Longer Lens vs. Teleconverter for Nikon Z

[adamhiram]

For the past few years, I’ve been using a Nikon Z 70-200 f/2.8 lens mounted on a Z6II to shoot my kid’s soccer games. It is an amazing lens, and I have zero complaints. But as he is getting older, he plays on a bigger field and I find myself wanting some extra reach. However, large aperture lenses beyond 200mm aren’t cheap, and also fall into a gap in the Z-mount lens lineup. The next step up at f/2.8 is 400mm, which sells for about $13k, and is likely too long anyway.

There are a few options at 300mm in F-mount that are more reasonably priced. The AF-S 300mm f/2.8 VR2 sells new for around $5500 and can be found as low as $3k used. The VR1 can be found used for around $2k. But I’m hesitant to spend any real money on a legacy mount lens that requires an adaptor, and I like the convenience of a zoom. Nikon also came out with the 120-300 f/2.8 in F-mount, but that comes in at a hefty $9500. It is rumored that there may be a Z-mount version coming out soon, at a similar price point, it's a non-starter.

I’m wondering if anyone has experience using a 1.4x teleconverter on a Z-mount 70-200 f/2.8 lens get a little extra reach. On the plus side, it will give 280mm, reducing the need to crop as much. However, it reduces it the aperture to f/4, and I’ve heard mixed reviews of using a teleconverter vs. just cropping. Has anyone used this combination for sports photography? Any other options I should consider? Or just keep using the 70-200 and crop in post when needed?


20250531-DSC_4832 by adamhiram, on Flickr

 

[cgw125 150]

Crop. Pixel density is your friend...Save the $$$ for college.

 

[smoke665]

No experience with Nikon, but I did shoot a lot of basketball during my newspaper days. Back then I kept a 1.4 teleconvertor mounted. Weight and size was a factor when you're on the floor dodging people and balls. Lost over a stop on exposure, but you could push Tri-X 400 1-2 stops, without issue. Typically constant aperture zooms are heavy. The combination of my K1 & 70-200 f2.8 is just over 10lbs. Hand holding it is a PITA for me for any length of time.

I'd go with the teleconvertor (1.4 or 2.0) use your ISO to offset the exposure loss. A Nikon teleconvertor isn't cheap, new probably $700-$800, but a lot cheaper than a longer lens.

 

[1MoreFord]

Nikon teleconverters aren't cheap but Kenko TC's are decent for less money. The Kenko's are also more versatile. Nikon TC's will only work with Nikon AF-S lenses.
Providing you're talking about an F-mount TC, check around for a Kenko Pro-300 or HDpro. The Pro-300's will most likely be used only while the HDpro can be found new.
KEH and Usedphotopro are good places to look for used equipment.

 

[adamhiram]

Providing you're talking about an F-mount TC

Nope, Z-mount. I'm waiting a few weeks for the next game to pickup a 1.4x to try out. When the alternatives start at almost ten grand, $600 doesn't seem so bad!

 

[adamhiram]

This was the first weekend shooting with the Nikon Z TC-1.4x teleconverter, and I thought I would share some first impressions. Photos to come soon (probably).

• Originally ordered from Amazon: "Ships from Amazon, Sold by Amazon". After placing the order, it said "Sold by Amazon, Sourced by other". That's weird. One review complained it was a gray market item intended for another market. I cancelled and ordered it from B&H. All good now.
• Nighttime soccer under the lights: I love the dramatic shots you can get at night, but often have to push ISO to 12,800 or even 25,600 to freeze motion even at f/2.8. The teleconverter makes the lens an f/4, taking away a full stop of light, which really matters here. Additionally, 200mm was now 280mm, meaning I needed a slightly faster minimum shutter speed (40% faster!) to freeze motion. I got a few shots in, but I really struggled with shutter speed with the teleconverter.
• Daytime soccer, cloudy day: I couldn't have asked for better lighting conditions - bright, but diffuse light from the clouds. The extra reach was great, with most shots needing minimal or no cropping. The background isn't quite as out of focus at f/4 (with teleconverter) as I'm used to at f/2.8 (without teleconverter), but it seems like a good tradeoff. I keep forgetting to use a faster shutter speed with the longer reach, but I figured it out half way through the game. It got rained out before I got anything decent, but there will be plenty of opportunities in upcoming weeks.

Takeaways (so far): The extra reach is great. f/4 is still pretty good. I need to remember to increase my minimum shutter speed to freeze motion. Losing a stop of light might be a dealbreaker at night. I still want 300mm at f/2.8.

