Reading mode: Light Dark

16mm viltrox as compliment to 24-120mm for travel?

Go to last post
J

jjz2

Veteran Member
Messages
5,737
Solutions
1
Reaction score
4,478
Is anybody using just to throw in the bag?

I know it is a lens I won't use much, but I'm thinking for a few astro shots, wide landscape, city scape, it could be more useful.

I had the 20mm before and I didn't feel like it was always wide enough to throw on a different lens when I already had the 24-120mm mounted.

14-30mm had that before also, but it doesn't really get me the low/light or astro compliments... and I found when I shot it, I basically shot it around 14-16mm anyway.

I haven't seen too many people use this Viltrox but looks to be a pretty good lens?
 
Last edited:
If push comes to shove that 16mm can serve as a 16-24mm "zoom" with a bit of cropping. In addition it's becoming extremely popular as an Astro lens and those folks are very fussy about image quality. A bit of Coma that landscape shooters find perfectly acceptible will drive the Astro crowd into a raving fit. End result is that it's easy to conclude that this is a very good lens and a great value. As for the 24-120mm f4 S that is a lens so good it's considered a Must Have lens and it was the first lens I selected when I moved into the Z cameras. BTW I had a 24-120 F4 G on my D750 so I was very well acquainted with how useful this range of focal lengths is.
 
Yes. The 16 and the 24-120 is my lightweight kit.
 
In the wide department, my Viltrox 16mm sits between my Art 24 1/4 & PC-E 24 on one end, and my Laowa 10mm 2.8 on the other end. I use the 24 1.4 the most, also for events, but you already have 24mm.

I regularly put the Viltrox 16mm in the bag as a 2nd lens, usually next to a 40/50 or a short tele. The fast aperture makes it particularly useful for dimly lit interiors, but also for smooth bokeh rendering at creative close-ups.

IMO it's a lens without major flaws. I've seen some video's where it's used for dusk/nighttime city-shooting as well.

I think you will be happy with it as a second lens.
 
I carry both the Z 24–120mm and the Viltrox 16mm (and F-mount 70–200mm f/4) as my every day kit.

The Viltrox 16mm is a pretty good lens, a nice balance between cost, size/weight, and image quality. That it opens to f/1.8 is just icing on the cake. I replaced the Viltrox 20mm with the 16mm because I didn't find 20mm to be that much wider than 24mm.

The 16mm certainly offers better image quality than the Viltrox 20mm. The largest compromise, IMO, is the vignetting, which can be difficult to mitigate at wider apertures (and in some cases, still problematic when stopped down). Both Viltrox lenses have less contrast than Nikon's Z lenses, but that's a relatively easy fix. Lightroom's lens correction profile for the 16mm doesn't fully correct its barrel distortion, although its close enough for everything except demanding architectural work. The 20mm shows much more noticeable mustache distortion that can be rather distracting, even in normal shooting.

The Z 14–30mm, Z 17–28mm, and Z 14–24mm are all another step (or three!) above the Viltrox, however they cost more and are larger and/or heavier.

To answer your question, yes, the Viltrox can be a nice compliment to the Z 24–120. If astro is something you shoot on occasion, it is probably the best budget option for a fast ultrawide. There are several wider manual-focus lenses available for less money, but they all will have greater compromises (unless a wider angle of view is the most important consideration).
 
jtr27 said:
I do not own one, but have read nothing but good things about it.

It is 1.2 pounds, almost as heavy as your 24-120, so I am not sure I would be "throwing" it anywhere. ;)
Click to expand...
yeah the 20mm 1.8 is a big boy also.

I looked on the sony side and their 16mm 1.8 is quite small
 
jtr27 said:
I do not own one, but have read nothing but good things about it.

It is 1.2 pounds, almost as heavy as your 24-120, so I am not sure I would be "throwing" it anywhere. ;)
Click to expand...
So this comment hit me and was already in the back of my mind. I ended up going with something completely different that I didn't know existed, the Sigma 17mm f4 e mount.

I had wanted to try some of those lenses anyhow, and I think it will look the part on my Zf, plus be small enough to throw in the bag...

If I like it, I'll probably get more of those Sigma's I had looked at them before just didn't know or forgot they made a 17mm.
 
jjz2 said:
jtr27 said:
I do not own one, but have read nothing but good things about it.

