Really informative to help me making the purchase. I just don't use 400mm too much, so a teleconverter will help to use longer focal length occasionally.
Thank you! This is exactly the video that I was looking for. I have the 70-200 2.8 lens and I have been looking for a reason to invest in the teleconverter. 🙂
Hi Jules, just watched this video of yours, awesome as always! I never got around to get a teleconverter because I had doubts about them and I am still not sure. So since I trust your expertize very much Jules, what is your opinion, if we compare two photos like this: 1 - a photo made with a 2 x teleconverter. 2 - the same photo made with the same lens stopped down two aperture steps and without the teleconverter and cropped to the same size as photo 1. If photo 1 is significantly sharper then the teleconverter is better than cropping. But if both photos are equally sharp, then the teleconverter is not useful at all. Also the disadvantage of using a teleconverter is that you loose 2 stops of either aperture or shutterspeed which will effect image quality in lo light or of moving subjects.
@@mikaelwerner1 Thank you for the question Mike. In my experience the image with the converter will be sharper than if you cropped without the converter. To get an equivalent angle of view by cropping you are throwing away half of the pixels and also you will see an increase in noise. However it seems to me that with the converter the lens does not acquire focus as quickly, especially with birds in flight. There are many options now in the Nikon line to get to 400mm and from what I’ve read and watched the 70-200 with the 2x is the weakest. I don’t need 400 often, so it works okay for me. By the way, when that video was made I was shooting with a Z7 and now I have a Z8. The AF on the Z8 is far superior for moving subjects. I’ll be publishing a video in a few weeks on the Z8 with the 70-200 and 2X, photographing small birds on the deck behind my house. If you already have the 70-200, I would recommend renting the 2x to see if it works well enough for you. Enjoy the rest of the weekend.
The 2x converter to 400 is such a good idea. Just wondered how it would handle and drop the image quality and auto focus. I’ve a z9. Appreciate the video 👍🏻
@ Autofocus seems very good tracking birds. A little slow locking on, but once it does it’s very good. Some loss of sharpness wide open, but good enough for me. Thanks for watching.
@@julesvuottosphotofocus4696 Yeah thanks appreciate it. I wonder if the x1.4 is sharper, but its not a massive increase in reach. x2 seems more practical. I would pay for a prime, but I do some motorbike photography too and depending on where you get to stand, a zoom is very useful at times. as you are forced into a specific position with a prime zoom. decisions, decisions!
@ I don’t have the 1.4 converter, but I understand there is almost no loss of quality. The 100-400 has a very good reputation. That may work better for you.
I have the exact same set up which I'm taking on Safari to India next March. I've been happy with the quality of images I'm getting with it so far. I've also just bought a used Z6 with 300 shutter actuations on it as a back up/2nd camera. This will have my 24-70 F4 on it so I think I'll be well covered for anything I come across.
This is the combo I use for my occasional longer telephoto needs. I love the image quality of the 70-200, but it is so heavy I don’t take it with me unless I’m pretty sure I’ll need it. I’d love to see a Z version of the Nikon 180mm prime I had as an Af-D lens.
I was really debating between the 2x tele and the 20mm/1.8 for my Z6ii. I was about to pull the trigger on the 20mm, but keep coming back to this video, which is really swinging me the other way. I think, for the sorts of things I like to photograph, the 2x tele will give me more versatility.
The 2X teleconverter doubles the aperture from 2.8 to 5.6. $600 is a lot for a converter. Just shoot in crop mode and the 70-200 is a 105-300mm f2.8, thats what I do. I also have the 20mm 1.8 and it's an amazing lens.
@michael Already got the 2x, which takes me to 600mm in DX. Took a picture of a yard sign a block and a half away. At 200/noTC/DX, it's blurry, never mind cropping. The 200/TC/DX is crisp. I'm happy with it, and that's just one example. Got it with points.
@michael I've never used 600mm because I've never had anything like it until this week. That's why I like the versatility it'll provide. The 600mm equivalent shots I took are sharper than the 200mm alone, and it's not even close. So I can't wait to try some new scenarios. The 20/1.8 is still in my sights though, for sure.
@@myfakeguuglaccount8307 check out nikons refurbished lenses, I purchased my 20mm and 35mm from nikon usa refurbished and they seem new, and I paid a lot less. I never owned a 20mm before, it has a similar perspective to our eyesight. I find the 35mm more useful and my wife uses the 35mm a lot.
