Nikon Z 70-200 mm 2.8 + Z TC-2x or the new Z 100-400 mm

chambeshi said:

Brian Homer said:

If I got a 100-400 it would be an ornament in a draw or on a shelf for 95% of the time and if I ever need one I'll rent one.

But as you and others have demonstrated there are use cases where it is absolutely the right thing to have the 100-400 or prime rather than the 70-200 + TC.

Where I disagree is the implication somehow others are making a mistake if they take the 70-200 + TC route if that suits what they shoot and that if they do take that route they are somehow inexperienced and should follow whatever some YouTuber says is the answer.

Click to expand...

Your interpretation which I disagree with. As you misinterpreted the intention to share links that cover the options.

Click to expand...

I agree with the other Brian.

Your earlier post certainly implied to me that you believe only inexperienced photographers would choose the 70-200mm f/2.8 plus 2x TC option.

briantilley said:

chambeshi said:

Brian Homer said:

If I got a 100-400 it would be an ornament in a draw or on a shelf for 95% of the time and if I ever need one I'll rent one.

But as you and others have demonstrated there are use cases where it is absolutely the right thing to have the 100-400 or prime rather than the 70-200 + TC.

Where I disagree is the implication somehow others are making a mistake if they take the 70-200 + TC route if that suits what they shoot and that if they do take that route they are somehow inexperienced and should follow whatever some YouTuber says is the answer.

Click to expand...

Your interpretation which I disagree with. As you misinterpreted the intention to share links that cover the options.

Click to expand...

I agree with the other Brian.

Your earlier post certainly implied to me that you believe only inexperienced photographers would choose the 70-200mm f/2.8 plus 2x TC option.

Click to expand...

Your interpretation. experienced means one who has experience of these lenses, as I have tested of many over 40 years - including 400 f2.8E FL / 180-400 f4 TC (both are excellent optics as they should be at their prices), and I've also tested the other F-mount options to get to 400, including 80-400 G (sort of decent), 70-200 f2.8E FL + TC2 (medicre and inferior I find). I've read and read widely across the tried and tested reviews - so experience here to to know what sites to read (not merely watch).

Your choice to interpret the inexperienced versus inexperienced as you wish. The empirical facts were summarized after comparisons by those reviewers I cited above, are the image quality 70-200 f2.8S +TC2 is not is not as sharp etc as the 400 f4.5S nor the 180-400 f4 TC14 (with FTZ) nor 100-400 S. To try state this more succinctly it is the inferior choice or to pad the message. So there are better choices in mid 2022 in the Z system that 10 months ago in more diplomatic English of ye Olde Country.

I could post to effect that the 70-200 f2.8S +TC2 is the ideal choice to 'Get to 400' in the Z System, but this would misrepresent the facts. Getting to 400 has been a recurring question in the reviews of experienced Nikonians (TH links above, and Brad Hill repeatedly)

Pick your poison, as they say. I am confident some will appreciate my honesty.

2 essays on F System options buried in my Nikon database - also relevant with an FTZ but again experienced Nikonians rate the image quality of some to be inferior, compared to recently released lenses, notably the 100-400 S and 400 f4.5S

http://www.naturalart.ca/artist/fieldtests/4waysto400.html

fstws6 said:

Still shooting the 2.8e fl on my z6 with tc 20eiii... don't feel justified yet although I can afford it to go z 70 200 2.8z w z tc20...I don't think much diff in image quality..for my use case no issue mounting and unmounting tc to ftz when i need to. 100 400 is tempting but again shoot birds once in a while.

Click to expand...

Yes, when you don’t photograph birds often, it may be hard to justify a 400mm lens. However, adding an F-mount TC and then the FTZ means a lot of joints in the set up. That is really not ideal.

shuncheung said:

fstws6 said:

Still shooting the 2.8e fl on my z6 with tc 20eiii... don't feel justified yet although I can afford it to go z 70 200 2.8z w z tc20...I don't think much diff in image quality..for my use case no issue mounting and unmounting tc to ftz when i need to. 100 400 is tempting but again shoot birds once in a while.

