 F-mount? Or even Tamron's 150-600? What do you think? Thanks!
If you have nothing in that range and you can wait the I would wait. If you really need something now then the 200-500 would always be the choice over the 150-600s
@@RicciTalks that's what i thought also. It'll be my first lens in that range. I have both Z6 and D750 and I thought mayve to buy F-mount lens to use on both if it'll be nesserary. Could you explain why you prefer 200-500 over 150-600?
Great question :-) Thinking about exactly that currently as well! Ricci, do you have any thoughts on when we'll hear more about the z 200-600? Weeks, Months??
The main reason is the constant 5.6 ... the 150-600 has a variable aperture also from the 150-600 lenses Iv see. (Lots) they never really focus as well as the 200-500
Hey Ricci, what a truly outstanding compare - easy to understand (clear) and with all the right points for comparison as well as your thoughts on what people might lean towards based on what they have / do. I came across the video because I was thinking of getting the both the 1.4 and 2.0 (I have the 70-200 S and Z7) to replace my 200-400 f/4 VR II. I find the 200-400 too heavy to br practical and I do not need poster size prints of what I shoot. But I would be really interested if you have any thoughts on the 200-400 compared (say at 280 f/4) compared to the 70-200 with the 1.4 at 280mm f/4 comparing the centre and edge sharpness
Hey glad you found the video useful Sadly I don’t have much hands on experience with the 200-400( I have a 180-400) I think if the 200-400 is to heavy that ur just not using then you will find the 70-200 a much more acceptable size and weight that you are more Likely to use and take with you…. I’d imagine the quality could be pretty close but I think the actual usability is more important
Hello Ricci, A little off topic but I know were who you work for so I just like to say how amazing I am finding the Z7ii do thank every one. I am getting amazing image with the Z7ii+ftz 105mm macro lens. But as I have been shielding for 8 months out of the last year not got out with my 500mm PF lens yet. but one day soon as just hand my first jab..... any news on the 105mm Z lens? Thanks for a super video. Keep well, keep safe and be happy
Hi, because of price and versatility I´m thinking about 200-500. Both Z 70-200 and 500 5,6 PF are too much expensive for amateur like me. I had 70-200 VRII but it was not so good with FTZ in term of focus confusing so on the tele side I think 200-500 would be the best for shooting litte bit of everything like wildlife, sport.. Mayby question is if there is some potential for portrait, what about bokeh with 200mm setting wide open 5,6 comparing with 70-200 2,8 S (@200mm) wide open and also stopped down to 5,6 portrait of whole person and part of person? For me it would be nice to have comparison. Thanks Petr
I sold the 200-500 when I sold all mt F lenses and DSL`r to buy into the Z series....I have the Z6, z16-24/2.8,z24-70/4,z70-200/2.8+TCx2 so this is a particularly great video for me. Many thanks Ricci! The TCx2 was a stop gap as I'm waiting for a native long focus. Anything as soon as the 200-500 is MINE , a z500mm or the 600mm will be quite exciting...but it all depends on the costing of course.
I was really pleased to see how well the z70-200 at 400mm compared to the 500mm prime! A potential benefit, for me, is that undoubtedly the TCx2 will be useable on a test to be released long zoom or prime, and in that case, I'm very confident that I'll get incredible exposures if I'm using it/them with that doubler! bring them own!! Thanks again Ricci
Yeh I think for a lot of people there are going to be some really good long lenses for Z mount soon with lots of options to choose from when you include the T.C
I recently bought the Z5 and was immediately confronted with the problem of an affordable long tele. At almost 3 grand the 100-400 Z or the 70-200 F2.8 Z with a teleconvertor on top of that was not a viable option. I finally ended up with the 200-500 F mount and an FTZ adapter. I have been very happy with the results. The biggest down side is the size and weight. I was able to get it on sale for just over a grand, and believe that is a real bargain in today's market. I would love to have a long native mount for the Z, but they are just too darned expensive for my budget. Glad to see from this video that I have not given up much in the way of sharpness and contrast over the 70-200 X2 option.
Have just phoned my fave shop - am px'ing my AF-P 70-300 for a mint 200-500 on my Z9. Your review tipped me over, Ricci! Both the these lenses are bargains. The AF on the 200-500 isn't going to match a native Z lens but is much cheaper. Should also get my Z6 back from IR conversion soon as well!
I sold my 200-500mm for the 500mm PF. Whilst I certainly miss the flexibility of the zoom on occasions, I have absolutely no regrets. The compactness and (comparative) light weight of the 500mm PF (relative to the 200-500mm zoom and 500mm f/4) mean both that I carry it more often and also that it is more manageable 'in the field' (which in turn means that I can get shots which I would not get with a larger, more unwieldly lens). The 500mm PF produces superb results on both my D850 and Z6 (with FTZ). So I don't think I would ever feel that a 70-200mm + 2x converter would be a substitute for me. However, since I normally carry a 70-200mm f/2.8 (E FL), the possibility of also carrying a teleconverter to handle the cases where the 500mm is a bit too long is certainly interesting. For the moment, though, I am not going to purchase the Z 70-200mm f/2.8, both because I still carry a D850 and because the F-mount lens does a great job on the Z6.
