Is the new Nikon 1.4 TeleConverter any good when compared to the incredible Nikon Z 70-200 when cropping in? Here is our review!
Is the new Nikon 1.4 TeleConverter any good when compared to the incredible Nikon Z 70-200 when cropping in? Here is our review!
Always excellent video and educational
Great informative video, thanks guys for the real world test, saved me a few quid 👍
Depends on your needs but yes, we don't use it. But there are those that really like it.
Very very useful test! You just saved me from throwing 670 Swiss Francs out of the window!! Several commentators praised this converter to the skies, but your practical test shows the reality - thank you so much! To lengthen the reach of this fabulous 70-200mm S would be to replace the Z6 (my camera) with a Z7. Best regards from Emmental country.
Yes we were disappointed with the 1.4 tele converter as well, but some people do find a use for it including improved field of view when capturing. But the z7 would increase your reach.
Aber es eist eines der einzigen videos die den Tc 1,4 schlecht redet, die meisten sagen es gibt keine Schärfe einbusen.
Guys, love the format of your super-informative "don't beat around the bush" videos. This video made me wonder if you could confirm some of my pondering... i.e. resolution difference between the Z7 and a Z6 image (Z6 image scaled up with Adobe's new RAW "Super Resolution" filter). I have a Z6 ii and am now wondering if getting a Z7 ii (like the teleconverter you just tested) would be a let-down. Keep up the good work boys 👍.
Thanks Martyn, we are going to make the z6 vs z7 video soon hopefully. We are thinking the z7 provides extra crop power if you need it and will be even better using PS enhance with both. Depends on your use case.
@@russandloz Yes, thanks for pointing out the Z7 could be upscaled as well. But it would be dead cool to see just how close an upscaled Z6 comes to a native Z7. Maybe put a cat amongst the pigeons!
I have found teleconverters more on the useful side when it comes to shooting video, where cropping isn't really an option but you need the extra reach. So far for photos I have found it to be more of a hassle than it's worth. Especially now with super resolution from adobe (which can also mess-up) where I can crop in way more than any converter is going to help.
I'm quite happy for you to loose 400 quid for our benefit. :) Seriously, I have the Z TC1.4 and was not pleased with your results. I'll have to do this test myself and see if there might be some sample variation in my favour. BTW the way that clock face was distorted suggests there might be some skew in alignment going on - I'm not sure from where. One advantage still remains: when shooting with the 1.4TC you are viewing the final image in the EVF. It might help with framing and shooting performance. The other thing I'm waiting for is that elusive 100-400 Z which should also use this TC.
I would love to see this teleconverter in the z100-400, Please do it, I'll be excited to see how that work. thanks.
It wouldn’t be any better than on the 70-200? Only offers a better field of view
Thanks for the info. Steering clear of teleconverters
Some say it helps with a closer field of view and the overall image is larger for printing etc. But we are yet to see the benefit. Maybe on the 100-400 it might be better?
@@russandloz that will be a special lens I think
I agree, the Z 70-200 mm f/2.8 is awesome. I have the 1.4 and 2.0 teleconverters, and I'm happy with both. I mainly use the 2.0 tele a lot now with the 70-200 mm to have up to 400 mm f/5.6 for wildlife. I use the Z7 II for this, though. I'm happy!
Thanks George, how do you find the 2x TC or 1.4x TC for better images?
@@russandloz for me, I like the 2x better because it gave me the reach of 400 mm for wildlife. I'm happy with the image quality. In my opinion, the 1.4x is a waste for the 70-200 f/2.8 lens since it only added 80 mm. The 1.4.x may be more for the coming super-telephoto zooms.
@@ThePinoyAggie Interesting, yes lets see!
Agree,great combo
Is posiblemente use example in a mc 105 macro ??
Great video! I have a newbie question though. You’ve determined it’s basically a wash between cropping and using the teleconverter in regards to quality using a 24mp camera. What if the camera was like the Z7ii with a high megapixel, would that adjust the quality when cropped?
It’s the same situation. In our experience the TC is the same as cropping in natively with any camera. But sure the z7 can crop further compared the the z6 due to higher resolution
Can this work with a Tamron zoom lens on a nikon z camera?
Depends which one you mean. Mostly it’s just the more expensive lenses. Better off just to crop
Good morning , Excellent review on this piece of expensive kit - As you stated there are some u tubers who are pro this converter ( I won't name them ) Anyway after watching this today I have decided not to purchase one and upgrade my Z6 to Z7 and just chop the images. I walked Richmond park last week with Z6 and 70 /200 2.8 and the images were good after a crop ( I would like your view on them if I can send them to you some how ) It just shows how good cropping can be with out spending over £500 - that's a lump towards Z7 / Stay safe Mark
Thanks Mark, their main argument for the TC is the better field of view when capturing, apparently. But it's not for us. But yes, the 70-200 is incredible for many reasons. The Z7 will give you the extra crop power! Do you have a flickr or website?
