Jump to content

Welcome to NikonForums.com
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Z 2xTC


  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#1
Johnb

Johnb

    Active Member

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 97 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationNear Aylesbury. Bucks

Site Supporter

I have just ordered a Nikkor Z MC 105mm f/2.8 VR.S Lens and was wondering if anyone knows if I will be able to fit a Z 2xTC to it.

Cheers. 



#2
fallout666

fallout666

    Nikonian

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,098 posts
  • Country Flag
  • Locationcfl area of space coast

will not work. read this. it never work for my 1.7 one any of my smaller lenses when i had one 

 

 

Compatible Lens
  • NIKKOR Z 70-200mm f/2.8 VR S.
  • NIKKOR Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S.
  • NIKKOR Z 400mm f/2.8 TC VR S.
  • NIKKOR Z 400mm f/4.5 VR S.
  • NIKKOR Z 600mm f/4 TC VR S.
  • NIKKOR Z 800mm f/6.3 VR S.
  •  
 
 


#3
Merco_61

Merco_61

    Nikonian

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,587 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationUppsala, Sweden

Site Supporter

The rear element sits too far back to fit a TC. Don't even think about trying if it fits as it's an aspherical element and the repair will be very expensive if you scratch it.

 

 

I'll put in a link to the source Chris copied his information from. 

https://imaging.niko..._tc_2x/spec.htm



#4
Johnb

Johnb

    Active Member

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 97 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationNear Aylesbury. Bucks

Site Supporter

Cheers guys. I did not order the lens thinking it would fit, it just occurred to me that it might,

 

Thanks anyway and I wish you all here on this site a happy and healthy 2023 



#5
Merco_61

Merco_61

    Nikonian

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,587 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationUppsala, Sweden

Site Supporter

It is a wonderful macro lens now, after the firmware update. The variable, accelerated focus throw it had originally made it difficult to focus manually. With the long, user-selectable linear throw it has now, it is one of the better macro lenses in production. It is, of course, not even close to classics like the Voigtländers and is a bit short for dragonflies or damselflies.



#6
Johnb

Johnb

    Active Member

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 97 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationNear Aylesbury. Bucks

Site Supporter

Thanks Peter,

 

It was the write-up and spec that sold it to me, and as it fell within my budget, I thought I would go-for-it. 

 

It was this lens or the new Z 28-75mm f/2.8 which also seems to be a good investment according to its write-up. Its just that I had previously been considering the Z 24-70mm f/2.8 which is more than twice the price, and thought, 'how the hell have they managed to cheapen this similar lens by over 50%'. It has to be on the specification dos'nt it ??? 

 

No not actually as a clear cut decision as that, I was after a Macro lens.



#7
Merco_61

Merco_61

    Nikonian

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,587 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationUppsala, Sweden

Site Supporter

When I decided to get a macro lens in Z-mount, the 105 was still unobtainium in Sweden. I bought the Laowa to get something when I needed it and not in a couple of months… I didn’t like the typical focus-by-wire accelerated throw the Nikon lens had. The Laowa has a too short throw, but it always moves the focus the same way, so building up a muscle memory as one uses it works. I will probably have a business use for the Nikon in the coming months, so it is time to get it. It is a wonderful lens with the updated firmware.

 

The 24-70 has state of the art glass and coatings, as it should bearing the S designation and selling in the premium cost bracket. The 28-75 OTOH, is made for the price-conscious prosumer who wants good optical performance at a reasonable price point. The 24-70 is good enough for architecture and has remarkably low vignetting, even without any lens profile applied. This matters much more to the working pro than the high purchase cost as the time spent in post is expensive. The 28-75 is an absolute bargain when one doesn’t have to think about billable time over the lifespan of the lens.



#8
Johnb

Johnb

    Active Member

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 97 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationNear Aylesbury. Bucks

Site Supporter

I think then that once the funds become available, I will have a closer look at the 28-75mm f/2.8. 

I have the 70-200mm f/2.8 and was looking for the infill lens. The 24-70mm f/2.8 is listed at ÂŁ2100 here.

ÂŁ800 for the 28-75mm f/2.8 has to be considered.

Thanks guys.  

 

Incidentally, for anyone that's wondering, the Z 70-200mm f/2.8 will fit the Z 2xTC

Also

The F 70-200 f/2.8 would not fit the F 2xTC but the F 70-200mm f/4 would. 



#9
Johnb

Johnb

    Active Member

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 97 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationNear Aylesbury. Bucks

Site Supporter

Regarding the Z MC 105mm F/2.8 Lens that I purchased recently and previously mentioned, are there extension tubes / rings available in Z mount format ?

I am just looking at increasing the close-up ability of this lens. (Something else to play with lol)

I have done a search on a couple of local photographic sellers with no results. 

 

The other thing, if these are available, would you use them with this lens, or steer clear ?   