Nice video. I will stick with my D850 and D500 paired to my Sigma 500mm f4 sport "sometimes with the 1.4x TC" and Nikon 200-500mm f5.6 "when I want to go lighter". I would never use a 2.0X TC, regardless of manufacturer, you just lose too much light and the subsequent loss of fine detail. By the way, how do you like the D6.
Great video and comparisons as always, the 2X TC performs better than I expected which bodes well for how it will perform with the other long lenses when they end up coming out. Also makes me even more excited to see the 200-600, if that is gonna outperform the F mounts as well as the rest of the Z lenses have been then that should make for some interesting comparisons as well
Many thanks for this video expecting by all of us. Overall, the couple Z70-200 + Z2x looks quiet appealing if we take into account flexibility of focal length.
Thank you for this video. It was enlightening. I have a slightly different situation. I have both the 70-200 2.8 S and the 200-500 5.6. I was wondering whether it is better for autofocusing and/or sharpness to get the teleconverters. From your video, I'm concluding that they are very similar and maybe the only reason to get the teleconverters is to have a smaller kit when travelling. Not as much reach, but much lighter camera bag while getting similar quality. Now, that 500 5.6 PF looks great, but my wallet can't handle it. 😉🤣🤣🤣
Awesome video as usual - a useful set of comparisons for the many people who might be making this choice. You did this comparison using the Z 7II, right? What about someone with a lower-MP camera, like the Z 6(II)? Or even DX?
Some of the tests are taken on a Z7 some on a Z7ii I don’t see the results changing much on a z6 but basically a Z6 would be softer in every regard so the difference between the lenses might be less noticeable On a DX like a Z50 the results would be similar just with the 1.5x crop applied so even more zoom
@@RicciTalks this was what I was looking for. I will hang on to my Z50, next to my Z6 II. Going for the Z 70-200 with the teleconverters will give me a great range. Thanks for all your video’s.
i have 24-200 with z7 but cant decide whether to get rid or keep nikon bridge camera any suggestions really appreciate it was even looking at sigma 300
I've bought a Z6II last week with the 24-70 f4 and want to add a longer option. So I don't have the 70-200 but I've rented the 200-500 before. The results where great but my budget is also limited. For the price of a 70-200 + 2tc, I can also buy the 200-500 and leave budget to add a 70-200 f4. Would that made sense to have a lighter walk around 70-200 and compensate the F4 with a higher ISO setting if needed? I'm going to do a photo workshop in June to Helgoland (Germany) to photograph birds. I'm not sure yet, if I really need 2.8. Thanks for your great reviews!
I wouldn’t really consider the f-mount 70-200 f4 it’s matched for sharpness by the Z 24-200 which is significantly smaller and lighter. I very rarely use f2.8 with birds but in a dark woodland it can be an advantage I’m normally happy with f4/ f5.6
An interesting comparison will be the 500mm PF against the coming non-S Z 200-600mm lens. Will the results be similar to what was obtained here with the 200-500mm lens? If so, the 200-600 may be less attractive even though native, more versatile and reaching an additional 100mm. I can not wait to see how the 500mm performs on the the new Z9 both as is and with a 1.4TC.
Ok i know this sounds crazy but can you use the 2x converter then add the ftz mount with the 200-500 lens to make it 400-1000? If so, is there a drop in quality? Thanks for these comparison videos. Super helpful man!
I’m at the beginning of the video saying this . Looking at the 200-500 vs 70-200 at 280mm . So straight off what I see is ( on my phone) more detail in the 200-500. By that I think I see more microcontrast maybe not resolution sharpness details. The highlights on the 70-200 look brighter at the same exposure. This is telling me the 200-500 handles the highlights better and the overall photos seem richer in color by a touch. So there is probably more inner tonal detail lost from the higher element 70-200 with 1.4 tc. So the image suffers and it will flatten natural subject. Our eyes to brain perception is more that resolution is what I’m saying. There is always a give and take between these attributes. And which is best is up to the creator. Thanks Ricci for your videos .
Sorry Troy but haven taken thousands of birds with both on my Z7ll, I can assure you that the 200-500 is optically inferior in every possible way. The added benefit is being able to capture images at 70-200mm. However, I most often use my 300mm PF at that focal length.
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 83 วันนี้!! คู่เอก "พันฤทธิ์ vs ซุปเปอร์บอล วันของโอม MBK"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1b4pkKHa_Fk/mqdefault.jpg)
Hey Everyone !
This was a really important video for me because this is a big choice for my photography going forward.
So hopefully this video also helps those of that are also struggling to decide on the best long lens set up for your Z camera !
What would you choose out of these three options??? let me know
As always thanks so much for watching !
Thank you for these great comparisons. They are so helpful.
Probably not the answer you are looking for, but I'm choosing to wait for the Z mount 100-400mm before making a decision.
My new 24-200mm will tide me over for the time being.
I’m expecting everything to change when the 100-400 and the 200-600 launch !
Hi! Thanks for your detailed match-up of these lenses. It raised one question in my mind about the 70-200. Z mount lenses are supposed to be extremely sharp but in your test, it seems on par with the 200-500 and below the 500mm prime. Is it due to the lens itself or do the teleconverters affect the optical performance? I am looking at the 85mm 1.8s and 50mm or the 70-200mm for studio work, shooting furniture. The zoom offers me flexibility but is it a good performer for my intended use? Thanks for your help.
