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

 

[cgw]

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