Hey Everyone ! This was a really important video for me because this is a big choice for my photography going forward. So hopefully this video also helps those of that are also struggling to decide on the best long lens set up for your Z camera ! What would you choose out of these three options??? let me know As always thanks so much for watching !
Thank you for these great comparisons. They are so helpful. Probably not the answer you are looking for, but I'm choosing to wait for the Z mount 100-400mm before making a decision. My new 24-200mm will tide me over for the time being.
Hi! Thanks for your detailed match-up of these lenses. It raised one question in my mind about the 70-200. Z mount lenses are supposed to be extremely sharp but in your test, it seems on par with the 200-500 and below the 500mm prime. Is it due to the lens itself or do the teleconverters affect the optical performance? I am looking at the 85mm 1.8s and 50mm or the 70-200mm for studio work, shooting furniture. The zoom offers me flexibility but is it a good performer for my intended use? Thanks for your help.
Great review. I have the 200-500 and use it for birds and airshows. Recently had a heart condition(recovering) so I haven't been able to lug around my big mindshift pack with 3 big lenses (about 15 lbs). I need to stop carrying all of that gear. I think the 2x tc will work nicely on the z70-200 and is about 2 lbs lighter than the 200-500 setup. So just two lenses (24-70 and 70-200 with 2x tc ) should be much more manageable. With topaz sharpen in post, all should be tack sharp.
This is the style of comparison review that we don't see enough of; the pros and cons of each clearly set out with the viewer being better equipped to make their decision. Contrast with the all too common style of "this one is the clear winner and this one is complete rubbish, it will make you a third class photographer" - totally ignoring use case / circumstances and typically coming from people whose photos (if they ever get out of the studio long enough to actually *take* any) leave a lot to be desired. Thank you Ricci!
You have overwhelming thanks by folks with this video. I join the positive crowd! Thanks for comparisons that are relevant to me. Thanks for your time and effort. I’m so glad to learn from an intelligent, experienced and personable teacher. I’ve found all your videos helpful as well as entertaining. I’d be thrilled if you continue to ignore the occasional negative comment and remain an important part of the Nikon learning community! Best always, Ricci.
The takeaway from your videos is you are not trying to sell me anything, and I respect that. Everything the you have suggested in your videos have pan out when I applied it to my photography. So thanks again.
If you can live with the variable aperture - the new Z 100-400 will out-perform. I had a TC20EMkIII on a 70-200/2.8 VR II - the combo didn't like bright highlights - got blooming on a D700. The Z TC x2 will be better but still a compromise too far, IMO. I suspect the Z TC x1.4 is going to give far better results.
Well I just ordered both (minus the tele), 70-200 2.8 S and the F 200-500 🥳 Current sales & promos were bananas so I couldn't pass them up 🙂 So my Z glass is all in place from 20mm through 200, planning to add an Expeed7 body in 2023, and I'll plan for the Z 200-600 in the next couple years. Thanks so much for your helpful & informative content!
The 500mm 5,6 glued to my d850,unbeatable combo,with the 70/200 with or without a 2x tc a close second on the Z7.I hated the 200-500 but that’s just me.Great comparative video.
Thank you for this really great comparison and all the other that I watched so far! I will wait for the 200-600 and will use my 3rd party lense with FTZ. Greetings from South Germany ;-)
I have the 70-200mm f2.8 S lens for the Z system and the OG Z6. After watching this, I sold my 200-500 f5.6 and purchased the 2.0x tele, not because I think it is “better” but because it is excellent quality for the low weight. I will be purchasing the 200-600 S lens when it comes out, and for the really long shots I will use that, but for the times I want a light weight and excellent reach i will use the 70-200mm with the 2X tele.
Another great video Ricci, after watching I went with the 2 teleconverters to go with my Z 70-200mm but also bought the 500mm f5.6 pf for that extra reach. Very happy with the set ups.
I own the Nikon 200-500 5.6 and it's an amazing lens, also the sigma 70-200 2.8 with the FTZ, both of them are pretty sharp, I don't have any problem to carry on two big lenses and two bodies in my backpack. Great video.
I was waiting this video before taking my final decision... very happy to have waited! Those Tc are very good for teleconverter... but still not as good as real lenses... I will wait the next lenses before buying (24-105 and the 100-400)... thanks for your good work;)
Thanks for your time and expertise. I recently purchased the Z 70-200 f2.8 and am in the process of deciding which teleconverter to get. Your video comparisons have really helped me. I'm leaning towards the 1.4. Thanks again for such great videos.
Wow, you answered all my questions! I just ordered a z7ii after years of DSLR in order to go lighter. I was looking at possibility of z 70-200 with a 2X. However, I already have a 200-500. I'm going on safari and debated about hauling it around. Your video may have saved me some money, and I'll probably now take it. It seems there is always a compromise when it comes to lenses!
Nice review! I recently picked up the 500pf to us with my z6 and d810. I also got the fringer Nikon -> Fuji adapter to try out my Nikon lenses on some Fuji bodies I have.
Have just phoned my fave shop - am px'ing my AF-P 70-300 for a mint 200-500 on my Z9. Your review tipped me over, Ricci! Both the these lenses are bargains. The AF on the 200-500 isn't going to match a native Z lens but is much cheaper. Should also get my Z6 back from IR conversion soon as well!