Ricci Talks hopefully this summer ?
@@prometheuslg it is the Tele converters the 70-200 on its own is the sharpest this test waste about the Tele converter than the lens it self
That 200-500 sure holds it's own. I have grown to love mine and it's a lot better than the 3rd party examples I've shopped around.
The image quality is great for the price, i've just kind of grown to hate the size and weight of it
Great review. I have the 200-500 and use it for birds and airshows. Recently had a heart condition(recovering) so I haven't been able to lug around my big mindshift pack with 3 big lenses (about 15 lbs). I need to stop carrying all of that gear. I think the 2x tc will work nicely on the z70-200 and is about 2 lbs lighter than the 200-500 setup. So just two lenses (24-70 and 70-200 with 2x tc ) should be much more manageable. With topaz sharpen in post, all should be tack sharp.
Good video, thanks for making this as always.
It makes me even more interested to see the 70-200+2x comparing to the upcoming Z 100-400.
If you can live with the variable aperture - the new Z 100-400 will out-perform. I had a TC20EMkIII on a 70-200/2.8 VR II - the combo didn't like bright highlights - got blooming on a D700. The Z TC x2 will be better but still a compromise too far, IMO. I suspect the Z TC x1.4 is going to give far better results.
The spec of dust landing on the barrel of the rear element on the left side of teleconverter at @1:16 nailed it. Eagle has landed...
I thought that was a super fine pixel level mouse pointer
This is the style of comparison review that we don't see enough of; the pros and cons of each clearly set out with the viewer being better equipped to make their decision. Contrast with the all too common style of "this one is the clear winner and this one is complete rubbish, it will make you a third class photographer" - totally ignoring use case / circumstances and typically coming from people whose photos (if they ever get out of the studio long enough to actually *take* any) leave a lot to be desired. Thank you Ricci!
I have the 70-200mm f2.8 S lens for the Z system and the OG Z6. After watching this, I sold my 200-500 f5.6 and purchased the 2.0x tele, not because I think it is “better” but because it is excellent quality for the low weight. I will be purchasing the 200-600 S lens when it comes out, and for the really long shots I will use that, but for the times I want a light weight and excellent reach i will use the 70-200mm with the 2X tele.
The takeaway from your videos is you are not trying to sell me anything, and I respect that. Everything the you have suggested in your videos have pan out when I applied it to my photography. So thanks again.
Very useful comparison (as always!) I think we are all waiting for the Nikon 100-400mm & 200-600MM Z lenses to finally appear!
The 500mm 5,6 glued to my d850,unbeatable combo,with the 70/200 with or without a 2x tc a close second on the Z7.I hated the 200-500 but that’s just me.Great comparative video.
Very useful comparison. I’d love to know how the 24-200mm Z lens stacks up in comparison as a much cheaper alternative to all the lens that you featured.
I own the Nikon 200-500 5.6 and it's an amazing lens, also the sigma 70-200 2.8 with the FTZ, both of them are pretty sharp, I don't have any problem to carry on two big lenses and two bodies in my backpack. Great video.
Very useful comparison! Thank you for this! I have both the 200-500 and 500 PF - both fantastic on my Z6. The 500 PF almost never comes off my camera - optical performance and AF in a lightweight package is amazing - it might be the perfect run-and-gun wildlife lens. Even satisfactory with the 1.7x converter, when I need extra reach. On the other hand, the 200-500 was a great performer on safari, where backing off the focal length was useful with big subjects. All this said, I am looking forward to native Z mount telephotos so I can eventually ditch the FTZ. From what I see here, the Z 70-200 looks great, but not really a replacement for what I currently use. Looking forward to future developments in the Z mount tele department. Thanks again for the balanced and informative review!
I'm px'ing my AF-P 70-300 for a 2nd hand 200-500 tomorrow - both lenses are bargains. That 500PF is proving to be extremely popular on the Z9. The Z 400/2.8 TC despite the cost will sell extremely well but is well beyond my pay grade!
Thank you for this really great comparison and all the other that I watched so far! I will wait for the 200-600 and will use my 3rd party lense with FTZ. Greetings from South Germany ;-)
Exactly what i needed! What are your suggestions if i would choose between sigma 70-200mm f2.8 + teleconverter OR the 200-500mm f5.6?
I was waiting this video before taking my final decision... very happy to have waited! Those Tc are very good for teleconverter... but still not as good as real lenses... I will wait the next lenses before buying (24-105 and the 100-400)... thanks for your good work;)
Love your work Ricci! One of my favourite TH-camrs. I appreciate your humility.
Another great video Ricci, after watching I went with the 2 teleconverters to go with my Z 70-200mm but also bought the 500mm f5.6 pf for that extra reach. Very happy with the set ups.
You have overwhelming thanks by folks with this video. I join the positive crowd! Thanks for comparisons that are relevant to me. Thanks for your time and effort. I’m so glad to learn from an intelligent, experienced and personable teacher. I’ve found all your videos helpful as well as entertaining. I’d be thrilled if you continue to ignore the occasional negative comment and remain an important part of the Nikon learning community! Best always, Ricci.