@@russandloz No sadly
cheaper to buy the extender than a Z7!
Great vid. Just about to blow £500 smackers on a 1.4 III 😳 But... what about a comparison when you start cropping into the TC image? Does the original still hold up then?
We found you can’t crop very far with a TC image as it’s lower quality. It only provides a better field of view and maybe a bigger print image
Hope you’ll do this with the 2x as well. There, the extra reach may balance out any loss of image quality.
Yeah we aren’t going to get the 2x as we aren’t happy with the 1.4. If you need a lab extra field of view it might be good I guess.
@@russandloz I like the idea of a 2x with the Z 70-200 instead of the pricey and slow 100-400, but I will definitely look at cropping on on the Z7 before spending US $600. There’s a 200-600 on the roadmap that’s not an S lens but I expect it will still be expensive.
@@jimwlouavl we are about to release the video for the 200-500 on the z system which may surprise you!
@@russandloz you’ve got my curiosity going. Can’t wait.
@@jimwlouavl who says the 100-400 is slow. I own it and it is fast and quiet! And it focuses down to 2.5 feet!
That Z x1.4 will be ideal for the upcoming Z 400mm f2.8 prime. A great addition to the 70-200 f2.8.
Will be interesting to see.
200-600 as well
Though now we see the 400 2.8 it has a built in 1.4 TC -a much better solution than disconnecting/reconnecting in the field.
@@seanstours3913 and be interesting to see it on the 100-400.
@@seanstours3913 yes. Awaiting the 200-600 for UK wildlife and Africa safari.
I shoot with the Z6 and just got the Nikkor Z 100-400. Whenever they get off of backorder (which proves they are highly desirable), I will be ordering the 1.5 extender. An extra $500 vs buying the Z7ii for the cropping factor, will be cheaper for me!
From our tests it’ll be just as good cropping in without the TC. Unless you like a better field of view. Happy to be proved otherwise 😊
@@russandloz thanks. Yesterday I did take an image of a North American blue bird on a branch. It was taken at 400 with the Z100-400. Blown up at 100%, the bird looks great! The resolving power on this lens apparently is fantastic! A 400mm focal length blown up by 100% would be the equivalent of 800mm?
update: I have the 1.5 extender now and it is excellent!
Thank you for this comparison. I came here just in time to stop an impulse buy which would have cost me a lot of money.
Which one were you thinking about? We have an updated version of this video on the 70-200 video 😊
Even if a teleconverter were ever so slightly sharper would it even be worth it? I had the Nikon 1.4x and saw very little additional detail and in fact it was worse on the left side than just using the lens itself an cropping in. So I sold it. I do think teleconverters were most useful back in the film days where it wasn't so easy to crop in post. With digital photography there is little benefit.
I’ve recently re bought the 1.4 and find it adds a bit better image quality with my 400 4.5 and z8. Video coming soon
I am a Wild Life Photographer in Africa and I use the Z7 and 70-200 f2.8 S and I use this convertor on that lens >> all I ever will need >> Gone are those big Primes etc > I get 70-200 F2.8 Native in Full Frame and 300 f2.8 in DX and 100 - 280 mm F4 full Frame Best ever TC made for any brand >> no image loss at all and up to 420mm F4 on DX
and now if you owned the new Z100-400, you would even be better off!
@@gosman949 Would rather have the Z 400 f4.5 plus 1.4 x The 100-400 cant match it for IQ even though it has awesome IQ
@@Mr09260 if I had your 70-200, yes I wouldn't get the 100-400. Are you telling me that African safaris don't need anything longer than 420mm?
Will the 1.4x TC work with Z30 + 50-250mm? And my range will be 250*1.5= 375*1.4=525mm?
No, it only works with certain lenses such as 70-200 and longer.
@@russandloz Thank you
What about the print size ? If you crop you have less megapixels
Modest prints will be fine but sure, if you print very big then it will be an advantage.
@@russandloz thank you. For us printers, then the extenders are good! And what happens then when you crop an extended photo. You get more focal length!
@@gosman949 Interesting, why do the TC's help with printing?
@@russandloz as you enlarge the image for printing, your pixels in the picture and dots per inch for the printer change. With these higher sensor cameras, it often doesn't matter. And there is software that can upsize images too. But I prefer to start from an in camera pixel picture.
Is this possible? Nikon Z 7ii + 1.4x TC + Mount Adapter FTZ + Tamron SP70-200mm F/2.8 G2
We believe the 1.4 tc z only fits the 70-200z
@@russandloz now the Z100-400.
Hey Does this 1.4 Teleconvertor works on Nikon 70-300mm lens
No,,, Only works with 70 /200 2.8 - If you look at Z mount road map there are 400 and 600 mm primes expect 2022 but you may need a mortgage to bu them / Mark
@@markrandall3454 Thanks Mark for the Advise, I use Nikon D5300 with 70-300 MM lens for Wildlife photography. I saw several videos on Pros and Cons of Teleconvertor. I am looking to invest in teleconvertors can you suggest any for Nikon 70-300mm lens ?
