Do you own any of the *new* Z-mount telephoto lenses -- the 70-200 f/2.8 w/ TCs, the 400mm f/4.5 VR S, 400mm f/2.8 TC VR S, 600mm f/4 TC VR S or 800mm f/6.3 VR S -- or maybe something else, F-mount perhaps. Can you compare between lenses? Let us know in the comments.
Very nice review Raymond. It's nice to see lenses that have been around for a while get re-reviewed. Especially with the newer camera bodies. Thanks for showing my former town. 🌊
Hi Ben. Hard to believe I made my original review of the Z 70-200mm f/2.8 over 2 years ago. Going on views, it's still on people's minds. And it'll soon be a year since the Z 400mm f/4.5 hit the shelves. Sidney's getting to be a busy place, especially in summer!
Thanks for the comparison Ray. It’s clarified a few things for me. The 400 is a superb lens and this shows it off nicely. The 70-200 with the Tele would certainly work if need be. Thanks for your great content. 👍🏻
The Z 2x is impressive. Thanks for taking the time to do the comparison. I use the combo for field sports and in good light at f8, it does a wonderful job. I love the 400 4.5 for easy carry wildlife/birding, but mostly favor the 800 pf on the Z8. The quality is so good, I hesitate using the 400 4.5 with the 2x, but I suspect it would be pretty close. That would also follow as a good compare vid. :)
Hi Tony. My pleasure. Yes, my usual approach with the 70-200 w/ 2x is f/8; done that since testing with the old F-mount. The weight saving with the 400 is appreciable (and I recorded that observation but forgot to add it into the video!). My review of the 400mm f/4.5 includes examples w/ both TCs. th-cam.com/video/VFA_coMzOTY/w-d-xo.html
Interesting results! Guess the 400 can also be used with a tc with great results! (Video admin, it'd be good to keep the same lens on the same side to follow easier, thanks)
Hi Ray, Thanks for this testing! As a serious, but non-pro photographer, I topped out my lens budget with the 100-400. But, I have the 70-200 too, and the comparisons are similar. I originally bought the 2x TC, but wasn't thrilled with the results, so I traded it for a 1.4x TC, and use it on both the 70-200 and 100-400, with good results on both. I've never been so happy, as I am with the combination of the Z9 and the S-line lenses. Nikon really hit it out of the park with those! Take care. :)
Hi Mike. Thanks for the interesting comment. Love to hear other people's experience. The TC 1.4x is definitely as good as they come. Use mine regularly on the 70-200 and 400. These S lenses are awesome!
I have both the Z 70-200 mm f/2.8 S and 400 mm f/4.5 S. I've been using the 70-200 mm with the 2.0x TC until I got the 400 mm. I don't use the 70-200 mm anymore for wildlife and I just got back from an Iceland trip last week with the 400 mm. I'm so glad I brought it because looking through the puffin photos I took with the 400 mm, it brought smiles to my face. The only other lens that did that to me was the Z 14-24 mm f/2.8 S.
Very usefull , thanks. Love using my 400 4.5 s. also works great with the 1.4 z teleconverter eithout adding any noticeable extra weight or loss in sharpness
The TC images are less sharp and have noticeable chromatic aberration as well, but it's worlds away with what it used to be handling TCs with 70-200s 15 years ago! Great content Ray
Hi Raymond, great video. Recently I played with a friend's 100-400 with the 2x TC, he complained that the photos were blurry and I figures out that hand holding that setup caused that. I tested it with my 70-200 and sometime things were sharp and others they were soft. Using it on a tripod yielded much better results. I suspect your monopod setup also introduces a bit of movement as well. Maybe a higher shutter speed might help when the teleconverter is on. I had an off brand 2x TC some years back that I would use with my 300 f4 to do moon shots, on a tripod and would get really great results. I would expect the Nikon 2X TC to be much better than any off brand TC, I would love to see another comparison with the setup on a tripod (and maybe with a higher shutter speed) to see if this improves the softness of the image.
Hi Wayne. Thanks. Most of these were indeed shot on a tripod and all except the mountain photos were shot at a minimum of 1/500s, so it's highly unlikely that there's motion blur (except for speeding boats, as noted) I only used the monopod for those first Sidney by the Sea shots. Though the camera and lens stabilization is great today, I'm still kinda old school in that I try to maintain the practice of using shutter speeds equal to lens length, e.g. 1/400th for a 400mm. As I mentioned to another commenter, all but one of these photos have next to no (read 8) sharpening applied and we're enlarging 100%. I think these images show that the 70-200 w/ TC 2.0x, while it can't match the 400, is quite acceptable in many cases.