Hi, im also thinking to purchase a tele/zoom lens.. im not a big wildlife photographer, but more sports , like cars, rally, cross , and some ball games like basketball, ijshockey and some portraits to. Should i go for a 70-200 2.8 and buy a extra tc 1.4 or 2.0. Or take the 100-400mm , I always liked the 70-200 2.8 , i had one one my older nikon cam. Now i have the z8 and i want to invest in some good Z mount lenses .. thx
For basketball, hockey, portraits and cars, I would go with the 70-200 2.8. You will need the 2.8 aperture for indoor sports and to isolate your portrait subjects. You can then add a 1.4 or 2.0 TC.
@@julesvuottosphotofocus4696 thx, well yes.. mostly im indoor .. im new into teleconverter, so or it wil be the 1.4 or 2.0 but I guess that the 2.0 for Z mounts are much better now compare with the tc for F mounts , so how much closer can i get with the 1.4 maximum, 340mm ? I know that with the 2.0 i will lose 2 stops .. do now about the 1.4 .
@@hostestevens-qd1il the 1.4 will get you to 280mm at f4. I would stick with just the 70-200 for now and see how it goes. With the 2x you will be at 400mm at the long end at 5.6. Too slow for indoor sports.
@@julesvuottosphotofocus4696 thx for ur help, yeah indoor we don’t have a good lights.. so indoors i just will use the 70-200mm without tc. I even tought about the 100-400, but than again maybe i will struggle indoors.. zo I think the best option for me is the 70-200 indoor / outdoor. And outdoor maybe te at a tc if i need it.. yes I tried the dx mode , also very useful. But for now i got the lens the came with the z8 ( 24-120mm f4 ) so also i was thinking.. why getting a 70-200mm for just 80mm more. But I think and im sure that i will get better results with the 70-200mm 2.8 . Thx again!!
Everybody knows, that a 2x-converter generally is not good- I too. I've testet it more as a lot. it is a basic-knowledge, that a 2x converter is not better, then a crop. Really good are the 1.4x- converters (from all brands) Sorry@@julesvuottosphotofocus4696
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
Very impressed with both of the Z TC’s. My 400 4.5 is now a walk around 800mm and there is zero degradation. I love Nikon!
Great to hear. Thanks for watching.
Really informative to help me making the purchase. I just don't use 400mm too much, so a teleconverter will help to use longer focal length occasionally.
Thank you! This is exactly the video that I was looking for. I have the 70-200 2.8 lens and I have been looking for a reason to invest in the teleconverter. 🙂
@@johnduffy563 Thank you. I’m very pleased with this combination.
Hi Jules, just watched this video of yours, awesome as always!
I never got around to get a teleconverter because I had doubts about them and I am still not sure. So since I trust your expertize very much Jules, what is your opinion, if we compare two photos like this:
1 - a photo made with a 2 x teleconverter.
2 - the same photo made with the same lens stopped down two aperture steps and without the teleconverter and cropped to the same size as photo 1.
If photo 1 is significantly sharper then the teleconverter is better than cropping.
But if both photos are equally sharp, then the teleconverter is not useful at all. Also the disadvantage of using a teleconverter is that you loose 2 stops of either aperture or shutterspeed which will effect image quality in lo light or of moving subjects.
@@mikaelwerner1 Thank you for the question Mike. In my experience the image with the converter will be sharper than if you cropped without the converter. To get an equivalent angle of view by cropping you are throwing away half of the pixels and also you will see an increase in noise. However it seems to me that with the converter the lens does not acquire focus as quickly, especially with birds in flight. There are many options now in the Nikon line to get to 400mm and from what I’ve read and watched the 70-200 with the 2x is the weakest. I don’t need 400 often, so it works okay for me. By the way, when that video was made I was shooting with a Z7 and now I have a Z8. The AF on the Z8 is far superior for moving subjects. I’ll be publishing a video in a few weeks on the Z8 with the 70-200 and 2X, photographing small birds on the deck behind my house. If you already have the 70-200, I would recommend renting the 2x to see if it works well enough for you. Enjoy the rest of the weekend.
@ Thank you very much Jules and have a nice weekend!
I am late to the video but found it very useful. As I have the 70-200. Thank you
@@theonlyredspecial It’s the sharpest zoom I have ever owned. Thanks for watching.
The 2x converter to 400 is such a good idea. Just wondered how it would handle and drop the image quality and auto focus. I’ve a z9. Appreciate the video 👍🏻
@ Autofocus seems very good tracking birds. A little slow locking on, but once it does it’s very good. Some loss of sharpness wide open, but good enough for me. Thanks for watching.
@@julesvuottosphotofocus4696 Yeah thanks appreciate it. I wonder if the x1.4 is sharper, but its not a massive increase in reach. x2 seems more practical.
I would pay for a prime, but I do some motorbike photography too and depending on where you get to stand, a zoom is very useful at times. as you are forced into a specific position with a prime zoom. decisions, decisions!
@ I don’t have the 1.4 converter, but I understand there is almost no loss of quality. The 100-400 has a very good reputation. That may work better for you.