Very useful comparison! Thank you for this! I have both the 200-500 and 500 PF - both fantastic on my Z6. The 500 PF almost never comes off my camera - optical performance and AF in a lightweight package is amazing - it might be the perfect run-and-gun wildlife lens. Even satisfactory with the 1.7x converter, when I need extra reach. On the other hand, the 200-500 was a great performer on safari, where backing off the focal length was useful with big subjects. All this said, I am looking forward to native Z mount telephotos so I can eventually ditch the FTZ. From what I see here, the Z 70-200 looks great, but not really a replacement for what I currently use. Looking forward to future developments in the Z mount tele department. Thanks again for the balanced and informative review!
I'm px'ing my AF-P 70-300 for a 2nd hand 200-500 tomorrow - both lenses are bargains. That 500PF is proving to be extremely popular on the Z9. The Z 400/2.8 TC despite the cost will sell extremely well but is well beyond my pay grade!
I have the 200-500. It’s great but I rarerly use it because it’s almost too big to fit into my bag. So one day , when it is realesed, I will probably buy a 70-200/4 Z lens and a 2 times converter. But first, I have to save up to that Z camera... Have a d750 now. Huge thanks, Ricci. I really like your videos. They really make me wanna be a lottery winner.
Thanks for this! You answered literally all of my questions on every variation I was curious about. Now I'm gonna try to hold off and see how the Z 100-400 looks before I start eyeing the PF too closely haha
Very useful comparison. I’d love to know how the 24-200mm Z lens stacks up in comparison as a much cheaper alternative to all the lens that you featured.
That's an EXCELLENT ! test and comparison except that, as I own the 200-500, I would liked to see the 200-500 with the 500 side by side... In any case you are amazing and thank you for your work for us!...
Great review and comparison. I happen to have all three lenses and plan to but at least the Z-mount TC1.4. I do have the TC14EIII for the F-mount lenses. Your review will help guide which to carry on a given day out. I really like the 70-200 f/2.8S because it lets me focus closer, especially with a Canon 500D closeup lens. The 200-500 is great when at a wildlife area or refuge where the subjects are at different distances while the sharpness of the 500 PF and lighter weight are helpful. I can see the 200-500 being my tripod lens, while I can carry the other two on my Cotton Carrier vest. I will add that the detail from the 500PF with the TC14EIII is amazing even on a D3500, though I mostly shoot with a D750 and Z6. I got a good perspective on all three lenses from your review. Thank you!
Can you mount this way for maximum distance? Z6 body> Z mount 2x teleconverter > FTZ converter > Nikon 200-500. Would this all mount together properly in that order? Would light loss be too great to get good photos?
I need 600mm for birding. I am not interested in cheap lens now and i don't have the budget to buy a 500mm 5.6 or 600mm f4 at the moment. Planning to use z7 ii with 70 200mm and 2X in DX mode until i can afford a big prime. Would the DX mode amplify the lack of sharpness?
Thanks for your input. I recently shot some waterfowl with the 200-500 on my Z7 with a 2x teleconverter and the FTZ, which made the lens almost too long. A monopod really helped and I got more than respectable photos. I was considering the 70-200 and the 2x but now it doesn't seem to be much of a gain for upwards of $3G. I have 4 native Z lenses, 14-30, 24-70, 50 and 85 which do 90% of what I want. I think you just saved me a lot of money. It would be great if Nikon came out with a native 70-200 F4 for a fraction of the price of the 2.8.
Hi there, i'm new to Nikon or let's say, i will buy a Z 6II in near Future and looking for as much Input as i can get. Your Video helps so much and i like to thank you. 👍
Many thanks for this video expecting by all of us. Overall, the couple Z70-200 + Z2x looks quiet appealing if we take into account flexibility of focal length.
I've noticed that you also use the colour checker passport. Have you managed to use that with the Nikon NX Studio software when processing Z9 raw images?
Indeed so! But, even if Nikon absolutely nails it with the 100-400, let's not forget all you can do with the 70-200 f2.8. I think that lens with the 2.0 tc is a fantastic combo! But then again.. what if the 100-400 works flawlessly with the TC.. :D
Hi Ricci, can we use teleconverter with Z9 and Nikon F mount lenses like 70-200 FL, 200-500 mm? If yes, which TC, Z mount TC or F mount TC with FTZ II adaptor? How to do the attachment?
I've been using the 200-500 on my D500 for a long time now and am more than happy with it. I don't often use the 1.4TC, but you can still get sharp pictures hand held when it's fitted.
You always bring very accurate information that I use to decide on my upgrades. I have the Z6 with 299-500mm f5.6 and super sharp for what I do. Wow I can’t imagine the 500mm f5.6 prime wow. Anyhow, thank you 🙏 for your videos. Keep them coming 👍👍👍
How would a Z7 with 70-200 at 200mm cropped in look compared to Z6 with 500mm f/5.6? Since Z7 has double the resolution of Z6, I am expecting the loss of detail due to cropping on the Z7 to be nullified compared to Z6 + 500 PF uncropped
Love your videos This is exactly the video I was after Picked up my z6ii and I was amazed by the speed and quality with my f mount 70-200 and the 200-500 I have an f mount 2x tc but the drop off in speed and quality is not worth it in my opinion I have used the 500 once from a friend way out of my budget Loving my z gear you and Henry Hudson are the best Channels
Very helpful video. I've been thinking of buying that expensive Z TC but never really likes TCs. The 200-500mm is great value. I may have had a bad copy of the 500mm pf but I found it a little soft compared to my 600mm f4. I've just ordered the 2x TC...