Another great video; thanks! Which would you say offers the best image quality: The 200-500mm f/5.6 on a D750, on a D500, or on a Z 7II w/FTZII?
Thank you so much for this comparison! I've been trying to figure out if $3500 for the 500mm PF is worth the jump from my 70-200mm S with the TC-2.0x, think ill hold off.
Thanks for the Video. I have a Z6II and 200-500, to complement it purchased another Z6II body with 70-300 AF-P 4.5-5.6E ED VR. Budget is main concern but I find 200-500 very heavy. I have two questions First, should I go for 500 PF or 100-400 Z lens to replace 200-500 and secondly, 70-300 compares to 70-200 F/2.8? I now mainly shoot wildlife and birds.
Iv heard the 1.4x teleconverter produces a higher quality image then the 2.0x teleconverter, would you agree?
Great video. It was nice to see the 200-500 do so well.
I’d like to see the 200-500 v 500 PF comparison
Thanks, Ricci! I’ve never owned the 200-500, but it looks like a great value. I’m trying to decide whether to hold onto my D850 for use with my 500 PF and 600 f/4E or just sell it. I still have my 6&7 and the new mark II versions as well (and the 70-200 + TCs). As a seasoned Nikon veteran, are you happy with long glass on the Z6/7 II’s? Anything to really miss AF-wise in parting with the D850? Thanks for your opinion on this.
I use my 600 f4E and my 500mm PF on my Z7 and Z7ii and Iv not wanted to go back to D850. Iv had the same conversation with lots of people and it mainly seems to be down to feeling at home with the D850 af system
once you really get to know the af system of the Z it seems people really embrace it and move on from their DSLR
Can you mount this way for maximum distance? Z6 body> Z mount 2x teleconverter > FTZ converter > Nikon 200-500. Would this all mount together properly in that order? Would light loss be too great to get good photos?
Well I just ordered both (minus the tele), 70-200 2.8 S and the F 200-500 🥳 Current sales & promos were bananas so I couldn't pass them up 🙂
So my Z glass is all in place from 20mm through 200, planning to add an Expeed7 body in 2023, and I'll plan for the Z 200-600 in the next couple years. Thanks so much for your helpful & informative content!
Great Video and reinforces what I assumed would be the result of 500PF vs 70-200 (X2). BUT what about 300PF vs 70-200 (1.4)? I have both and debating which to carry for casual walk about. If the
70-200 was equal/better that would probably be my choice as you have a zoom and 200-400.
Very interested in Z 200-600! If it is better than 500PF and lighter than 200-500 I would be in line to buy.
I really appreciate your videos- best and broadest comparos I have seen. JimB
Did you ever decide a preference? 300 of or 70-200 1.4?
Thank you for this useful video. Right now the Z tele converters can only be used on the Z 70-200 S. Going forward, will they be compatible with other Z lenses?
I would hope so
Great comparison. Thanks for all the excellent content you put out. Any time I need some Nikon info you and Hudson Henry are my go-to guys.
Excellent comparative assessment! Just the comparisons i hoped to find. Rhank you!
Excellent! These are exactly some of the "choice" scenarios I've been thinking about, and so it's great to see your results. Thank you, Ricci!
Thanks for your time and expertise. I recently purchased the Z 70-200 f2.8 and am in the process of deciding which teleconverter to get. Your video comparisons have really helped me. I'm leaning towards the 1.4. Thanks again for such great videos.
I meant the Z 70-200.
If only we had some info on the upcoming 100-400Z..... looking forward to that lens so much!
Indeed so! But, even if Nikon absolutely nails it with the 100-400, let's not forget all you can do with the 70-200 f2.8. I think that lens with the 2.0 tc is a fantastic combo! But then again.. what if the 100-400 works flawlessly with the TC.. :D
Imagine a 100-400 working great with a 2x tc
That 200-800 looking good !
Ma I right to think that, with the Z7ii + 70-200s, cropping the photo will be very close to the 70-200s with the TC 1,4???
Interesting comparison. Thanks a lot. What about the 180-400 that included a TCx1,4 ? Did you already test it on a Z Mount camera ?
No talk of light wavelengths, nanometers and associated laboratory bollocks. Informative and to the point. Well done. Thanks.
Awesome video, however have you used a Nikkor 1.7 converter with a Nikon 200-500mm on a z7ii ??
Nice review! I recently picked up the 500pf to us with my z6 and d810. I also got the fringer Nikon -> Fuji adapter to try out my Nikon lenses on some Fuji bodies I have.
Thanks for the video, I am unable to decide between 100-400z & 500PF for my Z6II to replace my 200-500 which is a great lens but very heavy to hand hold for me. I need the lens for bird photography & wildlife. Although, I am inclined towards 500Pf. I will be grateful for your valuable opinion.
Thanks a lot for your work. I wait for the Z 100-400 to replace my 80-400. The Z 70-200/TC 2.0 is not as good as i had hoped.