Hello, Thank you for your very interesting video. When I first tried 2x TC with my Nikon Z 70-200 2.8 s I had very soft photos and a slight lack of sharpness, and I found that by increasing the speed from 1/1000 to 1/1500s, and closing the aperture to f/8, I now get very good results, even if sometimes the ISO value increases. I invite you to try it out. Translation with DeepL
My 6ake away from this review is that the 70-200 f/2.8 plus the 2X TC is almost as good in the center as the 400 f/4.5. Both excellent choices. Thanks for the comparison.
Hi Ray, an interesting comparison. my F-mount 70-200 f2.8 is my last F-mount lens and I've resisted flipping to the Z-mount for a number of reasons but having tried the new z-mount 180-600 that might get some serious consideration! Watching the video I was thinking that the 400mm was performing better but then probably not enough to outweigh the more versatility that you get with the 70-200 when you drop the teleconverter and can go to 2.8. Great to see the comparison and all's good with you👍
Good point; one I should have made. That's why I stuck with the zoom for so long; it's versatile. I might also add that the 70-200 f/2.8 with the TC 1.4x is particularly good -- way better than it's predecessor, as is the case for the 2.0x compared to the old F-mount TC-20E III.
@@RaymondParkerPhoto totally, there are so many options and the optimum usually comes down to your use case. Luckily, most of my subjects aren't trying to run away or move erratically when I'm using the 70-200 and they don't mind the relatively noisy F-mount lens😉
I love the versatility and sharpness of the Z 100-400. Also the short focusing distance. It is small and easy to travel with. I can go from portraits to landscape, to wildlife. Seems odd to compare a zoom to a prime as they serve different purposes. I have the 70-200/2.8 as well and both TCs … which work well on the 100-400. If I need longer I was fortunate to get the amazing Z 800mm which is so small it fits in a carry-on bag. My normal travel gear is the 24-70/2.8, 100-400, and 800mm. I might sell the 70-200/2.8 as I rarely use it now.
I’m looking at using the 70-200 + 2x TC for a flexible two lens landscape kit along with the 14-24mm. For most use cases thr 70-200 2x stopped down will offer more than good enough results for prints.
Hi Ray, watching your reviews gave me the confidence to purchase the 400 f/4.5 and I’m pleased to say it’s excellent combined with the Z9, so thank you for that. One question, I use it mainly for sport on a monopod, may I ask what foot mount do you use?
Cheers, Eugene. Great to hear! The "foot question" is covered in my 400 f/4.5 review at this specific timestamp: th-cam.com/video/VFA_coMzOTY/w-d-xo.html Also have a video on my monopod head, in case you haven't seen it: th-cam.com/video/bHZjs_xUrx4/w-d-xo.html
Thanks again Ray, just €22.99. I’m using a Sirui tilting head on my monopod but the plate tends to come loose so I’ll give this a go. Keep up the good work!
Hello, Thank you for your very interesting video. When I first tried 2x TC with my Nikon Z 70-200 2.8 s I had very soft photos and a slight lack of sharpness, and I found that by increasing the speed from 1/1000 to 1/1500s, and closing the aperture to f/8, I now get very good results, even if sometimes the ISO value increases. I invite you to try it out. Translation with DeepL
Have you tried macro with both? The whole point of the TC for the 70-200 could be if you want to shoot macro…. Also the weight savings (if you already have 70-200. (I have the 1.4 and the 2.0 TC and the 1.4x is considerably sharper. (Also it complements the Z 24-120 F4 S in terms of focal range)
All but one of the photos are RAW with minimal editing and no sharpening added. However, if one watches the video, I think the differences are pretty clear.
I own the 70-200 and the 400 and the 2X TC in the Z mount. The 400 is sharper than the 70-200 with the TC. The 400 with the TC gives great results also but not as good as an 800. As you know there is a big difference in pixel peeping vs wall printing. Any of those combinations make great prints.
Do you own any of the *new* Z-mount telephoto lenses -- the 70-200 f/2.8 w/ TCs, the 400mm f/4.5 VR S, 400mm f/2.8 TC VR S, 600mm f/4 TC VR S or 800mm f/6.3 VR S -- or maybe something else, F-mount perhaps. Can you compare between lenses? Let us know in the comments.
Very nice review Raymond. It's nice to see lenses that have been around for a while get re-reviewed. Especially with the newer camera bodies. Thanks for showing my former town. 🌊
Hi Ben. Hard to believe I made my original review of the Z 70-200mm f/2.8 over 2 years ago. Going on views, it's still on people's minds. And it'll soon be a year since the Z 400mm f/4.5 hit the shelves. Sidney's getting to be a busy place, especially in summer!