Using 100-400 with tc 2.0 rather than 1.4 will cut down aperture ot 11 at 400 which is a limitation. What if you use higher ISO to allow opening wider aperture?
Thanks Ricci. Can you show us the spherical abberations of these combinations? I have the 70-200 zmount (+1.4tc and also the 300mm PF with a 1.4x tc III) and I think the spherical abberations are very distracting. You can easily see these errors if you photograph a tree and look at the out of focus branches. They look double or ghosting. Once you've seen it, its hard to unsee. It is visible in many lenses. Some are better and some are worse.
Hey Ricci, I just got my new Nikon WR-R11b remote. It’s much bigger than the older model, and unfortunately it doesn’t fit very well with my ReallyRightStuff L-bracket. I have to extend the L-side quite a bit in order for it to fit.
Hi Ricci I have just rewatched this video and since it was posted I have ordered a Z9, but still waiting like so many…my question is in relation to the 500pf, I am told the lens focuses much faster and more accurately on the Z9 even with a TC fitted, would you say it would be better to fit the f mount 1.4TC to the 500pf then to the FTZ adapter or would it all work better to have the FTZ adapter fitted direct to the lens and then use a Z mount 1.4 TC to get express reach….thanks for all you great advice in your vids….John
Great Video and reinforces what I assumed would be the result of 500PF vs 70-200 (X2). BUT what about 300PF vs 70-200 (1.4)? I have both and debating which to carry for casual walk about. If the 70-200 was equal/better that would probably be my choice as you have a zoom and 200-400. Very interested in Z 200-600! If it is better than 500PF and lighter than 200-500 I would be in line to buy. I really appreciate your videos- best and broadest comparos I have seen. JimB
I've chosen the Nikon Z 70-200mm F2.8S and 2X teleconverter (awaiting arrival of latter). My decision is based on the fact that I already own the F-mount equivalent (w/ older 2.8G II VR), so there's an improvement there. Since wildlife is not presently my prime interest, I think I'll be happy with the combo ... at least until that Z 600mm is released 😃
I sold the 200-500 when I sold all mt F lenses and DSL`r to buy into the Z series....I have the Z6, z16-24/2.8,z24-70/4,z70-200/2.8+TCx2 so this is a particularly great video for me. Many thanks Ricci! The TCx2 was a stop gap as I'm waiting for a native long focus. Anything as soon as the 200-500 is MINE , a z500mm or the 600mm will be quite exciting...but it all depends on the costing of course.
I was really pleased to see how well the z70-200 at 400mm compared to the 500mm prime! A potential benefit, for me, is that undoubtedly the TCx2 will be useable on a test to be released long zoom or prime, and in that case, I'm very confident that I'll get incredible exposures if I'm using it/them with that doubler! bring them own!! Thanks again Ricci
Yeh I think for a lot of people there are going to be some really good long lenses for Z mount soon with lots of options to choose from when you include the T.C
hello Ricci, i have ordered a Z TC2 for my Z6ii + Z 70-200mm F/2.8 because 200mm is really too shrot for birds... I hesitated to orer a refurbished 200-500mm but not very fan using FTZ... I have read that Z TC2 works best with Z7ii. correct ? Does it make sense to set Z6ii to DX mode to have a 600mm ? I have seen youtube videos from Taylor jackson doing it. But I have read that collimators are so big in Z6ii that it shouldn't work well and Z7ii should be better in that sense again with smaller dots.
Thanks for the video, I am unable to decide between 100-400z & 500PF for my Z6II to replace my 200-500 which is a great lens but very heavy to hand hold for me. I need the lens for bird photography & wildlife. Although, I am inclined towards 500Pf. I will be grateful for your valuable opinion.
After this video I decided to buy the 2x Z TC!!! Obviously I have the Z 70-200. I also have the sigma C 150-600…would you compare it with the 70-200+2x TC? Thks a lot!
I recently bought the Z5 and was immediately confronted with the problem of an affordable long tele. At almost 3 grand the 100-400 Z or the 70-200 F2.8 Z with a teleconvertor on top of that was not a viable option. I finally ended up with the 200-500 F mount and an FTZ adapter. I have been very happy with the results. The biggest down side is the size and weight. I was able to get it on sale for just over a grand, and believe that is a real bargain in today's market. I would love to have a long native mount for the Z, but they are just too darned expensive for my budget. Glad to see from this video that I have not given up much in the way of sharpness and contrast over the 70-200 X2 option.
I have recently bought the 1.4 Tele converter. I must say that I’ve been a bit disappointed as I can’t see any difference between using it and leaving it off and cropping the photo to achieve the same effective focal length. I will carry on trying it and hopefully I will see a difference at some point but at the moment I’m wondering whether I did the right thing in buying it
I think the difference varies between the camera sensor if you have a 45mp sensor then cropping will probably be better but with a 20mp sensor a tele converter might be a better option, atleast this is what I've been told
The point that ur missing is that some photographers have a minimum megapixel requirement if you have 45mp and crop that eats in to ur megapixels leaving you with less MP for printing ect If you use a tele converter not only do you get the extra focal length but you can then crop on top of that getting you even closer to the subject The best advise I can give is get as close as you can optically then crop to get the best results
@@RicciTalks thanks for the reply. I’m using a Z6ii. I don’t have a minimum megapixel requirement, have just been testing it by cropping with and without the TC to get the same end result and can’t see a difference. Where there is one, it seems slightly better without the TC. Just my experience so far 😞
The best way to look at it would be to use the Tc to get you closer to a subject when cropping can’t So if you take a picture of a bird and then crop and it’s the shot you like then great but if you crop and it’s still too small in the frame that would be the time to add the Tc to get the extra focal length and then Crop on top of that to get closer :)
i have 24-200 with z7 but cant decide whether to get rid or keep nikon bridge camera any suggestions really appreciate it was even looking at sigma 300
Very Very useful comparison. Actually 70-200 is the most versatile of the three (with and without 2X TC). Moreover, using DX mode, it can go up to 600 mm, though compromising a little megapixel.