Hi Ricci I have just rewatched this video and since it was posted I have ordered a Z9, but still waiting like so many…my question is in relation to the 500pf, I am told the lens focuses much faster and more accurately on the Z9 even with a TC fitted, would you say it would be better to fit the f mount 1.4TC to the 500pf then to the FTZ adapter or would it all work better to have the FTZ adapter fitted direct to the lens and then use a Z mount 1.4 TC to get express reach….thanks for all you great advice in your vids….John
Hello Ricci, can you please summary your fining up. After watching the video, it seem the 70-200mm with a 1.4x TC is a good option. 500mm lens standalone is good choice, but heavy and long, because on the Z camera you need the adaptor. I am not a professional and just hobbyist, so the Z lens 70-200mm with the 1.4 TC would give me the extra reach for photographing the wildlife. Price is the factor. It seem you prefer the 200-500mm.
hi ricci, thank you for all the videos!!! im interested on motorsports racing and i have a z6 with 70-200 tamron G2...
what is the best route going forward? getting a d500? 200-500mm f5.6? or a teleconverter and 70-200z lens?
beacuae if i use the tamron i have to use ftz adapter and teleconverter....
please send me your thoughts...thank you
After this video I decided to buy the 2x Z TC!!! Obviously I have the Z 70-200. I also have the sigma C 150-600…would you compare it with the 70-200+2x TC? Thks a lot!
How do the older Nikon teleconverters work with the Z 6 II with 200-500mm?
Hi Ricci, can we use teleconverter with Z9 and Nikon F mount lenses like 70-200 FL, 200-500 mm? If yes, which TC, Z mount TC or F mount TC with FTZ II adaptor? How to do the attachment?
I've been using the 200-500 on my D500 for a long time now and am more than happy with it.
I don't often use the 1.4TC, but you can still get sharp pictures hand held when it's fitted.
Very helpful video.
I've been thinking of buying that expensive Z TC but never really likes TCs.
The 200-500mm is great value.
I may have had a bad copy of the 500mm pf but I found it a little soft compared to my 600mm f4.
I've just ordered the 2x TC...
I have the 500pf and the 600f4 I would say the 500pf is a little softer but only a tiny amount which is fair considering the price of the 600 f4 s
Wow, you answered all my questions! I just ordered a z7ii after years of DSLR in order to go lighter. I was looking at possibility of z 70-200 with a 2X. However, I already have a 200-500. I'm going on safari and debated about hauling it around. Your video may have saved me some money, and I'll probably now take it. It seems there is always a compromise when it comes to lenses!
Thanks for your input. I recently shot some waterfowl with the 200-500 on my Z7 with a 2x teleconverter and the FTZ, which made the lens almost too long. A monopod really helped and I got more than respectable photos. I was considering the 70-200 and the 2x but now it doesn't seem to be much of a gain for upwards of $3G. I have 4 native Z lenses, 14-30, 24-70, 50 and 85 which do 90% of what I want. I think you just saved me a lot of money. It would be great if Nikon came out with a native 70-200 F4 for a fraction of the price of the 2.8.
I have the 200-500. It’s great but I rarerly use it because it’s almost too big to fit into my bag. So one day , when it is realesed, I will probably buy a 70-200/4 Z lens and a 2 times converter. But first, I have to save up to that Z camera... Have a d750 now.
Huge thanks, Ricci. I really like your videos. They really make me wanna be a lottery winner.
An exciting question in my opinion is how the new Z S 100-400mm would perform in this comparison?
I need 600mm for birding. I am not interested in cheap lens now and i don't have the budget to buy a 500mm 5.6 or 600mm f4 at the moment.
Planning to use z7 ii with 70 200mm and 2X in DX mode until i can afford a big prime. Would the DX mode amplify the lack of sharpness?
Great video. I wonder if you can make comparison between Nikon 200-500 and F mount 70-200/2.8 with TC. As I have the 'old' 70-200 lens (first gen) and thinking of Z 70-200 is still too expensive to buy this year. Or you could just reply your thought here. Thanks.
I would say the 200-500 would be better than the older f-mount Tc as that does reduce sharpness more than the Z mount TC does.
So a 200-500 should be an improvement from what Iv seen but obviously Iv not fully tested that set up side by side
Another extremely useful video. Ricci, you did a great video on the Z lens roadmap a year ago. Have you heard any update on when the 100-400mm is likely to be shipping to the UK? Thanks
Great video! Just found it as I'm deciding on pretty much exactly what you covered! One quick question. I shoot with a Z6II since the resolution is lower than the Z7 or Z7II will optical differences be between the 200-500 and the 500 PF be noticeable? Or am I starting to split hairs and fall into pixel peeping? Lol
I would say the difference would be less noticeable but there would still be some difference the 500pf would offer better feather detail ect
I have this lens on pre order, used the F version for years, looking forward to your review.
Thanks Ricci. Can you show us the spherical abberations of these combinations? I have the 70-200 zmount (+1.4tc and also the 300mm PF with a 1.4x tc III) and I think the spherical abberations are very distracting. You can easily see these errors if you photograph a tree and look at the out of focus branches. They look double or ghosting. Once you've seen it, its hard to unsee. It is visible in many lenses. Some are better and some are worse.
How do you like your 1.4 tc for z camera?
@@KarenVaisman1 it's not a great combination. Unfortunately.
Really useful video, just what I have been waiting for. When comparing the 70-200 with the TC 2.0 against the 200-500, if you stopped down from f5.6, do you think the difference between them would have narrowed further. It appeared to when using the TC 1.4
I just sold my 200-500 so I could get a 70-200 plus the TC 2.0 so I'm hoping I made the right call.
