Early experience/Pics: 400 f/2.8 TC at 1120mm (TC's)

[RBFresno]

Hi!

Was at the Merced National Wildlife Refuge this week and since the birds were mostly far away, decided to see what I could get using the Z 400 f/2.8 TC with the Z TC 2x and the internal 1.4 TC (1120mm) at the same time.

(Click on Images for Higher Rez)

View attachment 3453506

Crop:

View attachment 3453507



Heavy Crop:



I had read from some reviewers who have warned against using the Z TC 2x in combination with the internal 1,4 TC engaged because of sub-optimal IQ.

While I can definitely see the falloff in IQ compared to the TC'less 400 f/2.8 TC, based on an admittedly limited experience, I'm not sure that using the internal 1.4Tc and the external Z TC 2x is completely unusable.

Of course without the TC's , the Z 400 f/2.8 TC is amazingly sharp and renders very nicely:





And almost unbelievably (at least to me) this was shot through a wire mesh cage at the local zoo:



Best Regards,

RB

--
http://www.dpreview.com/members/2305099006/challenges
https://www.nikonimages.com/member-photos/532

 

[BasilG]

Interesting. What was the PP on the 1120 mm photos? Just standard unsharp mask or similar, or did you use any of the commonly used "AI" tools?

 

[RBFresno]

Interesting. What was the PP on the 1120 mm photos? Just standard unsharp mask or similar, or did you use any of the commonly used "AI" tools?

Hi!

Regarding the PP.

First of all, my most used RAW convertor for the last 10 years or so had been Photo Ninja.

It was quick and I liked the results. More importantly, I was very familiar with it, and able to extract fast consistent results with it (I've only had the Z8/ 400 f.8 TC for a month).

Unfortunately, Photo Ninja doesn't support the Z8 files, so I'm just now figuring out a new workflow.

I'm often a little fuzzy on remembering exactly what I did in post processing, especially since I use plug-ins within PS and DXO and use multiple steps (e.g dodging, burning, focal sharpening, curve adjustments, etc,)

I think that I just opened these 1120mm shots with Photolab7/DXO , processed in PS using Topaz denoise (the ISO's were a bit high) , and then tweaked using NIK Color Effex Pro.

I really miss the simplicity and fast good results of Photo Ninja as a RAW convertor. But I'm looking forward to getting up to speed with a new workflow ( I haven't figured out exactly what that will be yet)

I tend to process to show what my eyes were seeing rather that what happens to come out of the camera.

Here's an example that i shot with a D5 and 500 PF:

This is straight out of the camera:



Details lost in the shadows, suboptimal sharpening, etc;

Too much of the sky, powerlines

That's what my camera was seeing.

Here's my cropping and post processed image:



Best Regards,

RB

--
http://www.dpreview.com/members/2305099006/challenges
https://www.nikonimages.com/member-photos/532

 

[PAFL-2-point-0]

What are you getting with internal 1.4 plus external 1.4?

Reviewers do not recommend the combo, and at one time thought Nikon had notation about it as well.

But of course others online don't seem to have an issue getting good results...

 

[RBFresno]

What are you getting with internal 1.4 plus external 1.4?

Hi!

I don't have the Z TC 1.4 (I do have the F mount 1.4 TC).

Personally i don't have a big need for the Z TC 1.4 with my current Z lens collection, though if I ever get a lens like the the Z 70-200 f/2.8, I might consider getting the 1.4 TC.

Reviewers do not recommend the combo, and at one time thought Nikon had notation about it as well.

I think the point made by others is that the the Z TC 2x gets you about the sane focal length as the 1.4TC internal + 1.4 TC external combo but with better IQ.

But of course others online don't seem to have an issue getting good results...

Best Regards,

RB

--
http://www.dpreview.com/members/2305099006/challenges
https://www.nikonimages.com/member-photos/532

 

[archerscreek]

My biggest photography regret was passing on this lens when it popped up in a refurbished sale a year ago. You’re only rubbing salt in those wounds with your post. Haha. But you also solidify my strategy of bypassing the $5000 and $6000 PF lenses because they would add up to TC territory anyway, never give me f/4, let alone f/2.8, and I don’t care about the TC size difference. The only lens that might steer me away from the 400 TC is if Nikon releases a 500 TC.

 

[bsinc1962]

Thanks for posting this. My 400mm 2.8 tc is due tomorrow and I can't wait. I also ordered the 2xtc for those just in case scenarios.

 

[RBFresno]

Thanks for posting this. My 400mm 2.8 tc is due tomorrow and I can't wait. I also ordered the 2xtc for those just in case scenarios.

Hi!

If your experience with the 402.8 TC is anywhere near mine, you will be extremely pleased:











For me, the sting of the purchase price was lessened realizing that I now have not only an outstanding hand holdable 400 f/2.8 lens, but also excellent 560 mm F/4 and very good 800 mm F/5.6. And, in a pinch even a usable 1120 f/8.

And as a non trivial bonus, easily hand holdable.

Best Regards

RB

--
http://www.dpreview.com/members/2305099006/challenges
https://www.nikonimages.com/member-photos/532

 

[RBFresno]

My biggest photography regret was passing on this lens when it popped up in a refurbished sale a year ago.
You’re only rubbing salt in those wounds with your post. Haha.

Nice to know that I’m doing something useful ;-)

But you also solidify my strategy of bypassing the $5000 and $6000 PF lenses because they would add up to TC territory anyway, never give me f/4, let alone f/2.8, and I don’t care about the TC size difference.

Completely agree. Those were similar to my thoughts as well.

The only lens that might steer me away from the 400 TC is if Nikon releases a 500 TC.

Personally, I wouldn’t worry about that too much.
A 500 f/4 TC might have the advantage of being lighter but then you lose being able to shoot F/2.8.

And I suspect that a f/2.8 500 TC would not be hand holdable like the 400 F/2.8 TC is.

Like you, I try to avoid too much overlap of lenses, especially expensive ones.

Yes, the 400 F/2.8 TC is expensive.
However, the 560 F/4 and 800 mm F/5.6 that the 400 TC gives me is good enough that i’ve now happily given up my former thought$ of acquiring 600 F/4 or 800 F/5.6 len$e$.

Best Regards

RB

--
http://www.dpreview.com/members/2305099006/challenges
https://www.nikonimages.com/member-photos/532

 

[Lance B]

As usual, great example photos, RB. Thanks for sharing.