Should I need/get a Z TC1.4 for Z186?

blackstar

Senior Member
I have recently gotten the z186 after six months of waiting. The first outing with my z6ii at a wildlife refuge resulted in some fair images of small birds. However, the overall unimpressive turnout (subjects were too small to fill the frame) is probably due to the far distance of the scene. So I am pondering the remedy of a z TC1.4 to extend fl to 840mm. I know that using a TC would affect IQ due to smaller aperture, slower AF speed, etc. However, some have reported that images shot with TC1.4 (z186) under good light do not suffer much in sharpness and IQ. Seems to be not a bad idea to use a TC. Yet the cost ($550) is so high that some opine it's not worth it. What are your thoughts, especially TC users?
 

BF Hammer

Senior Member
I crop. I had a 1.4x Tamron long ago with my D80 but it gave error codes when I upgraded to a D7000. The higher resolution gave me room to crop so I have not really looked back.

It stayed true for me after moving to full-frame bodies. Even higher resolution and less noise.
 

Fred Kingston

Senior Member
I've played with several TCs in my many years. I've never seen one that a loss of detail/sharpness wasn't readily apparent within seconds. I've always been amused at their pricing structure...
 

Woodyg3

Senior Member
Contributor
Well, TCs are better than they used to be. But it's a mixed bag. Take a look at Steve Perry's video:


You pay a price for using a TC, but it looks like a 1.4X is at least usable on the 180-600.

That said, I wouldn't do it, myself. It makes the lens an f/9 at 600 and as nice as the new 180-600 is, I wouldn't want to lose even a little sharpness with it at 600mm.

I will note that I have NOT used the lens myself, just going based on what Steve has said, as I trust his advice.
 

blackstar

Senior Member
I crop. I had a 1.4x Tamron long ago with my D80 but it gave error codes when I upgraded to a D7000. The higher resolution gave me room to crop so I have not really looked back.

It stayed true for me after moving to full-frame bodies. Even higher resolution and less noise.
Cropping is considered less desirable than using TC1.4 by SOME photographers. Since z6 isn't exactly a high-resolution full sensor, the cropped images actually made me consider using a TC...
 

TwistedThrottle

Senior Member
The point of a teleconverter is to make your subject larger in the frame. The absolute best way to do this is to move closer to your subject. The next best way is to get a longer lens and if neither of those options work, use a teleconverter. Even with a teleconverter, there’s a maximum distance you shouldn’t shoot past. If you can’t see the detail when you’re shooting, it’s too far and you should move closer. There won’t be enough detail in the couple of pixels the small bird takes up in the frame to recover plus the teleconverter degrades the image and that’s really apparent when it’s still not close enough and the next step is to crop the image. I’ve found the #1 most popular reason for using a teleconverter, (getting “close” to really far away subjects) is its weakest use and all the aborations show up in that “extreme condition”.
Still, I use the 2x on my 70-200 and I’m happy with the results, though I’m aware of the compromise that’s required. I really like that I have 70mm f2.8 when needed or 400mm f5.6, (600mm effective in dx) using the same lens but I must be more aware of high iso and filling the frame as much as possible when the tc is attached. I can’t speak to the 1.4x or the 180-600 but I would suggest trying to move closer using the bare lens. Even taking away 1 extra stop of light from f6.3 could mean super high iso which leads to more image mushiness beyond what the tc will introduce. Fine if you can slow down the shutter speed enough to compensate and keep iso in check but a brick wall if you can’t give your image any more time, (like when shooting small birds and fast shutter speeds are absolutely mandatory).
Btw, one very strong argument FOR teleconverters is that it doesn’t reduce your minimum focusing distance; you can still be as close to the subject with or without the tc attached allowing nearly macro type shots that are very clean and this is where teleconverters are at their most powerful use case, imho. In other words, if you- using your lens/teleconverter and a fellow photographer- using a $15,500 600F4 with the built in TC had a comparison to who could photograph the shoelace on their foot, you'd win! The big guns cant shoot that close. But there's a reason the fellow photographer spent $15,500 on their lens; distance=$$$.
 
Last edited:

blackstar

Senior Member
... one very strong argument FOR teleconverters is that it doesn’t reduce your minimum focusing distance; you can still be as close to the subject with or without the tc attached allowing nearly macro type shots that are very clean and this is where teleconverters are at their most powerful use case, imho.
I love this argument! But there is a statement that comes from Nikon website: "Note: The minimum focus distance for lenses mounted on a teleconverter may differ from that stated in the "Specifications" section of the documentation provided with the lens." Does that mean the minimum focus distance may be increased after TC?
 
Last edited:

TwistedThrottle

Senior Member
I love this argument! But there is a statement that comes from Nikon website: "Note: The minimum focus distance for lenses mounted on a teleconverter may differ from that stated in the "Specifications" section of the documentation provided with the lens." Does that mean the minimum focus distance may be increased after TC?
In my experience, the minimum focus distance shot with and without the 2x teleconverter on my 70-200 is the same. Keep in mind, I've not tested every lens/teleconverter combo; in fact mine is the only experience I've had with any teleconverter attached to any lens. But this is mentioned several times from several of the big names on youtube that the minimum focus distance is kept the same. The only thing that makes sense from what Nikon says is there is literally an additional "something" between the subject and the sensor beyond just the lens, physically there is additional length and cant be truly the same. Can someone really tell by the additional 1 1/2" using charts and a tape measure? Maybe. IRL, no way.

180-600 min foc dist @ 600mm= 7.88ft
180-600 w/ tc might be right at 8ft if this theory is correct. What's 0.12' between friends though?

edit

It might actually be the other way around. If the space between is increased, it'd give a closer minimum focus. At least, that's how extension tubes work. Again, probably not perceivable unless shooting a tape measure.
 
Last edited:

Clovishound

Senior Member
Well, keep in mind to change a regular lens into a 1:1 macro, you need approximately the same distance as the focal length. So a 50mm lens will require 50mm of extension. That is a little over the 1 1/2" of the extender. It would require over 10 times that length to do the same for a 600mm lens. Of course, all this presupposes that the optics in a converter don't mess with the focus point of a lens given the length of the converter.
 

blackstar

Senior Member
Just received the z TC1.4x. Did a quick test indoors:

@600mm jpg, cropped, DN AI, scaled down
KFW_6907crop1sT.png

extended 840mm no crop, tone curved, DN AI, scaled down
KFW_6905curvesT.png


Due to the poor weather, no animals are available for the test for the details on subjects. From the indoor quick test, it looks working fine as of sharpness except downgrade in light exposure (no AF slowdown felt though) which may be saved by tuning the tone curve. It also looks like the image details are retained better without being cropped in 840mm (If I didn't crop the 600mm a little too much). What are your thoughts? Do you consider the Z TC1.4x a keeper?
 
Top