Thanks for this! You answered literally all of my questions on every variation I was curious about. Now I'm gonna try to hold off and see how the Z 100-400 looks before I start eyeing the PF too closely haha
Hi Ricci
I have just watched and enjoyed your video on TC, I am a wildlife enthusiast I do have a 500 PF lens and I am intending to get a 300 PF and a 1.4 TC, to use for closer photo,s and when I am walking lonf distances. I am also considering getting Nikon 600 prime lens? , please could you give me your opinion as to how much better in picture quality this would be against my 500 PF. I have recently purchased a Z 6 11 and I also have a Nikon D500 camera. I would appreciate your thoughts and comments on the above. Thank You
Just purchased the Z6ii , hoping to get out soon with the Sigma 150/600 (s) FTZ mount
I've noticed that you also use the colour checker passport. Have you managed to use that with the Nikon NX Studio software when processing Z9 raw images?
Hey Ricci, I just got my new Nikon WR-R11b remote. It’s much bigger than the older model, and unfortunately it doesn’t fit very well with my ReallyRightStuff L-bracket. I have to extend the L-side quite a bit in order for it to fit.
I have recently bought the 1.4 Tele converter. I must say that I’ve been a bit disappointed as I can’t see any difference between using it and leaving it off and cropping the photo to achieve the same effective focal length. I will carry on trying it and hopefully I will see a difference at some point but at the moment I’m wondering whether I did the right thing in buying it
I think the difference varies between the camera sensor if you have a 45mp sensor then cropping will probably be better but with a 20mp sensor a tele converter might be a better option, atleast this is what I've been told
So true...
The point that ur missing is that some photographers have a minimum megapixel requirement
if you have 45mp and crop that eats in to ur megapixels leaving you with less MP for printing ect
If you use a tele converter not only do you get the extra focal length but you can then crop on top of that getting you even closer to the subject
The best advise I can give is get as close as you can optically then crop to get the best results
@@RicciTalks thanks for the reply. I’m using a Z6ii. I don’t have a minimum megapixel requirement, have just been testing it by cropping with and without the TC to get the same end result and can’t see a difference. Where there is one, it seems slightly better without the TC. Just my experience so far 😞
The best way to look at it would be to use the Tc to get you closer to a subject when cropping can’t
So if you take a picture of a bird and then crop and it’s the shot you like then great
but if you crop and it’s still too small in the frame that would be the time to add the Tc to get the extra focal length and then Crop on top of that to get closer :)
Good job. Thank you for the useful performance comparisons. Seeing the performance of the f-mount 500mm pf and ftz combo helps greatly when trying to decide to spend that much for the lens. Another thing that would be useful to know: weight and volume comparisons of the different setups. For example, if I'm packing for a day of wildlife photography, I would bring along the 500 pf. But if I'm going on an extended trip where I'll be expecting highly varied conditions and everything from landscape to wildlife, and the size and weight of my kit is limited, am I better off with the the teleconverter options? One other comparison to this same end would be teleconverter performance of the more affordable, multi-purpose z 24-200mm vs. the z 70-200. In other words, is the combo of the former and one or two teleconverters worth the reduction in cost, weight, and volume for the discerning photographer?
Incredibly useful comparisons - thank you.
Thanks a lot !
hello Ricci,
i have ordered a Z TC2 for my Z6ii + Z 70-200mm F/2.8 because 200mm is really too shrot for birds... I hesitated to orer a refurbished 200-500mm but not very fan using FTZ...
I have read that Z TC2 works best with Z7ii. correct ?
Does it make sense to set Z6ii to DX mode to have a 600mm ? I have seen youtube videos from Taylor jackson doing it.
But I have read that collimators are so big in Z6ii that it shouldn't work well and Z7ii should be better in that sense again with smaller dots.
I've chosen the Nikon Z 70-200mm F2.8S and 2X teleconverter (awaiting arrival of latter). My decision is based on the fact that I already own the F-mount equivalent (w/ older 2.8G II VR), so there's an improvement there. Since wildlife is not presently my prime interest, I think I'll be happy with the combo ... at least until that Z 600mm is released 😃
How would you compare the 100-400 with the 1.4 and the x 2 teleconverter vs the 200-500?
You always bring very accurate information that I use to decide on my upgrades. I have the Z6 with 299-500mm f5.6 and super sharp for what I do. Wow I can’t imagine the 500mm f5.6 prime wow. Anyhow, thank you 🙏 for your videos. Keep them coming 👍👍👍
Great to hear!
Great video Ricci, what did the 200-500 look like in comparison to the 70-200 when they were both stopped down to f/8? All of the 200-500 shots were wide open so I wondered if things sharpened up even more at f/8.
They still looked identical and I never stop the 200-500 down so decided not to include this in the video.
Thanks for the video! I got a question: s it worth to wait for new z 200-600 lens or go now and pick 200-500 F-mount? Or even Tamron's 150-600? What do you think? Thanks!
If you have nothing in that range and you can wait the I would wait. If you really need something now then the 200-500 would always be the choice over the 150-600s
@@RicciTalks that's what i thought also. It'll be my first lens in that range. I have both Z6 and D750 and I thought mayve to buy F-mount lens to use on both if it'll be nesserary. Could you explain why you prefer 200-500 over 150-600?