It is 1.2 pounds, almost as heavy as your 24-120, so I am not sure I would be "throwing" it anywhere. ;)
Click to expand...
So this comment hit me and was already in the back of my mind. I ended up going with something completely different that I didn't know existed, the Sigma 17mm f4 e mount.

I had wanted to try some of those lenses anyhow, and I think it will look the part on my Zf, plus be small enough to throw in the bag...

If I like it, I'll probably get more of those Sigma's I had looked at them before just didn't know or forgot they made a 17mm.
Click to expand...
That Sigma 17mm is a nifty little lens — let us know how it works on Z mount!

Some of the FE to Z adapters don't play nicely with wide angle lenses (blurry corners) nor do you get lens corrections applied in the viewfinder (a problem for lenses with a lot of distortion). The Sigma is one that I haven't ever seen comments on good or bad...
 
ahinesdesign said:
jjz2 said:
jtr27 said:
I do not own one, but have read nothing but good things about it.

It is 1.2 pounds, almost as heavy as your 24-120, so I am not sure I would be "throwing" it anywhere. ;)
Click to expand...
So this comment hit me and was already in the back of my mind. I ended up going with something completely different that I didn't know existed, the Sigma 17mm f4 e mount.

I had wanted to try some of those lenses anyhow, and I think it will look the part on my Zf, plus be small enough to throw in the bag...

If I like it, I'll probably get more of those Sigma's I had looked at them before just didn't know or forgot they made a 17mm.
Click to expand...
That Sigma 17mm is a nifty little lens — let us know how it works on Z mount!

Some of the FE to Z adapters don't play nicely with wide angle lenses (blurry corners) nor do you get lens corrections applied in the viewfinder (a problem for lenses with a lot of distortion). The Sigma is one that I haven't ever seen comments on good or bad...
Click to expand...
I read a recent review of the Megadap Pro Plus E to Z adapter on BHPhoto and it looks like it is going to work out well.

There are several e mount lens I want to try at some point so this is kind of opening up some new options.
 
Last edited:
I travelled across Canada from Vancouver Island to Halifax last year and brought four lenses, my Fuji 14mm, 35mm and 50 - 230mm, I also brought my Viltrox 23mm. I genuinely thought I would end up using the 23mm lens the most.

What I found when I was walking around downtown Halifax, my 14mm had the best perspective to take in larger buildings like churches. Outside, acting as a tourist, I ended up solely using the 14mm. I think you might want to consider going wider. Knowing what I know now, I would have preferred an 11 or 10mm lens for outside. But I am happy with the 14mm. I suggest you snoop around to see if you can find a used copy of the 14mm, how I bought mine.

Oh and by the way, inside shooting my son's wedding, I ended up using the Fuji 35mm f2 lens only. It was an effective focal length for that event.
 
rsn said:
I travelled across Canada from Vancouver Island to Halifax last year and brought four lenses, my Fuji 14mm, 35mm and 50 - 230mm, I also brought my Viltrox 23mm. I genuinely thought I would end up using the 23mm lens the most.

What I found when I was walking around downtown Halifax, my 14mm had the best perspective to take in larger buildings like churches. Outside, acting as a tourist, I ended up solely using the 14mm. I think you might want to consider going wider. Knowing what I know now, I would have preferred an 11 or 10mm lens for outside. But I am happy with the 14mm. I suggest you snoop around to see if you can find a used copy of the 14mm, how I bought mine.

Oh and by the way, inside shooting my son's wedding, I ended up using the Fuji 35mm f2 lens only. It was an effective focal length for that event.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: rsn
I use it for wide angle landscapes. Fantastic lens.
 
AWG_Pics said:
I use it for wide angle landscapes. Fantastic lens.
Click to expand...
So in case anybody wondering. I got the sigma 17mm f4. Looks and works great on Nikon Zf.



I came from Fuji so I like this metal tiny lens with aperture… looks the business.

Here pictured with the new weather sealed megadap pro plus compared to the 50 (standard size s prime), though the 20 is signicantly bigger. And the 26… and a triple a battery.



0f73a96a8d4f4bb6918593c317c551b5.jpg
 
jjz2 said:
AWG_Pics said:
I use it for wide angle landscapes. Fantastic lens.
Click to expand...
So in case anybody wondering. I got the sigma 17mm f4. Looks and works great on Nikon Zf.