Click to expand...

Yes, when you don’t photograph birds often, it may be hard to justify a 400mm lens. However, adding an F-mount TC and then the FTZ means a lot of joints in the set up. That is really not ideal.

Click to expand...

It's only 1 more joint f mount vs z mount..just saying.

1. Ftz tc f mount

2. Tc z mount

chambeshi said:

briantilley said:

chambeshi said:

Brian Homer said:

If I got a 100-400 it would be an ornament in a draw or on a shelf for 95% of the time and if I ever need one I'll rent one.

But as you and others have demonstrated there are use cases where it is absolutely the right thing to have the 100-400 or prime rather than the 70-200 + TC.

Where I disagree is the implication somehow others are making a mistake if they take the 70-200 + TC route if that suits what they shoot and that if they do take that route they are somehow inexperienced and should follow whatever some YouTuber says is the answer.

Click to expand...

Your interpretation which I disagree with. As you misinterpreted the intention to share links that cover the options.

Click to expand...

I agree with the other Brian.

Your earlier post certainly implied to me that you believe only inexperienced photographers would choose the 70-200mm f/2.8 plus 2x TC option.

Click to expand...

Your interpretation. experienced means one who has experience of these lenses, as I have tested of many over 40 years - including 400 f2.8E FL / 180-400 f4 TC (both are excellent optics as they should be at their prices), and I've also tested the other F-mount options to get to 400, including 80-400 G (sort of decent), 70-200 f2.8E FL + TC2 (medicre and inferior I find). I've read and read widely across the tried and tested reviews - so experience here to to know what sites to read (not merely watch).

Your choice to interpret the inexperienced versus inexperienced as you wish. The empirical facts were summarized after comparisons by those reviewers I cited above, are the image quality 70-200 f2.8S +TC2 is not is not as sharp etc as the 400 f4.5S nor the 180-400 f4 TC14 (with FTZ) nor 100-400 S. To try state this more succinctly it is the inferior choice or to pad the message. So there are better choices in mid 2022 in the Z system that 10 months ago in more diplomatic English of ye Olde Country.

Click to expand...

I don't think that using sarcasm is helping your case.

chambeshi said:

I could post to effect that the 70-200 f2.8S +TC2 is the ideal choice to 'Get to 400' in the Z System, but this would misrepresent the facts. Getting to 400 has been a recurring question in the reviews of experienced Nikonians (TH links above, and Brad Hill repeatedly)

Click to expand...

Neither the other Brian nor I have suggested that the Z 70-200mm f/2.8 VR S plus TC-2.0x will perform as well at 400mm as either the Z 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S or the Z 400mm f/4.5 VR S. You don't need to post multiple links to prove anything, because we agree with you on that point. And incidentally, I think I'm in a good place to judge, as I own the 70-200mm, 100-400mm and TC-2.0x, and have the 400mm f/4.5 on order.

All that we are pointing out is that the shorter zoom plus TC might be a more appropriate and cost-effective solution for some people, including those who have a clear need for a fast 70-200mm but don't often need anything longer. And some of those people may well be very experienced.

chambeshi said:

Pick your poison, as they say. I am confident some will appreciate my honesty.

Click to expand...

chambeshi said:

I could post to effect that the 70-200 f2.8S +TC2 is the ideal choice to 'Get to 400' in the Z System, but this would misrepresent the facts.

Click to expand...

I think you're missing he point.

Spot on could not have put it better myself.

fstws6 said:

shuncheung said:

fstws6 said:

Still shooting the 2.8e fl on my z6 with tc 20eiii... don't feel justified yet although I can afford it to go z 70 200 2.8z w z tc20...I don't think much diff in image quality..for my use case no issue mounting and unmounting tc to ftz when i need to. 100 400 is tempting but again shoot birds once in a while.

Click to expand...