Great question :-) Thinking about exactly that currently as well! Ricci, do you have any thoughts on when we'll hear more about the z 200-600? Weeks, Months??
The main reason is the constant 5.6 ... the 150-600 has a variable aperture also from the 150-600 lenses Iv see. (Lots) they never really focus as well as the 200-500
Sadly nothing I can say on the 200-600 I’m as eager as you all are to see what the z super zoom is gonna be like
Silly Question for you; Which Teleconverter should I use on a Zed body with the 500mm F/5.6 PF? The F version or the Z version?
Ricci, If we use an F-mount TC on a Z body, do we lose AF-points?
Hey Ricci, what a truly outstanding compare - easy to understand (clear) and with all the right points for comparison as well as your thoughts on what people might lean towards based on what they have / do. I came across the video because I was thinking of getting the both the 1.4 and 2.0 (I have the 70-200 S and Z7) to replace my 200-400 f/4 VR II. I find the 200-400 too heavy to br practical and I do not need poster size prints of what I shoot. But I would be really interested if you have any thoughts on the 200-400 compared (say at 280 f/4) compared to the 70-200 with the 1.4 at 280mm f/4 comparing the centre and edge sharpness
Hey glad you found the video useful
Sadly I don’t have much hands on experience with the 200-400( I have a 180-400)
I think if the 200-400 is to heavy that ur just not using then you will find the 70-200 a much more acceptable size and weight that you are more Likely to use and take with you….
I’d imagine the quality could be pretty close but I think the actual usability is more important
Hello Ricci, A little off topic but I know were who you work for so I just like to say how amazing I am finding the Z7ii do thank every one. I am getting amazing image with the Z7ii+ftz 105mm macro lens. But as I have been shielding for 8 months out of the last year not got out with my 500mm PF lens yet. but one day soon as just hand my first jab..... any news on the 105mm Z lens? Thanks for a super video. Keep well, keep safe and be happy
Hi, because of price and versatility I´m thinking about 200-500. Both Z 70-200 and 500 5,6 PF are too much expensive for amateur like me. I had 70-200 VRII but it was not so good with FTZ in term of focus confusing so on the tele side I think 200-500 would be the best for shooting litte bit of everything like wildlife, sport.. Mayby question is if there is some potential for portrait, what about bokeh with 200mm setting wide open 5,6 comparing with 70-200 2,8 S (@200mm) wide open and also stopped down to 5,6 portrait of whole person and part of person? For me it would be nice to have comparison. Thanks Petr
Good stuff. I think it really shows how strong the 2.0 telecoverter is.
If I case we stop done from f2.8 to f4 or f5.6 will the sharpness improve in 2X teleconvertor on 70-200mm lens
Hows the vR performance of these lenses on the z9?? The 200-500 did not work with the ibis in the z6 bodies earlier. Is it the same with z9??
I sold the 200-500 when I sold all mt F lenses and DSL`r to buy into the Z series....I have the Z6, z16-24/2.8,z24-70/4,z70-200/2.8+TCx2
so this is a particularly great video for me. Many thanks Ricci! The TCx2 was a stop gap as I'm waiting for a native long focus. Anything as soon as the 200-500 is MINE , a z500mm or the 600mm will be quite exciting...but it all depends on the costing of course.
I was really pleased to see how well the z70-200 at 400mm compared to the 500mm prime! A potential benefit, for me, is that undoubtedly the TCx2 will be useable on a test to be released long zoom or prime, and in that case, I'm very confident that I'll get incredible exposures if I'm using it/them with that doubler! bring them own!!
Thanks again Ricci
Yeh I think for a lot of people there are going to be some really good long lenses for Z mount soon with lots of options to choose from when you include the T.C
I recently bought the Z5 and was immediately confronted with the problem of an affordable long tele. At almost 3 grand the 100-400 Z or the 70-200 F2.8 Z with a teleconvertor on top of that was not a viable option. I finally ended up with the 200-500 F mount and an FTZ adapter. I have been very happy with the results. The biggest down side is the size and weight. I was able to get it on sale for just over a grand, and believe that is a real bargain in today's market. I would love to have a long native mount for the Z, but they are just too darned expensive for my budget. Glad to see from this video that I have not given up much in the way of sharpness and contrast over the 70-200 X2 option.
Have just phoned my fave shop - am px'ing my AF-P 70-300 for a mint 200-500 on my Z9. Your review tipped me over, Ricci! Both the these lenses are bargains. The AF on the 200-500 isn't going to match a native Z lens but is much cheaper. Should also get my Z6 back from IR conversion soon as well!
Hi Ricci, great comparison. Request you to add 300 MM PF F4 with 1.4 TC-III to this comparison on Z7 2 with & without APSC mode 🙏🏻
I sold my 200-500mm for the 500mm PF. Whilst I certainly miss the flexibility of the zoom on occasions, I have absolutely no regrets. The compactness and (comparative) light weight of the 500mm PF (relative to the 200-500mm zoom and 500mm f/4) mean both that I carry it more often and also that it is more manageable 'in the field' (which in turn means that I can get shots which I would not get with a larger, more unwieldly lens). The 500mm PF produces superb results on both my D850 and Z6 (with FTZ). So I don't think I would ever feel that a 70-200mm + 2x converter would be a substitute for me.
