Darin Marcus
Well-known member
Nikon Z6, Nikkor Z 70-200mm f/2.8 VR S @ 70mm, 1/800sec, f/5.6, ISO 100 (Great Falls, Maryland, January 2021)
Last edited:
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
That's impressive Joe! No matter how many 2x converters I've tried in numerous of systems, I felt they were sorely lacking and always ended up abandoning them in favor of a 1.4x when I required extra reach. I wonder if it's simply a matter of just the Z 70-200 f2.8 being that good optically, this 2x being tweeked for higher performance over previous 2x's or the combination of the two? My reasoning for asking is there have been combinations of excellent telephoto lenses or zooms with what was advertised as its matched 2x and yet I still thought most of those combo's fell short.Here's a hand-held test shot with the 2X. Nothing artistic or unique. But pine needles allow me to look at detail along the edges. The Z 70-200mm f/2.8 is easily the best of breed and the best I've used with any TC (either 1.4X or 2X).
View attachment 181426
Joe, your explanations and experiences regarding use of Nikon's f series 1.4x, 1.7x and 2.0x F series converters mirrors mine as well as those from other 3rd party lenses with their converters and other systems outside of Nikon's. (have no experience with Leica's). I almost always saw image degradation with the 1.4x but it varied from decent/good to minimal & acceptable. The 1.7x was pushing it except for being a necessity in some select situations and the 2.0x was a no-go for me personally after trying it on a number of lenses and varied situations. This was even when used on some single focal length lenses. That's why I was both shocked and pleasantly surprised by your posted image and feedback.Dave, I believe that it's a combination of two factors. First, the Z 70-200mm f/2.8 lens is better than the earlier Nikon F-mount versions. It's optically superior, proven both in MTF charts and in real world testing. Second, I believe, but have no hard proof, that the Z 1.4X and 2.0X TCs are better than the earlier Nikon F-mount TCs. Like you, I've used TCs in the past with mixed results. When I was into photographing birds in flight, I'd use a Nikon 500mm or 600mm lens, sometimes with a TC. The TC results were inferior to those shot without a TC. I never got usable results with a 2.0X TC. The 1.4X and 1.7X TCs were usable but there was some image degradation compared to the photos using a bare prime lens. Now with the Z 70-200mm f/2.8 lens, I feel comfortable using either the 1.4X or 2.0X TC, even hand-held. Color me impressed.
Joe
You know Jack, when you first mentioned (posted) you were undecided between the 1.4x & 2x and eventually went with the 2x, I was going to post why, since I was perplexed by your decision. I know your innate knowledge and experience using Nikon gear and couldn't understand why your choice was the 2x, knowing incorporating its usage in the optical path at best, is generally a fairly steep loss of optical performance and that's generally under the best of shooting situations. Now between yours and Joe's explanations, I have a new found view of one important aspect of the Z system and optics, especially my being a loyal proponent of the Nikon F system. All very interesting.Dave, exactly why initially I was thinking the 1.4x. But 100% crops I've seen from both combos over the Z7 are impressively good to say the least. I for the most part could not distinguish between them, and about the only real detriment to 70-200 IQ is either seems to add a slight business to the bokeh. With high ISO so good, I decided the 120mm focal-length gain was worth the extra stop of loss for my needs.
If I remember correctly, getting more light onto the sensor (by improving/reducing its path) was one of the goals of the Z mount design.I wonder then if its just optical development/advancement in general for Nikon or it has something to do with the system being mirrorless and that the advantage of this system is not only about smaller size of certain components but as an advantage to optical performance?
I wonder if the SR element has anything to do with the bokeh issue...My main nit with the lens so far is the bokeh seems a bit nervous in a lot of situations, especially higher contrast. Closer in shots it seems to tame itself and smooth out a bit, and also seems decent with further away and/or lower contrast backgrounds. But that just behind subject in higher contrast are kind of ugly, almost to the point of being distracting. Maybe what I really want is a 200 f2 LOL!!! Verdict on whether I keep it is definitely not in yet...
Maybe, but IDK -- the SR element is reportedly there to control ultra-short wave blue as a way to better control CA. Maybe not having the CA fringing somehow roughens up the bokeh in higher contrast situations? What's weird, is it isn't there in lower contrast light, or at least I don't notice it and bokeh seems quite nicely smooth...I wonder if the SR element has anything to do with the bokeh issue...
High contrast features not far away from the focus plane generally resulted in uglier bokeh with all the telephoto zooms I previously owned - but this is my first f/2.8.But get some higher contrast texture at the right distance behind the subject and it gets pretty busy. Very weird. Even just looking at my squirrel snap above, the speculars off the distant green bush are quite pleasant, while the bark on the sunlit tree behind the squirrel seem busy...
People should be as persnickety as they want to be about the tools of their craftMaybe I'm being too persnickety?