Hello Ricci, can you please summary your fining up. After watching the video, it seem the 70-200mm with a 1.4x TC is a good option. 500mm lens standalone is good choice, but heavy and long, because on the Z camera you need the adaptor. I am not a professional and just hobbyist, so the Z lens 70-200mm with the 1.4 TC would give me the extra reach for photographing the wildlife. Price is the factor. It seem you prefer the 200-500mm.
Thanks for the Video. I have a Z6II and 200-500, to complement it purchased another Z6II body with 70-300 AF-P 4.5-5.6E ED VR. Budget is main concern but I find 200-500 very heavy. I have two questions First, should I go for 500 PF or 100-400 Z lens to replace 200-500 and secondly, 70-300 compares to 70-200 F/2.8? I now mainly shoot wildlife and birds.
I’m at the beginning of the video saying this . Looking at the 200-500 vs 70-200 at 280mm . So straight off what I see is ( on my phone) more detail in the 200-500. By that I think I see more microcontrast maybe not resolution sharpness details. The highlights on the 70-200 look brighter at the same exposure. This is telling me the 200-500 handles the highlights better and the overall photos seem richer in color by a touch. So there is probably more inner tonal detail lost from the higher element 70-200 with 1.4 tc. So the image suffers and it will flatten natural subject. Our eyes to brain perception is more that resolution is what I’m saying. There is always a give and take between these attributes. And which is best is up to the creator. Thanks Ricci for your videos .
Sorry Troy but haven taken thousands of birds with both on my Z7ll, I can assure you that the 200-500 is optically inferior in every possible way. The added benefit is being able to capture images at 70-200mm. However, I most often use my 300mm PF at that focal length.
An interesting comparison will be the 500mm PF against the coming non-S Z 200-600mm lens. Will the results be similar to what was obtained here with the 200-500mm lens? If so, the 200-600 may be less attractive even though native, more versatile and reaching an additional 100mm. I can not wait to see how the 500mm performs on the the new Z9 both as is and with a 1.4TC.
Thank you for comparison. I have both the 70-200 and the 200-500 (both f-mount). I love the 200-500 but it is very heavy to carry around. I just hope Nikon can get their speed up and release the 100-400mm. I am first in line for that lens!
Hey Everyone !
This was a really important video for me because this is a big choice for my photography going forward.
So hopefully this video also helps those of that are also struggling to decide on the best long lens set up for your Z camera !
What would you choose out of these three options??? let me know
As always thanks so much for watching !
Thank you for these great comparisons. They are so helpful.
Probably not the answer you are looking for, but I'm choosing to wait for the Z mount 100-400mm before making a decision.
My new 24-200mm will tide me over for the time being.
I’m expecting everything to change when the 100-400 and the 200-600 launch !
Hi! Thanks for your detailed match-up of these lenses. It raised one question in my mind about the 70-200. Z mount lenses are supposed to be extremely sharp but in your test, it seems on par with the 200-500 and below the 500mm prime. Is it due to the lens itself or do the teleconverters affect the optical performance? I am looking at the 85mm 1.8s and 50mm or the 70-200mm for studio work, shooting furniture. The zoom offers me flexibility but is it a good performer for my intended use? Thanks for your help.
Ricci Talks hopefully this summer ?
@@prometheuslg it is the Tele converters the 70-200 on its own is the sharpest this test waste about the Tele converter than the lens it self
Great review. I have the 200-500 and use it for birds and airshows. Recently had a heart condition(recovering) so I haven't been able to lug around my big mindshift pack with 3 big lenses (about 15 lbs). I need to stop carrying all of that gear. I think the 2x tc will work nicely on the z70-200 and is about 2 lbs lighter than the 200-500 setup. So just two lenses (24-70 and 70-200 with 2x tc ) should be much more manageable. With topaz sharpen in post, all should be tack sharp.
Love your work Ricci! One of my favourite UA-camrs. I appreciate your humility.
This is the style of comparison review that we don't see enough of; the pros and cons of each clearly set out with the viewer being better equipped to make their decision. Contrast with the all too common style of "this one is the clear winner and this one is complete rubbish, it will make you a third class photographer" - totally ignoring use case / circumstances and typically coming from people whose photos (if they ever get out of the studio long enough to actually *take* any) leave a lot to be desired. Thank you Ricci!
That 200-500 sure holds it's own. I have grown to love mine and it's a lot better than the 3rd party examples I've shopped around.
The image quality is great for the price, i've just kind of grown to hate the size and weight of it
Silly Question for you; Which Teleconverter should I use on a Zed body with the 500mm F/5.6 PF? The F version or the Z version?
You have overwhelming thanks by folks with this video. I join the positive crowd! Thanks for comparisons that are relevant to me. Thanks for your time and effort. I’m so glad to learn from an intelligent, experienced and personable teacher. I’ve found all your videos helpful as well as entertaining. I’d be thrilled if you continue to ignore the occasional negative comment and remain an important part of the Nikon learning community! Best always, Ricci.