I have the exact same set up which I'm taking on Safari to India next March. I've been happy with the quality of images I'm getting with it so far. I've also just bought a used Z6 with 300 shutter actuations on it as a back up/2nd camera. This will have my 24-70 F4 on it so I think I'll be well covered for anything I come across.
It’s a great combination. Have a great time on safari.
This is the combo I use for my occasional longer telephoto needs. I love the image quality of the 70-200, but it is so heavy I don’t take it with me unless I’m pretty sure I’ll need it. I’d love to see a Z version of the Nikon 180mm prime I had as an Af-D lens.
Thank you I really needed to see this Video >> Now will get the 2x for my 70-200 S Lens
I was really debating between the 2x tele and the 20mm/1.8 for my Z6ii. I was about to pull the trigger on the 20mm, but keep coming back to this video, which is really swinging me the other way. I think, for the sorts of things I like to photograph, the 2x tele will give me more versatility.
The 2X teleconverter doubles the aperture from 2.8 to 5.6. $600 is a lot for a converter. Just shoot in crop mode and the 70-200 is a 105-300mm f2.8, thats what I do. I also have the 20mm 1.8 and it's an amazing lens.
@michael Already got the 2x, which takes me to 600mm in DX. Took a picture of a yard sign a block and a half away. At 200/noTC/DX, it's blurry, never mind cropping. The 200/TC/DX is crisp. I'm happy with it, and that's just one example. Got it with points.
@@myfakeguuglaccount8307 yes, do you ever use 600mm? Usually 300mm is all I ever need. I don't shoot birds really, mostly sports.
@michael I've never used 600mm because I've never had anything like it until this week. That's why I like the versatility it'll provide. The 600mm equivalent shots I took are sharper than the 200mm alone, and it's not even close. So I can't wait to try some new scenarios.
The 20/1.8 is still in my sights though, for sure.
@@myfakeguuglaccount8307 check out nikons refurbished lenses, I purchased my 20mm and 35mm from nikon usa refurbished and they seem new, and I paid a lot less. I never owned a 20mm before, it has a similar perspective to our eyesight. I find the 35mm more useful and my wife uses the 35mm a lot.
Thank you very much for this review.
Great video
@@adils3778 Thank you
Hi, im also thinking to purchase a tele/zoom lens.. im not a big wildlife photographer, but more sports , like cars, rally, cross , and some ball games like basketball, ijshockey and some portraits to. Should i go for a 70-200 2.8 and buy a extra tc 1.4 or 2.0. Or take the 100-400mm , I always liked the 70-200 2.8 , i had one one my older nikon cam. Now i have the z8 and i want to invest in some good Z mount lenses .. thx
For basketball, hockey, portraits and cars, I would go with the 70-200 2.8. You will need the 2.8 aperture for indoor sports and to isolate your portrait subjects. You can then add a 1.4 or 2.0 TC.
@@julesvuottosphotofocus4696 thx, well yes.. mostly im indoor .. im new into teleconverter, so or it wil be the 1.4 or 2.0 but I guess that the 2.0 for Z mounts are much better now compare with the tc for F mounts , so how much closer can i get with the 1.4 maximum, 340mm ? I know that with the 2.0 i will lose 2 stops .. do now about the 1.4 .
@@hostestevens-qd1il the 1.4 will get you to 280mm at f4. I would stick with just the 70-200 for now and see how it goes. With the 2x you will be at 400mm at the long end at 5.6. Too slow for indoor sports.
Also with z8 you can shoot in dx mode and still have a 19 megapixel image.
@@julesvuottosphotofocus4696 thx for ur help, yeah indoor we don’t have a good lights.. so indoors i just will use the 70-200mm without tc. I even tought about the 100-400, but than again maybe i will struggle indoors.. zo I think the best option for me is the 70-200 indoor / outdoor. And outdoor maybe te at a tc if i need it.. yes I tried the dx mode , also very useful. But for now i got the lens the came with the z8 ( 24-120mm f4 ) so also i was thinking.. why getting a 70-200mm for just 80mm more. But I think and im sure that i will get better results with the 70-200mm 2.8 . Thx again!!
I just got my 2x TC, and the results of some test shots I took are amazing. The TC makes a very clear difference (pun intended).
It is amazing how good it is with the 70-200 wide open at 200.
@@julesvuottosphotofocus4696 Glad you talked me into it. 😁
Nonsens
Have you used this combination?
Everybody knows, that a 2x-converter generally is not good- I too. I've testet it more as a lot.
it is a basic-knowledge, that a 2x converter is not better, then a crop. Really good are the 1.4x- converters (from all brands)
Sorry@@julesvuottosphotofocus4696