Thanks for the comparison Ray. It’s clarified a few things for me. The 400 is a superb lens and this shows it off nicely. The 70-200 with the Tele would certainly work if need be.
Thanks for your great content. 👍🏻
Hi Joe. Glad it was helpful! Indeed, I'm very happy with the 400. Maybe you can tell. 😀
The Z 2x is impressive. Thanks for taking the time to do the comparison. I use the combo for field sports and in good light at f8, it does a wonderful job. I love the 400 4.5 for easy carry wildlife/birding, but mostly favor the 800 pf on the Z8. The quality is so good, I hesitate using the 400 4.5 with the 2x, but I suspect it would be pretty close. That would also follow as a good compare vid. :)
Hi Tony. My pleasure. Yes, my usual approach with the 70-200 w/ 2x is f/8; done that since testing with the old F-mount. The weight saving with the 400 is appreciable (and I recorded that observation but forgot to add it into the video!). My review of the 400mm f/4.5 includes examples w/ both TCs.
th-cam.com/video/VFA_coMzOTY/w-d-xo.html
Interesting results! Guess the 400 can also be used with a tc with great results! (Video admin, it'd be good to keep the same lens on the same side to follow easier, thanks)
Great comparison
Hi Ray, Thanks for this testing! As a serious, but non-pro photographer, I topped out my lens budget with the 100-400. But, I have the 70-200 too, and the comparisons are similar. I originally bought the 2x TC, but wasn't thrilled with the results, so I traded it for a 1.4x TC, and use it on both the 70-200 and 100-400, with good results on both. I've never been so happy, as I am with the combination of the Z9 and the S-line lenses. Nikon really hit it out of the park with those! Take care. :)
Hi Mike. Thanks for the interesting comment. Love to hear other people's experience. The TC 1.4x is definitely as good as they come. Use mine regularly on the 70-200 and 400. These S lenses are awesome!
I’m looking forward to seeing this!
Hi Joe! Hope you enjoy.
I have both the Z 70-200 mm f/2.8 S and 400 mm f/4.5 S. I've been using the 70-200 mm with the 2.0x TC until I got the 400 mm. I don't use the 70-200 mm anymore for wildlife and I just got back from an Iceland trip last week with the 400 mm. I'm so glad I brought it because looking through the puffin photos I took with the 400 mm, it brought smiles to my face. The only other lens that did that to me was the Z 14-24 mm f/2.8 S.
Very nice! Thanks for adding your experience.
Thanks for sharing. Very useful test. I’m happy with the 70-200 and 2x for only occasionally needing that reach even though the 400 is sharper.
Glad it was helpful! Definitely the 70-200/TC 2.0x combo is entirely acceptable. I've made nice photos even with the old F-mount equivalent.
Great Video Ray
Thanks!
Very usefull , thanks. Love using my 400 4.5 s. also works great with the 1.4 z teleconverter eithout adding any noticeable extra weight or loss in sharpness
Cheers! Yes, that's been my experience as well. In fact, the 2.0x doesn't do a bad job either.
The TC images are less sharp and have noticeable chromatic aberration as well, but it's worlds away with what it used to be handling TCs with 70-200s 15 years ago! Great content Ray
Yes, the TCs have come a long way. CA control on the 400 (and Z lenses generally) is one of the biggest advantages.
Hi Raymond, great video. Recently I played with a friend's 100-400 with the 2x TC, he complained that the photos were blurry and I figures out that hand holding that setup caused that. I tested it with my 70-200 and sometime things were sharp and others they were soft. Using it on a tripod yielded much better results. I suspect your monopod setup also introduces a bit of movement as well. Maybe a higher shutter speed might help when the teleconverter is on. I had an off brand 2x TC some years back that I would use with my 300 f4 to do moon shots, on a tripod and would get really great results. I would expect the Nikon 2X TC to be much better than any off brand TC, I would love to see another comparison with the setup on a tripod (and maybe with a higher shutter speed) to see if this improves the softness of the image.
Hi Wayne. Thanks. Most of these were indeed shot on a tripod and all except the mountain photos were shot at a minimum of 1/500s, so it's highly unlikely that there's motion blur (except for speeding boats, as noted) I only used the monopod for those first Sidney by the Sea shots.
Though the camera and lens stabilization is great today, I'm still kinda old school in that I try to maintain the practice of using shutter speeds equal to lens length, e.g. 1/400th for a 400mm.
As I mentioned to another commenter, all but one of these photos have next to no (read 8) sharpening applied and we're enlarging 100%.
I think these images show that the 70-200 w/ TC 2.0x, while it can't match the 400, is quite acceptable in many cases.
@@RaymondParkerPhoto Ok, thanks for the clarification.
Hello,
Thank you for your very interesting video.