The takeaway from your videos is you are not trying to sell me anything, and I respect that. Everything the you have suggested in your videos have pan out when I applied it to my photography. So thanks again.
Excellent comparative assessment! Just the comparisons i hoped to find. Rhank you!
Good video, thanks for making this as always.
It makes me even more interested to see the 70-200+2x comparing to the upcoming Z 100-400.
If you can live with the variable aperture - the new Z 100-400 will out-perform. I had a TC20EMkIII on a 70-200/2.8 VR II - the combo didn't like bright highlights - got blooming on a D700. The Z TC x2 will be better but still a compromise too far, IMO. I suspect the Z TC x1.4 is going to give far better results.
Very useful comparison (as always!) I think we are all waiting for the Nikon 100-400mm & 200-600MM Z lenses to finally appear!
Well I just ordered both (minus the tele), 70-200 2.8 S and the F 200-500 🥳 Current sales & promos were bananas so I couldn't pass them up 🙂
So my Z glass is all in place from 20mm through 200, planning to add an Expeed7 body in 2023, and I'll plan for the Z 200-600 in the next couple years. Thanks so much for your helpful & informative content!
The 500mm 5,6 glued to my d850,unbeatable combo,with the 70/200 with or without a 2x tc a close second on the Z7.I hated the 200-500 but that’s just me.Great comparative video.
Thank you for this really great comparison and all the other that I watched so far! I will wait for the 200-600 and will use my 3rd party lense with FTZ. Greetings from South Germany ;-)
The spec of dust landing on the barrel of the rear element on the left side of teleconverter at @1:16 nailed it. Eagle has landed...
I thought that was a super fine pixel level mouse pointer
I have the 70-200mm f2.8 S lens for the Z system and the OG Z6. After watching this, I sold my 200-500 f5.6 and purchased the 2.0x tele, not because I think it is “better” but because it is excellent quality for the low weight. I will be purchasing the 200-600 S lens when it comes out, and for the really long shots I will use that, but for the times I want a light weight and excellent reach i will use the 70-200mm with the 2X tele.
Another great video Ricci, after watching I went with the 2 teleconverters to go with my Z 70-200mm but also bought the 500mm f5.6 pf for that extra reach. Very happy with the set ups.
I own the Nikon 200-500 5.6 and it's an amazing lens, also the sigma 70-200 2.8 with the FTZ, both of them are pretty sharp, I don't have any problem to carry on two big lenses and two bodies in my backpack. Great video.
I was waiting this video before taking my final decision... very happy to have waited! Those Tc are very good for teleconverter... but still not as good as real lenses... I will wait the next lenses before buying (24-105 and the 100-400)... thanks for your good work;)
Thanks for your time and expertise. I recently purchased the Z 70-200 f2.8 and am in the process of deciding which teleconverter to get. Your video comparisons have really helped me. I'm leaning towards the 1.4. Thanks again for such great videos.
I meant the Z 70-200.
Great video. It was nice to see the 200-500 do so well.
I’d like to see the 200-500 v 500 PF comparison
No talk of light wavelengths, nanometers and associated laboratory bollocks. Informative and to the point. Well done. Thanks.
An exciting question in my opinion is how the new Z S 100-400mm would perform in this comparison?
Great comparison. Thanks for all the excellent content you put out. Any time I need some Nikon info you and Hudson Henry are my go-to guys.
Ma I right to think that, with the Z7ii + 70-200s, cropping the photo will be very close to the 70-200s with the TC 1,4???
How do the older Nikon teleconverters work with the Z 6 II with 200-500mm?
Wow, you answered all my questions! I just ordered a z7ii after years of DSLR in order to go lighter. I was looking at possibility of z 70-200 with a 2X. However, I already have a 200-500. I'm going on safari and debated about hauling it around. Your video may have saved me some money, and I'll probably now take it. It seems there is always a compromise when it comes to lenses!
Incredibly useful comparisons - thank you.
Thanks a lot !
Nice review! I recently picked up the 500pf to us with my z6 and d810. I also got the fringer Nikon -> Fuji adapter to try out my Nikon lenses on some Fuji bodies I have.
Excellent! These are exactly some of the "choice" scenarios I've been thinking about, and so it's great to see your results. Thank you, Ricci!
Have just phoned my fave shop - am px'ing my AF-P 70-300 for a mint 200-500 on my Z9. Your review tipped me over, Ricci! Both the these lenses are bargains. The AF on the 200-500 isn't going to match a native Z lens but is much cheaper. Should also get my Z6 back from IR conversion soon as well!
You have given me a great deal to think about. Your review is full of terrific details. Thank you very much. 😎👍📸
Just purchased the Z6ii , hoping to get out soon with the Sigma 150/600 (s) FTZ mount
Very useful comparison! Thank you for this! I have both the 200-500 and 500 PF - both fantastic on my Z6. The 500 PF almost never comes off my camera - optical performance and AF in a lightweight package is amazing - it might be the perfect run-and-gun wildlife lens. Even satisfactory with the 1.7x converter, when I need extra reach. On the other hand, the 200-500 was a great performer on safari, where backing off the focal length was useful with big subjects. All this said, I am looking forward to native Z mount telephotos so I can eventually ditch the FTZ. From what I see here, the Z 70-200 looks great, but not really a replacement for what I currently use. Looking forward to future developments in the Z mount tele department. Thanks again for the balanced and informative review!