I came from Fuji so I like this metal tiny lens with aperture… looks the business.

Here pictured with the new weather sealed megadap pro plus compared to the 50 (standard size s prime), though the 20 is signicantly bigger. And the 26… and a triple a battery.

0f73a96a8d4f4bb6918593c317c551b5.jpg
Click to expand...
How's it working out? Pairings like this are pretty subjective, I've heard a lot of people say in the past that they like a doubling of FL in between their primes (so 24/50/100 I guess? or 16/35/85?), tho that doesn't seem to take into account the longer AoV jumps at wider FLs... Still, with today's cropping leeway an UWA can easily pinch hit for a standard wide, as someone else said.

I shot 24/35 or 24/40 equivalent as my wides on a previous system, when I started shooting FF I went 20/35 and I've been enjoying it so much more I even have a smaller pair of 21 & 40/45/50mm primes (in between trying a couple right now, plus a manual one on the side). I've always liked shooting UWA but felt safer with a zoom, these days though I think I'd be fine with a 16mm and cropping to 24mm at times.

I was dead set on getting the Viltrox but then the Sony 16G came out, so I'm probably going with that when I have the time to also test it out with some astro. I've stretched things out at the other end too, instead of the usual 75mm after my 35mm I've sometimes been using a 135mm and for some things I actually don't mind that 35-135 gap at all.
 
Impulses said:
jjz2 said:
AWG_Pics said:
I use it for wide angle landscapes. Fantastic lens.
Click to expand...
So in case anybody wondering. I got the sigma 17mm f4. Looks and works great on Nikon Zf.

I came from Fuji so I like this metal tiny lens with aperture… looks the business.

Here pictured with the new weather sealed megadap pro plus compared to the 50 (standard size s prime), though the 20 is signicantly bigger. And the 26… and a triple a battery.

0f73a96a8d4f4bb6918593c317c551b5.jpg
Click to expand...
How's it working out? Pairings like this are pretty subjective, I've heard a lot of people say in the past that they like a doubling of FL in between their primes (so 24/50/100 I guess? or 16/35/85?), tho that doesn't seem to take into account the longer AoV jumps at wider FLs... Still, with today's cropping leeway an UWA can easily pinch hit for a standard wide, as someone else said.

I shot 24/35 or 24/40 equivalent as my wides on a previous system, when I started shooting FF I went 20/35 and I've been enjoying it so much more I even have a smaller pair of 21 & 40/45/50mm primes (in between trying a couple right now, plus a manual one on the side). I've always liked shooting UWA but felt safer with a zoom, these days though I think I'd be fine with a 16mm and cropping to 24mm at times.

I was dead set on getting the Viltrox but then the Sony 16G came out, so I'm probably going with that when I have the time to also test it out with some astro. I've stretched things out at the other end too, instead of the usual 75mm after my 35mm I've sometimes been using a 135mm and for some things I actually don't mind that 35-135 gap at all.
Click to expand...
Oh I have something similar to that. I have 26/45/50/85. The 17 is a bonus wide angle.

I've been taking what I need for now, currently traveling and only brought the 17/26/45 primes plus 24-120 zoom.

I've thought about adding the 135 Zeiss but not sure what applications I'd use it for... I think maybe a 300mm like the 300mm pf would be better as a complimentary longer prime, plus it takes a TC.
 
Last edited:
The Viltrox 16 1.8 is a good lens and quite good for astro, vignetting is a little strong wide open so your best stopping it down from 1.8 for astro work. Its also a bit big and heavy for travel - for me anyway.

For travel i prefer the Tamron 17-28 2.8 which works pretty well for astro particularly around the 20mm mark. Its also lighter and smaller thaen the Viltrox. For Sony e-mount anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
Viltrox 16mm f/1.8 AF in architecture
Replies
0
Views
10K
Bernard Delley
B
JustMeTim
Long-exposure with the Z 24-120mm
Replies
5
Views
5K
Ernie Misner
Ernie Misner
madecov
Received my Viltrox 16mm Today
Replies
3
Views
467
madecov
madecov
AWG_Pics
My three Viltrox lenses
Replies
1
Views
2K
Rex Chan
R
H
Viltrox 16mm f1.8: How good is it?
Replies
11
Views
104K
nonicks
N

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top