When I first tried 2x TC with my Nikon Z 70-200 2.8 s I had very soft photos and a slight lack of sharpness, and I found that by increasing the speed from 1/1000 to 1/1500s, and closing the aperture to f/8, I now get very good results, even if sometimes the ISO value increases. I invite you to try it out.
Translation with DeepL
My 6ake away from this review is that the 70-200 f/2.8 plus the 2X TC is almost as good in the center as the 400 f/4.5. Both excellent choices. Thanks for the comparison.
Yep, the 70-200 f/2.8 is no slouch and handy when you anticipate needing the zoom. Even better if you can get away with the 1.4x TC.
Hi Ray, an interesting comparison. my F-mount 70-200 f2.8 is my last F-mount lens and I've resisted flipping to the Z-mount for a number of reasons but having tried the new z-mount 180-600 that might get some serious consideration! Watching the video I was thinking that the 400mm was performing better but then probably not enough to outweigh the more versatility that you get with the 70-200 when you drop the teleconverter and can go to 2.8. Great to see the comparison and all's good with you👍
Good point; one I should have made. That's why I stuck with the zoom for so long; it's versatile. I might also add that the 70-200 f/2.8 with the TC 1.4x is particularly good -- way better than it's predecessor, as is the case for the 2.0x compared to the old F-mount TC-20E III.
@@RaymondParkerPhoto totally, there are so many options and the optimum usually comes down to your use case. Luckily, most of my subjects aren't trying to run away or move erratically when I'm using the 70-200 and they don't mind the relatively noisy F-mount lens😉
I love the versatility and sharpness of the Z 100-400. Also the short focusing distance. It is small and easy to travel with. I can go from portraits to landscape, to wildlife. Seems odd to compare a zoom to a prime as they serve different purposes. I have the 70-200/2.8 as well and both TCs … which work well on the 100-400. If I need longer I was fortunate to get the amazing Z 800mm which is so small it fits in a carry-on bag. My normal travel gear is the 24-70/2.8, 100-400, and 800mm. I might sell the 70-200/2.8 as I rarely use it now.
I’m looking at using the 70-200 + 2x TC for a flexible two lens landscape kit along with the 14-24mm. For most use cases thr 70-200 2x stopped down will offer more than good enough results for prints.
It's a great combination!
Nice one Ray
Thanks Martin.
Hi Ray, watching your reviews gave me the confidence to purchase the 400 f/4.5 and I’m pleased to say it’s excellent combined with the Z9, so thank you for that. One question, I use it mainly for sport on a monopod, may I ask what foot mount do you use?
Cheers, Eugene. Great to hear! The "foot question" is covered in my 400 f/4.5 review at this specific timestamp: th-cam.com/video/VFA_coMzOTY/w-d-xo.html
Also have a video on my monopod head, in case you haven't seen it: th-cam.com/video/bHZjs_xUrx4/w-d-xo.html
Thanks again Ray, just €22.99. I’m using a Sirui tilting head on my monopod but the plate tends to come loose so I’ll give this a go. Keep up the good work!
Hello,
Thank you for your very interesting video.
When I first tried 2x TC with my Nikon Z 70-200 2.8 s I had very soft photos and a slight lack of sharpness, and I found that by increasing the speed from 1/1000 to 1/1500s, and closing the aperture to f/8, I now get very good results, even if sometimes the ISO value increases. I invite you to try it out.
Translation with DeepL
Have you tried macro with both? The whole point of the TC for the 70-200 could be if you want to shoot macro….
Also the weight savings (if you already have 70-200. (I have the 1.4 and the 2.0 TC and the 1.4x is considerably sharper. (Also it complements the Z 24-120 F4 S in terms of focal range)
Thanks for the video but all photos look blurry!!How can you draw conclusions?
All but one of the photos are RAW with minimal editing and no sharpening added. However, if one watches the video, I think the differences are pretty clear.
I own the 70-200 and the 400 and the 2X TC in the Z mount. The 400 is sharper than the 70-200 with the TC. The 400 with the TC gives great results also but not as good as an 800. As you know there is a big difference in pixel peeping vs wall printing. Any of those combinations make great prints.
" As you know there is a big difference in pixel peeping vs wall printing. Any of those combinations make great prints."
👆
Thanks Daren.
I would love to see some video clip comparison? No one have done that yet
Good idea.
👍🏾🙏🏾
I'd pay for a 70-200 with a 1.4x built-in TC.
Wow! Expensive, I bet, but handy.
@@RaymondParkerPhoto up to a 1.7x would be legit, even if increase the bulk. But imagine the long end being 340mm.
@@RaymondParkerPhoto cheaper than 2 lenses still and smaller package.
Спасибо за обзор