I'm px'ing my AF-P 70-300 for a 2nd hand 200-500 tomorrow - both lenses are bargains. That 500PF is proving to be extremely popular on the Z9. The Z 400/2.8 TC despite the cost will sell extremely well but is well beyond my pay grade!
Thanks a lot for your work. I wait for the Z 100-400 to replace my 80-400. The Z 70-200/TC 2.0 is not as good as i had hoped.
I have the 200-500. It’s great but I rarerly use it because it’s almost too big to fit into my bag. So one day , when it is realesed, I will probably buy a 70-200/4 Z lens and a 2 times converter. But first, I have to save up to that Z camera... Have a d750 now.
Huge thanks, Ricci. I really like your videos. They really make me wanna be a lottery winner.
That spec of dust landing on the lens at 1:17 was super cute!!
Thanks for this! You answered literally all of my questions on every variation I was curious about. Now I'm gonna try to hold off and see how the Z 100-400 looks before I start eyeing the PF too closely haha
Iv heard the 1.4x teleconverter produces a higher quality image then the 2.0x teleconverter, would you agree?
Very useful comparison. I’d love to know how the 24-200mm Z lens stacks up in comparison as a much cheaper alternative to all the lens that you featured.
I have this lens on pre order, used the F version for years, looking forward to your review.
That's an EXCELLENT ! test and comparison except that, as I own the 200-500, I would liked to see the 200-500 with the 500 side by side... In any case you are amazing and thank you for your work for us!...
Yes a very useful comparison Ricci exactly the sort of information we need about the lens to make a choice. Thanks
Great review and comparison. I happen to have all three lenses and plan to but at least the Z-mount TC1.4. I do have the TC14EIII for the F-mount lenses. Your review will help guide which to carry on a given day out. I really like the 70-200 f/2.8S because it lets me focus closer, especially with a Canon 500D closeup lens. The 200-500 is great when at a wildlife area or refuge where the subjects are at different distances while the sharpness of the 500 PF and lighter weight are helpful. I can see the 200-500 being my tripod lens, while I can carry the other two on my Cotton Carrier vest. I will add that the detail from the 500PF with the TC14EIII is amazing even on a D3500, though I mostly shoot with a D750 and Z6. I got a good perspective on all three lenses from your review. Thank you!
Can you mount this way for maximum distance? Z6 body> Z mount 2x teleconverter > FTZ converter > Nikon 200-500. Would this all mount together properly in that order? Would light loss be too great to get good photos?
Hows the vR performance of these lenses on the z9?? The 200-500 did not work with the ibis in the z6 bodies earlier. Is it the same with z9??
I need 600mm for birding. I am not interested in cheap lens now and i don't have the budget to buy a 500mm 5.6 or 600mm f4 at the moment.
Planning to use z7 ii with 70 200mm and 2X in DX mode until i can afford a big prime. Would the DX mode amplify the lack of sharpness?
How would you compare the 100-400 with the 1.4 and the x 2 teleconverter vs the 200-500?
Thanks for your input. I recently shot some waterfowl with the 200-500 on my Z7 with a 2x teleconverter and the FTZ, which made the lens almost too long. A monopod really helped and I got more than respectable photos. I was considering the 70-200 and the 2x but now it doesn't seem to be much of a gain for upwards of $3G. I have 4 native Z lenses, 14-30, 24-70, 50 and 85 which do 90% of what I want. I think you just saved me a lot of money. It would be great if Nikon came out with a native 70-200 F4 for a fraction of the price of the 2.8.
Hi there, i'm new to Nikon or let's say, i will buy a Z 6II in near Future and looking for as much Input as i can get. Your Video helps so much and i like to thank you. 👍
Many thanks for this video expecting by all of us.
Overall, the couple Z70-200 + Z2x looks quiet appealing if we take into account flexibility of focal length.
I've noticed that you also use the colour checker passport. Have you managed to use that with the Nikon NX Studio software when processing Z9 raw images?
If only we had some info on the upcoming 100-400Z..... looking forward to that lens so much!
Indeed so! But, even if Nikon absolutely nails it with the 100-400, let's not forget all you can do with the 70-200 f2.8. I think that lens with the 2.0 tc is a fantastic combo! But then again.. what if the 100-400 works flawlessly with the TC.. :D
Imagine a 100-400 working great with a 2x tc
That 200-800 looking good !
Hi Ricci, can we use teleconverter with Z9 and Nikon F mount lenses like 70-200 FL, 200-500 mm? If yes, which TC, Z mount TC or F mount TC with FTZ II adaptor? How to do the attachment?
If I case we stop done from f2.8 to f4 or f5.6 will the sharpness improve in 2X teleconvertor on 70-200mm lens
Very interesting as I just bought the Z7ii and I’m trying to prioritize my lens purchases.
I've been using the 200-500 on my D500 for a long time now and am more than happy with it.
I don't often use the 1.4TC, but you can still get sharp pictures hand held when it's fitted.
You always bring very accurate information that I use to decide on my upgrades. I have the Z6 with 299-500mm f5.6 and super sharp for what I do. Wow I can’t imagine the 500mm f5.6 prime wow. Anyhow, thank you 🙏 for your videos. Keep them coming 👍👍👍
Great to hear!
Good stuff. I think it really shows how strong the 2.0 telecoverter is.
How would a Z7 with 70-200 at 200mm cropped in look compared to Z6 with 500mm f/5.6?