However, since I normally carry a 70-200mm f/2.8 (E FL), the possibility of also carrying a teleconverter to handle the cases where the 500mm is a bit too long is certainly interesting. For the moment, though, I am not going to purchase the Z 70-200mm f/2.8, both because I still carry a D850 and because the F-mount lens does a great job on the Z6.
Nice video. I will stick with my D850 and D500 paired to my Sigma 500mm f4 sport "sometimes with the 1.4x TC" and Nikon 200-500mm f5.6 "when I want to go lighter".
I would never use a 2.0X TC, regardless of manufacturer, you just lose too much light and the subsequent loss of fine detail.
By the way, how do you like the D6.
Great video and comparisons as always, the 2X TC performs better than I expected which bodes well for how it will perform with the other long lenses when they end up coming out. Also makes me even more excited to see the 200-600, if that is gonna outperform the F mounts as well as the rest of the Z lenses have been then that should make for some interesting comparisons as well
Can you use a 1.4 teleconverter on a Z6ii with the 200-500 f/5.6? Which teleconverter works? The AF-S or Z?
Many thanks for this video expecting by all of us.
Overall, the couple Z70-200 + Z2x looks quiet appealing if we take into account flexibility of focal length.
Thank you for this video. It was enlightening. I have a slightly different situation. I have both the 70-200 2.8 S and the 200-500 5.6. I was wondering whether it is better for autofocusing and/or sharpness to get the teleconverters. From your video, I'm concluding that they are very similar and maybe the only reason to get the teleconverters is to have a smaller kit when travelling. Not as much reach, but much lighter camera bag while getting similar quality. Now, that 500 5.6 PF looks great, but my wallet can't handle it. 😉🤣🤣🤣
Glad it was useful !
@@RicciTalks Your videos usually are helpful. Keep up yhe great work. 👍
The additional and most important reasons is you can cover 70mm-200mm and at f/2.8. Get a second job and get that 500mm PF.
Awesome video as usual - a useful set of comparisons for the many people who might be making this choice. You did this comparison using the Z 7II, right? What about someone with a lower-MP camera, like the Z 6(II)? Or even DX?
Some of the tests are taken on a Z7 some on a Z7ii
I don’t see the results changing much on a z6 but basically a Z6 would be softer in every regard so the difference between the lenses might be less noticeable
On a DX like a Z50 the results would be similar just with the 1.5x crop applied so even more zoom
@@RicciTalks this was what I was looking for. I will hang on to my Z50, next to my Z6 II. Going for the Z 70-200 with the teleconverters will give me a great range.
Thanks for all your video’s.
any news/ prediction .. in which month we can expect Z mount 200-600..?
i have 24-200 with z7 but cant decide whether to get rid or keep nikon bridge camera any suggestions really appreciate it was even looking at sigma 300
That spec of dust landing on the lens at 1:17 was super cute!!
I've bought a Z6II last week with the 24-70 f4 and want to add a longer option. So I don't have the 70-200 but I've rented the 200-500 before. The results where great but my budget is also limited. For the price of a 70-200 + 2tc, I can also buy the 200-500 and leave budget to add a 70-200 f4. Would that made sense to have a lighter walk around 70-200 and compensate the F4 with a higher ISO setting if needed?
I'm going to do a photo workshop in June to Helgoland (Germany) to photograph birds. I'm not sure yet, if I really need 2.8.
Thanks for your great reviews!
I wouldn’t really consider the f-mount 70-200 f4 it’s matched for sharpness by the Z 24-200 which is significantly smaller and lighter.
I very rarely use f2.8 with birds but in a dark woodland it can be an advantage I’m normally happy with f4/ f5.6
@@RicciTalks Ok thanks for your reply. I will think about it!
An interesting comparison will be the 500mm PF against the coming non-S Z 200-600mm lens. Will the results be similar to what was obtained here with the 200-500mm lens? If so, the 200-600 may be less attractive even though native, more versatile and reaching an additional 100mm. I can not wait to see how the 500mm performs on the the new Z9 both as is and with a 1.4TC.
Ok i know this sounds crazy but can you use the 2x converter then add the ftz mount with the 200-500 lens to make it 400-1000? If so, is there a drop in quality? Thanks for these comparison videos. Super helpful man!
You would have to use the F-mount 2x and that wouldn’t be great quality but it is doable
I’m at the beginning of the video saying this . Looking at the 200-500 vs 70-200 at 280mm . So straight off what I see is ( on my phone) more detail in the 200-500. By that I think I see more microcontrast maybe not resolution sharpness details. The highlights on the 70-200 look brighter at the same exposure. This is telling me the 200-500 handles the highlights better and the overall photos seem richer in color by a touch. So there is probably more inner tonal detail lost from the higher element 70-200 with 1.4 tc. So the image suffers and it will flatten natural subject.
Our eyes to brain perception is more that resolution is what I’m saying.
There is always a give and take between these attributes. And which is best is up to the creator.
Thanks Ricci for your videos .
Sorry Troy but haven taken thousands of birds with both on my Z7ll, I can assure you that the 200-500 is optically inferior in every possible way. The added benefit is being able to capture images at 70-200mm. However, I most often use my 300mm PF at that focal length.