 

Also, are there other things to bear in mind when using extension rings ? I assume you have to focus manually when using these.

 

Thanks John 



#10
Merco_61

Merco_61

    Nikonian

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,587 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationUppsala, Sweden

Site Supporter

The problem with extension rings with a more or less IF construction is that you will get chromatic aberrations as the close-range correction group won't be in the correct location anymore. To get more magnification, I would rather get a Raynox DCR-250 than extension tubes with a modern lens.

 

There are tubes available, Thom Hogan has a list...

Extension Tubes | Thom Hogan



#11
Johnb

Johnb

    Active Member

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 97 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationNear Aylesbury. Bucks

Site Supporter

I had a look at the Raynox DCR-250 Peter and yes, it looks good.

If I bought one would you recommend me buying a 49mm filter for it.

If yes, what type of filter would you suggest ?

 

Also, in my searching, I saw a set of JJC Close Up Filters, +2, +4, +8, & +10, size 62mm for my Z MC 105mm Lens. I just wondered if you have tried using this sort of thing and, if yes, what you thought of them.

 

Cheers

John   



#12
Merco_61

Merco_61

    Nikonian

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,587 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationUppsala, Sweden

Site Supporter

Cheap close-up attachments work fine on kit zooms, but on highly corrected purpose-built macro lenses, they are usually dissapointing.

#13
Johnb

Johnb

    Active Member

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 97 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationNear Aylesbury. Bucks

Site Supporter

Thanks Peter, I thought they would not be much good for me but thought I would ask. 

I do value your knowledge. 

 

What about a filter for the Raynox.

Would it be a worthwhile purchase ? and what type would you suggest for my MC lens

 

Thanks



#14
Merco_61

Merco_61

    Nikonian

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,587 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationUppsala, Sweden

Site Supporter

What filter(s) you need depends on what you want to shoot.
Unfiltered gives the sharpest, contrastiest results.
A protective filter is a good idea to protect the front element. Not only from water spray or airborne dust, but also from pollen and other sticky things that are hard to clean.
A circular polariser can be useful sometimes.

IME, Nisi make some of the best protective filters on the market with Hoya as a close second.
For polarisers, B+W, made by Schneider, have been my go-to filters for over 30 years.

These filters are useful enough that getting them in all sizes you might need makes sense.

If getting a protective filter proves difficult, an UV filter can do the same job. The UV-suppressing coating isn’t nesessary on digital but it steals very little light.

#15
Johnb

Johnb

    Active Member

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 97 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationNear Aylesbury. Bucks

Site Supporter

Thanks for your thoughts. You did suggest using UV filters for protection sometime ago, and I have UV filters fitted to every one of my lens. Hoya on all my DX Lens, and URTH (Ex GOBE 2pk) on all my FX and Z Lens. 

 

I only asked the previous question as, shooting close-up with artificial lighting and no lens hood, I thought I would need something to prevent stray light entering the lens, ie some sort of filter.

 

I found the DCR-250 on Amazon and a suggested addition for it was a K&F Concept Black 1/4 Mist Soft Glow Diffuser Lens (Nano K Series). 

I was thinking that this may be the item to prevent the entry of stray light.

I've never heard of it before, but then I've not been around this stuff for very long.

 

Any thoughts on this please 

 

Regards John



#16
Merco_61

Merco_61

    Nikonian

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,587 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationUppsala, Sweden

Site Supporter

The Black Mist Soft Glow filter seems to be one of those effects filters that played an important, though niche, role in the analog process. 

 

I think that a Lighroom or Photoshop action could be made to mimic the filter in post, just like a redhancer or any of the other FX filters that were indispensable when we all shot film 20 years ago.

The greatest advantage of applying the effect in post in PS is that you can adjust the amount of the effect by applying it to a layer and adjusting the opacity of the layer.

 

To prevent the loss of contrast due to stray light, a good lens hood works really well. A filter just introduces more glass-to-air surfaces, making flare even more pronounced if it occurs.



#17
Johnb

Johnb

    Active Member

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 97 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationNear Aylesbury. Bucks

Site Supporter

Oh yes I do agree, but I cant fit a lens hood with the DCR attached. I have ordered the DCR and the afore mentioned filter, and will see how it works out. It was'nt that expensive so thought I would try it anyway.

I will see what the results are, with it and without it, when using / not using lighting.

 

Thankyou. 



#18
Merco_61

Merco_61

    Nikonian

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,587 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationUppsala, Sweden

Site Supporter

If you find that you need a hood, JJC make some cheapish universal ones in 49 mm thread. Many old Takumar hoods were 49 mm and they can be cut down if they vignette.



#19
Johnb

Johnb

    Active Member

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 97 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationNear Aylesbury. Bucks

Site Supporter

That is interesting to know Peter. Cheers