Since Z7 has double the resolution of Z6, I am expecting the loss of detail due to cropping on the Z7 to be nullified compared to Z6 + 500 PF uncropped
Love your videos
This is exactly the video I was after
Picked up my z6ii and I was amazed by the speed and quality with my f mount 70-200 and the 200-500
I have an f mount 2x tc but the drop off in speed and quality is not worth it in my opinion
I have used the 500 once from a friend way out of my budget
Loving my z gear you and Henry Hudson are the best Channels
Thank you for watching!
Very helpful video.
I've been thinking of buying that expensive Z TC but never really likes TCs.
The 200-500mm is great value.
I may have had a bad copy of the 500mm pf but I found it a little soft compared to my 600mm f4.
I've just ordered the 2x TC...
I have the 500pf and the 600f4 I would say the 500pf is a little softer but only a tiny amount which is fair considering the price of the 600 f4 s
Using 100-400 with tc 2.0 rather than 1.4 will cut down aperture ot 11 at 400 which is a limitation. What if you use higher ISO to allow opening wider aperture?
Thanks Ricci. Can you show us the spherical abberations of these combinations? I have the 70-200 zmount (+1.4tc and also the 300mm PF with a 1.4x tc III) and I think the spherical abberations are very distracting. You can easily see these errors if you photograph a tree and look at the out of focus branches. They look double or ghosting. Once you've seen it, its hard to unsee. It is visible in many lenses. Some are better and some are worse.
How do you like your 1.4 tc for z camera?
@@KarenVaisman1 it's not a great combination. Unfortunately.
Hey Ricci, I just got my new Nikon WR-R11b remote. It’s much bigger than the older model, and unfortunately it doesn’t fit very well with my ReallyRightStuff L-bracket. I have to extend the L-side quite a bit in order for it to fit.
Hi Ricci I have just rewatched this video and since it was posted I have ordered a Z9, but still waiting like so many…my question is in relation to the 500pf, I am told the lens focuses much faster and more accurately on the Z9 even with a TC fitted, would you say it would be better to fit the f mount 1.4TC to the 500pf then to the FTZ adapter or would it all work better to have the FTZ adapter fitted direct to the lens and then use a Z mount 1.4 TC to get express reach….thanks for all you great advice in your vids….John
Great Video and reinforces what I assumed would be the result of 500PF vs 70-200 (X2). BUT what about 300PF vs 70-200 (1.4)? I have both and debating which to carry for casual walk about. If the
70-200 was equal/better that would probably be my choice as you have a zoom and 200-400.
Very interested in Z 200-600! If it is better than 500PF and lighter than 200-500 I would be in line to buy.
I really appreciate your videos- best and broadest comparos I have seen. JimB
Did you ever decide a preference? 300 of or 70-200 1.4?
0:34 That counting down the seconds of your exposure. Is that something only the Z7ii can do? Or is there a trick for my Z7 ?
Very nice review of the lens option Ricci :-)
I've chosen the Nikon Z 70-200mm F2.8S and 2X teleconverter (awaiting arrival of latter). My decision is based on the fact that I already own the F-mount equivalent (w/ older 2.8G II VR), so there's an improvement there. Since wildlife is not presently my prime interest, I think I'll be happy with the combo ... at least until that Z 600mm is released 😃
I sold the 200-500 when I sold all mt F lenses and DSL`r to buy into the Z series....I have the Z6, z16-24/2.8,z24-70/4,z70-200/2.8+TCx2
so this is a particularly great video for me. Many thanks Ricci! The TCx2 was a stop gap as I'm waiting for a native long focus. Anything as soon as the 200-500 is MINE , a z500mm or the 600mm will be quite exciting...but it all depends on the costing of course.
I was really pleased to see how well the z70-200 at 400mm compared to the 500mm prime! A potential benefit, for me, is that undoubtedly the TCx2 will be useable on a test to be released long zoom or prime, and in that case, I'm very confident that I'll get incredible exposures if I'm using it/them with that doubler! bring them own!!
Thanks again Ricci
Yeh I think for a lot of people there are going to be some really good long lenses for Z mount soon with lots of options to choose from when you include the T.C
Thank you for the work you put in this and all your videos.
Can you use a 1.4 teleconverter on a Z6ii with the 200-500 f/5.6? Which teleconverter works? The AF-S or Z?
hello Ricci,
i have ordered a Z TC2 for my Z6ii + Z 70-200mm F/2.8 because 200mm is really too shrot for birds... I hesitated to orer a refurbished 200-500mm but not very fan using FTZ...
I have read that Z TC2 works best with Z7ii. correct ?
Does it make sense to set Z6ii to DX mode to have a 600mm ? I have seen youtube videos from Taylor jackson doing it.
But I have read that collimators are so big in Z6ii that it shouldn't work well and Z7ii should be better in that sense again with smaller dots.
Exactly what i needed! What are your suggestions if i would choose between sigma 70-200mm f2.8 + teleconverter OR the 200-500mm f5.6?
Thanks for the video, I am unable to decide between 100-400z & 500PF for my Z6II to replace my 200-500 which is a great lens but very heavy to hand hold for me. I need the lens for bird photography & wildlife. Although, I am inclined towards 500Pf. I will be grateful for your valuable opinion.
After this video I decided to buy the 2x Z TC!!! Obviously I have the Z 70-200. I also have the sigma C 150-600…would you compare it with the 70-200+2x TC? Thks a lot!