Yes, when you don’t photograph birds often, it may be hard to justify a 400mm lens. However, adding an F-mount TC and then the FTZ means a lot of joints in the set up. That is really not ideal.

Click to expand...

It's only 1 more joint f mount vs z mount..just saying.

1. Ftz tc f mount

2. Tc z mount

Click to expand...

It is only 1 more joint, but you are going from 2 to 3, i.e. 50% more. Each joint adds more play to the overall set up. I view a TC and the FTZ is the necessary evil, which I try to avoid. I really prefer not to use both simultaneously.

briantilley said:

chambeshi said:

briantilley said:

chambeshi said:

Brian Homer said:

If I got a 100-400 it would be an ornament in a draw or on a shelf for 95% of the time and if I ever need one I'll rent one.

But as you and others have demonstrated there are use cases where it is absolutely the right thing to have the 100-400 or prime rather than the 70-200 + TC.

Where I disagree is the implication somehow others are making a mistake if they take the 70-200 + TC route if that suits what they shoot and that if they do take that route they are somehow inexperienced and should follow whatever some YouTuber says is the answer.

Click to expand...

Your interpretation which I disagree with. As you misinterpreted the intention to share links that cover the options.

Click to expand...

I agree with the other Brian.

Your earlier post certainly implied to me that you believe only inexperienced photographers would choose the 70-200mm f/2.8 plus 2x TC option.

Click to expand...

Your interpretation. experienced means one who has experience of these lenses, as I have tested of many over 40 years - including 400 f2.8E FL / 180-400 f4 TC (both are excellent optics as they should be at their prices), and I've also tested the other F-mount options to get to 400, including 80-400 G (sort of decent), 70-200 f2.8E FL + TC2 (medicre and inferior I find). I've read and read widely across the tried and tested reviews - so experience here to to know what sites to read (not merely watch).

Your choice to interpret the inexperienced versus inexperienced as you wish. The empirical facts were summarized after comparisons by those reviewers I cited above, are the image quality 70-200 f2.8S +TC2 is not is not as sharp etc as the 400 f4.5S nor the 180-400 f4 TC14 (with FTZ) nor 100-400 S. To try state this more succinctly it is the inferior choice or to pad the message. So there are better choices in mid 2022 in the Z system that 10 months ago in more diplomatic English of ye Olde Country.

Click to expand...

I don't think that using sarcasm is helping your case.

Click to expand...

On re reading the 'other Brian's' post I might find it condescending if I were to nitpick. As I said innuendo to how one read's the other's attempts at regional cultural slants on English.

briantilley said:

briantilley said:

I could post to effect that the 70-200 f2.8S +TC2 is the ideal choice to 'Get to 400' in the Z System, but this would misrepresent the facts. Getting to 400 has been a recurring question in the reviews of experienced Nikonians (TH links above, and Brad Hill repeatedly)

Click to expand...

Neither the other Brian nor I have suggested that the Z 70-200mm f/2.8 VR S plus TC-2.0x will perform as well at 400mm as either the Z 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S or the Z 400mm f/4.5 VR S. You don't need to post multiple links to prove anything, because we agree with you on that point. And incidentally, I think I'm in a good place to judge, as I own the 70-200mm, 100-400mm and TC-2.0x, and have the 400mm f/4.5 on order.

All that we are pointing out is that the shorter zoom plus TC might be a more appropriate and cost-effective solution for some people, including those who have a clear need for a fast 70-200mm but don't often need anything longer. And some of those people may well be very experienced.

briantilley said:

Pick your poison, as they say. I am confident some will appreciate my honesty.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

To repeat, I shared links to reviews that summarize useful and reliable empirical comparisons. I'm not the only one interpret their credibility as being experienced.

The reader can read into this syntax the innuendo of their choice - in interpreting and relating their own experience to those I cite.

The bottom line is, there are superior alternatives in the Z system to the 70-200 f2.8E FL. What one selects subject to one's experience and needs is a personal choice. Nothing more to add nor say