Nikon Z 70-200 f2.8 with 2TC vs Z 100-400: I own the Nikon Z 70-200 f2.8 and the 2TC and was looking at the new Z 100-400 f4.5-5.6 and wondering if it was a better option for bird...

Kenmull

I own the Nikon Z 70-200 f2.8 and the 2TC and was looking at the new Z 100-400 f4.5-5.6 and wondering if it was a better option for bird photography. The f stop at 400mm is the same but does it offer better performance. The one plus would be with the 2TC it will yield 800mm but I am not sure that alone is sufficient since I already use the 500pf and the increase from 500 to 800 with the smaller aperture is necessarily better. any thoughts?

mikeroetex Loc: Lafayette, LA

Kenmull wrote:

I own the Nikon Z 70-200 f2.8 and the 2TC and was looking at the new Z 100-400 f4.5-5.6 and wondering if it was a better option for bird photography. The f stop at 400mm is the same but does it offer better performance. The one plus would be with the 2TC it will yield 800mm but I am not sure that alone is sufficient since I already use the 500pf and the increase from 500 to 800 with the smaller aperture is necessarily better. any thoughts?

I use a 1.4TC to get my 300mm up to 420mm and get good results on Z6. Better on D500 with good light. In general, I think a prime with no extender would yield sharpest photos. Your results may vary.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

Kenmull wrote:

I own the Nikon Z 70-200 f2.8 and the 2TC and was looking at the new Z 100-400 f4.5-5.6 and wondering if it was a better option for bird photography. The f stop at 400mm is the same but does it offer better performance. The one plus would be with the 2TC it will yield 800mm but I am not sure that alone is sufficient since I already use the 500pf and the increase from 500 to 800 with the smaller aperture is necessarily better. any thoughts?

Putting a 2TC on a prime is not a good idea, putting a 2TC on a zoom is even worse. If your serious about wildlife photography you will be much better served by getting the 100-400.
I would strongly suggest getting the Nikon 200-500 for your Z camera, better reach.
Also, talking about reach, the D500 with the 200-500 has a field of view of 300-750 mm, now were talking wildlife reach.
Good luck and keep on shooting until the end.
Please do not use a 2TC.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Kenmull wrote:

I own the Nikon Z 70-200 f2.8 and the 2TC and was looking at the new Z 100-400 f4.5-5.6 and wondering if it was a better option for bird photography. The f stop at 400mm is the same but does it offer better performance. The one plus would be with the 2TC it will yield 800mm but I am not sure that alone is sufficient since I already use the 500pf and the increase from 500 to 800 with the smaller aperture is necessarily better. any thoughts?

AF speed and accuracy (critical for birds), and IQ takes a hit with a 2X - enough said ??.......500PF W/1.4X is your best LONG solution .....
.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Kenmull wrote:

I own the Nikon Z 70-200 f2.8 and the 2TC and was looking at the new Z 100-400 f4.5-5.6 and wondering if it was a better option for bird photography. The f stop at 400mm is the same but does it offer better performance. The one plus would be with the 2TC it will yield 800mm but I am not sure that alone is sufficient since I already use the 500pf and the increase from 500 to 800 with the smaller aperture is necessarily better. any thoughts?

I have found the 100-400mm imminently usable for wildlife and birds.
For birds alone the 500mm you have would appear to be the best option.
Too bad the TCs are not of a good quality as some state here as my 2X TC on my 100-400mm is still superbly sharp. But the two were designed for use together.
But bottom line the 100-400mm is a wonderfully and flexible lens that runs circles around your 70-200mm in versatility.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Kenmull wrote:

I own the Nikon Z 70-200 f2.8 and the 2TC and was looking at the new Z 100-400 f4.5-5.6 and wondering if it was a better option for bird photography. The f stop at 400mm is the same but does it offer better performance. The one plus would be with the 2TC it will yield 800mm but I am not sure that alone is sufficient since I already use the 500pf and the increase from 500 to 800 with the smaller aperture is necessarily better. any thoughts?

Don't worry about gear. your stuff is great. Go out and shoot, and if you find you have an issue with the 70-200 and the TC, then upgrade to a 500 F5.6 PF. It is a true upgrade from what you have now, not a half-step. If you really love to shoot birds and such, then you'll need a true 600mm lens - either a 600F4 or the Sigma Sport or the Tamron G2, which is pretty much as sharp as the 600 @F7.1 or F8 - which is a very typical working aperture, though you "can" use the 600F4 without loss of sharpness, but you will lose DoF.

photoman43

Since you already have the S 70-200mm, I would not buy the 100-400mm. For extra reach, consider getting the Nikon 500mm f5.6 pf with the nikon 1.4x tc for F mount.

If you did not already have the 70-200mm, then the 100-400mm might make better sense for nature, wildlife and birds. If I were to buy one I would also get the S 1.4x tc to go with it.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

The OP already HAS a 500PF ! .....He can sell the 70-200 as the 100-400 can replace it - unless he absolutely needs the 2.8 aperture ....
.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

photoman43 wrote:

Since you already have the S 70-200mm, I would not buy the 100-400mm. For extra reach, consider getting the Nikon 500mm f5.6 pf with the nikon 1.4x tc for F mount.

If you did not already have the 70-200mm, then the 100-400mm might make better sense for nature, wildlife and birds. If I were to buy one I would also get the S 1.4x tc to go with it.

But, if he got the 500 5.6, he would need an adapter and a 1.4 tc, not really a good idea.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

We’re seeing a lot of F mount suggestions for a Z mount question.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

SuperflyTNT wrote:

We’re seeing a lot of F mount suggestions for a Z mount question.

Because most here are heavily invested in the old F system and trying to justify it even with it's lack of general compatibility with the Z system. Unlike the seamless compatibility of the EF with the RF system.

photoman43

Brad Hill has commented that some F mount Nikon tcs with some F mount Nikon tele lenses work better on Z mount Nikons than on F mount Nikon DSLRs. See video below at about 18 minutes, 15 to 30 seconds.

Whole video is worth your time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aebZFSGDq94

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

Architect1776 wrote:

Because most here are heavily invested in the old F system and trying to justify it even with it's lack of general compatibility with the Z system. Unlike the seamless compatibility of the EF with the RF system.

You had to go there. I have the FTZ adapter for my Z7 and it works well. You’d have to have some pretty old glass for it not to work.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

SuperflyTNT wrote:

You had to go there. I have the FTZ adapter for my Z7 and it works well. You’d have to have some pretty old glass for it not to work.

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

A bit difficult to advise about a lens that has not even been released. Best of luck.