 

[ACHILLEAS]

what is the point of spending money on extra glass that will soften your image or introduce other optic anomalies. the reach is very little to justify. these are not meant for zoom lenses. it is an useful tool for very expensive primes that you open higher than their peak sharpness so you don't care if you lose 1 stop of aperture.

 

[KJ_North]

what is the point of spending money on extra glass that will soften your image or introduce other optic anomalies. the reach is very little to justify. these are not meant for zoom lenses.

I disagree. I use a 1.4X on my RF200-800 Canon lens with excellent results. The optical quality of these extenders is excellent and although they may soften things slightly (it's Less than you are likely to notice) there is still a good use for them.

 

[smoke665]

@adamhiram looking forward to seeing some shots! Night games are always going to be a PITA, even with fast glass. It's the nature of the beast as focal length increases, light gathering ability decreases. No doubt you'll figure out a suitable balance.

 

[Tinstafl124 120]

I love my 400 f 2.8 and as they get older you can use it well. I have that on the gimbal and a second body with my 70-200. I like the 2,8 under the lights. I do not shoot kids sports any longer but do shoot surfing and I use that glass with teh TC or even my 600 depending on the venue.

 

[adamhiram]

what is the point of spending money on extra glass that will soften your image or introduce other optic anomalies.

I performed a few pseudo-scientific tests - taking photos of the small text on lens boxes and pixel peeping in Lightroom. Here is what I noticed.

• 280mm (with TC) vs. 200mm (without TC) at f/4: after resizing images to be the same resolution, 280mm is slightly sharper, and has more detail
• 200mm (with TC) vs. 200mm (without TC) at f/4: image with TC is slightly softer and slightly lower contrast
• 200mm (with TC) at f/4 vs. 200mm (without TC) at f/2.8: images are nearly identical.

The first example is exactly what I had hoped for - the extra reach with the TC gives a better result than cropping. The second example is kind of what I expected, with slightly degraded image quality at identical settings but extra glass added. The third example is the most likely scenario when I am not zoomed all the way out to 280, where I am just losing 1 f-stop of aperture, and don't appear to be losing image quality as a result (just a stop of light and shallower depth of field). I should note that I had to zoom in to 400% to really tell the difference. This is very different from what I always heard about Nikon's F-mount teleconverters.

 

[ACHILLEAS]

I performed a few pseudo-scientific tests - taking photos of the small text on lens boxes and pixel peeping in Lightroom. Here is what I noticed.

i am glad this works for you. i didn't want to get you to this trouble. i don't have a teleconverter. i mostly heard things from others. it looks like the 70-200 f/2.8 is sharper and the 24mp sensor is the limiting factor.

 

[adamhiram]

Here are the test shots I took. Feel free to zoom in and pixel-peep and let me know if you agree. Hopefully I can get some actual action shots this weekend if the weather holds out.

All of the shots look like this. Taken from 12 feet away with a 70-200 f/2.8 lens mounted on a tripod, constant lighting for consistency. The comparisons are cropped to show just the detail on the box. All shots taken at ISO 800.

This comparison shows the lens wide open at f/2.8 and zoomed all the way in to 200mm with no TC vs. wide open at f/4 and zoomed to the same focal length with the TC. This is basically showing what the same shot at the same focal length would look like with the TC added.

This comparison shows the lens stopped down to f/4 and zoomed all the way in to 200mm with no TC vs. f/4 and zoomed to the same focal length with the TC. This is an apples-to-apples comparison comparing the two configurations with identical settings.

Lastly, this comparison shows the lens wide open at f/2.8 and zoomed all the way in to 200mm with no TC vs. wide open at f/4 and zoomed all the way in to 280mm with the TC. This illustrates the real purpose of adding a teleconverter, which is to be able to fill the frame more and not having to crop as much.

In all of these, I had to zoom in to 400% to notice any differences, and even then most of them seemed negligible. Perhaps your eyes are better than mine, but I'm not seeing any major downside to adding a teleconverter to get some extra reach, other than changing an f/2.8 lens to an f/4. I'm looking forward to some real world use for sports in the next few weeks.

 

[greybeard41 14]

Given the options presented by modern software like Topaz, cropping and then upscaling will give you all you want and it doesn't cost $5K.

 

[smoke665]

@greybeard Think you might have misunderstood, he didn't spend 5k on a lens, he spent more like $500 on a teleconvertor.

As a general rule upscaling quality doesn't equal the IQ of a longer focal length. The advent of AI has improved the process, but still IMO there are advantages to a longer focal length.