@@karanshukla9730 the 70-300 can't take a teleconverter.
Just watched the video and see a lack of diversity in perception of purposes of the TC. To me: 1. The TC allows close-up work (420mm fl cf 300mm, for example) at the same physical distance (this video is clearly by birders who are far from their subject). Hence your lens can become more macro and performance is truly and verifiably (MTF data) enhanced using a TC. 2. It protects the back element of your lens (seals the package).
Thanks Alan, how do you mean the performance is enhanced using the TC? Apart from a better field of view.
@@russandloz I mean and believe that my lens becomes more like a microscope (for macro work). I use a 1.4x TC to enhance my 300mm lens to retain minimum focal distance and give me a larger image. Is that image better...in principle no, at first sight. But you would NEED a camera with 1.4x linear extra pixels (1.4 squared=1.96x pixels, areal) to obtain the same (equal) quality. For example, your 24MP camera needs to be 24x1.96=47MP to compete! The TC gives you close-up performance. For $500 a bit of a bargain. Togo really close, as I have, you buy a microscope! Alternatively, buy a 48MP camera for $1 billion (Nikon may consider this?!) to be in the same place! How rich are you guys?
@@alanpotts3297 you should own the Z100-400. I can focus down to 2.5 feet!
I…think I have missed something. You basically shot two photo, one with and one with out. Then, you took the “without”, and cropped in to math the tele-convert one and looks for difference. And that’s one question, an important one, for sure. But, I think you missed the other. What about the extra reach? I mean, you can crop until a certain point, what if you need more? Shorting animals, with a 200mm and a DX lens, often left me with “small animals” in the image as I could crop further. A +40% of the reach it is a bit jump. Something I could maybe only see a 100%, I could see it clearly with the tele-converter. I think you should experiment the “what if it is beyond the range of the lens”. There is almost no point in using it in a situation where your lens can clearly see and/or crop the subject, like in your test. Anyone, thanks for the video.
Yes good point, we have updated our opinions in a later video worth checking out on the 70-200. Do you have a TC? If so is it any good for you?
@@russandloz I shoot with a Nikon D7200 (very happy owner, given his price, the D500 wasn’t out yet), with a Nikon 70-200 VR II and a couple of times I used a very old, manual only, teleconvert that my dad had, and I was think about buying the “newest” one. Hence looking for advise. I like wildlife, but I cannot make my self to carry around a 300 mm even if I own it, too big, too heavy. Hence we I decided to go with a DX camera and a 70-200, but I would like to extra reach some times, so many a 1.4/2.0 teleconverter can make a good compromise.
@@LtColDavenport In our experience with the z system TC they only allow for a better field of view. They won’t give you further reach as you can crop in natively with the lens already to get the same result. I think f mount tc are even worse. I have the 200-500 and it’s fantastic. See our video on that for advice.
@@russandloz Thanks interesting. I will check it out for sure!
Im sure its better on the z6 vs the z7. TC is of no use on high mp cameras.
We have an updated video on this about the 70-200. We have tested it ok z6 and z7 and has the same effect.
I am always worried he would accidentally drop the lens.
Never in doubt lol
NO! Teleconverter is waaaaaay overpriced for an add-on that ONLY works on a few lenses.
They do seem overpriced. But I got it for £400. I wouldn’t pay anymore for it
You guys are usually great but this is unworthy. Firstly the clock comparison has different f and shutter, so it’s not a direct comparison, although granted this may be minor it does change the lens characteristics. Then you say the 280 is distorted, but I put this on an OLED 60” and did a basic measurement on screen, I couldn’t see the distortion and you didn’t point it out. Unproven. Moreover the 280 had, at one point and briefly, wood and bolts with slightly better detail on the tele than the zoomed 200. I paused and looked, yup there it was. You went straight on however, to say that zoomed to 200mm the tele image is “not very usable” but I paused it and tried hard to see where you reached that conclusion. Couldn’t see it and you didn’t point at it. You conclude there’s no benefit but go straight past a key point. Some will not want to lug around an expensive extra lens they’ll have to change in order to hit 280 on a walk-around. Lastly if you reframe what you said and showed, it was that there was no significant difference for most purposes with 80mm extra reach without pixel peeping, while avoiding extra cost and weight of a separate 300mm lens. Not up to your usual, excellent, scientific analysis guys. Redo and include the 2x?
Hi Max, yeah this video has caused the most controversy and people hold the TC very dear to their heart. People who like this TC state it's mostly for a better field of view on the camera when capturing? We are planning updated videos on these subjects once we take on board viewpoints we didn't think of, kind of like a ongoing review. Still, we are disappointed that the TC isn't as impressive as the incredible z innovations we love.
@@russandloz Your reviews are usually excellent, this is a one off. Keep up the good work!