I recently bought the Z5 and was immediately confronted with the problem of an affordable long tele. At almost 3 grand the 100-400 Z or the 70-200 F2.8 Z with a teleconvertor on top of that was not a viable option. I finally ended up with the 200-500 F mount and an FTZ adapter. I have been very happy with the results. The biggest down side is the size and weight. I was able to get it on sale for just over a grand, and believe that is a real bargain in today's market. I would love to have a long native mount for the Z, but they are just too darned expensive for my budget. Glad to see from this video that I have not given up much in the way of sharpness and contrast over the 70-200 X2 option.
If the aperture is changed by the TC, does the camera (specifically the Z6 ii) report the revised aperture?
How is the 400mm f4.5S compare to the Z70-200 with 2X?
Ricci, If we use an F-mount TC on a Z body, do we lose AF-points?
I have recently bought the 1.4 Tele converter. I must say that I’ve been a bit disappointed as I can’t see any difference between using it and leaving it off and cropping the photo to achieve the same effective focal length. I will carry on trying it and hopefully I will see a difference at some point but at the moment I’m wondering whether I did the right thing in buying it
I think the difference varies between the camera sensor if you have a 45mp sensor then cropping will probably be better but with a 20mp sensor a tele converter might be a better option, atleast this is what I've been told
So true...
The point that ur missing is that some photographers have a minimum megapixel requirement
if you have 45mp and crop that eats in to ur megapixels leaving you with less MP for printing ect
If you use a tele converter not only do you get the extra focal length but you can then crop on top of that getting you even closer to the subject
The best advise I can give is get as close as you can optically then crop to get the best results
@@RicciTalks thanks for the reply. I’m using a Z6ii. I don’t have a minimum megapixel requirement, have just been testing it by cropping with and without the TC to get the same end result and can’t see a difference. Where there is one, it seems slightly better without the TC. Just my experience so far 😞
The best way to look at it would be to use the Tc to get you closer to a subject when cropping can’t
So if you take a picture of a bird and then crop and it’s the shot you like then great
but if you crop and it’s still too small in the frame that would be the time to add the Tc to get the extra focal length and then Crop on top of that to get closer :)
Great test as always!! Hope they release a 600 pf for the Z-mount, it would be the perfect combo!
i have 24-200 with z7 but cant decide whether to get rid or keep nikon bridge camera any suggestions really appreciate it was even looking at sigma 300
Hi Ricci, great comparison. Request you to add 300 MM PF F4 with 1.4 TC-III to this comparison on Z7 2 with & without APSC mode 🙏🏻
Ok here at the intro! Lets go been waiting for this!
Another great video; thanks! Which would you say offers the best image quality: The 200-500mm f/5.6 on a D750, on a D500, or on a Z 7II w/FTZII?
Very Very useful comparison. Actually 70-200 is the most versatile of the three (with and without 2X TC). Moreover, using DX mode, it can go up to 600 mm, though compromising a little megapixel.
Hello Ricci, can you please summary your fining up. After watching the video, it seem the 70-200mm with a 1.4x TC is a good option. 500mm lens standalone is good choice, but heavy and long, because on the Z camera you need the adaptor. I am not a professional and just hobbyist, so the Z lens 70-200mm with the 1.4 TC would give me the extra reach for photographing the wildlife. Price is the factor. It seem you prefer the 200-500mm.
What about 300mm f4 plus x2 teleconverter?
Will these converters work with the new 24/120
Thanks for the Video. I have a Z6II and 200-500, to complement it purchased another Z6II body with 70-300 AF-P 4.5-5.6E ED VR. Budget is main concern but I find 200-500 very heavy. I have two questions First, should I go for 500 PF or 100-400 Z lens to replace 200-500 and secondly, 70-300 compares to 70-200 F/2.8? I now mainly shoot wildlife and birds.
I’m at the beginning of the video saying this . Looking at the 200-500 vs 70-200 at 280mm . So straight off what I see is ( on my phone) more detail in the 200-500. By that I think I see more microcontrast maybe not resolution sharpness details. The highlights on the 70-200 look brighter at the same exposure. This is telling me the 200-500 handles the highlights better and the overall photos seem richer in color by a touch. So there is probably more inner tonal detail lost from the higher element 70-200 with 1.4 tc. So the image suffers and it will flatten natural subject.
Our eyes to brain perception is more that resolution is what I’m saying.
There is always a give and take between these attributes. And which is best is up to the creator.
Thanks Ricci for your videos .
Sorry Troy but haven taken thousands of birds with both on my Z7ll, I can assure you that the 200-500 is optically inferior in every possible way. The added benefit is being able to capture images at 70-200mm. However, I most often use my 300mm PF at that focal length.
Thanks a lot! I had been looking forward to this video
Can't wait for the z200-600mm
An interesting comparison will be the 500mm PF against the coming non-S Z 200-600mm lens. Will the results be similar to what was obtained here with the 200-500mm lens? If so, the 200-600 may be less attractive even though native, more versatile and reaching an additional 100mm. I can not wait to see how the 500mm performs on the the new Z9 both as is and with a 1.4TC.
Awesome presentation. EXACTLY what I was looking for.
When are we going to get a 70-200 F4?!? I have a Z6 and I want a telephoto but can't afford the F2.8. No other options either
Thank you for comparison. I have both the 70-200 and the 200-500 (both f-mount). I love the 200-500 but it is very heavy to carry around. I just hope Nikon can get their speed up and release the 100-400mm. I am first in line for that lens!
The 100-400 looks really promising
Awesome video, however have you used a Nikkor 1.7 converter with a Nikon 200-500mm on a z7ii ??