Best Ultra Wide Angle??

I have the Z 20mm F/1.8S lens. It is a fantastic lens, sharpest lens I've owned. As I have mentioned in other threads, one thing I really like about the lens is that has a 7.87 inch minimum focus distance. This allows me to get in pretty close to subjects for an interesting perspective.

Daniel Bliss said:

Not to change the subject too much but I'm curious about the "meh"-ness of your 100-400. I've tried three of them; two of them, including the one I ended up with, very impressive including with the teleconverter, the other pretty dismal toward the long end within about 30 feet as the sweet spot gradually shrank to just a small sharp area in the middle by about five feet. (The other "good" one had a mechanical fault).

I've seen a number of different 70-200/2.8 S lenses and none has what the F-mount E series one has close up at the long end, though the S 70-200 is a bit better than the F-mount at the short end, not least because of closer focusing, and it's just generally more flare resistant in the bright than the E.

What's been your experience with those two?

Click to expand...

Mike does not have the Z 70-200 f2.8S.......yet!

I have had the 70-200 f2.8G VRII, then the 70-200 f2.8E FL VR and now the Z 70-200 f2.8 VR S. They were/are all excellent in their own right at their time in history and there is no doubt the 70-200 f2.8E FL VR is a superb lens. However, it is slightly overtaken by the new Z 70 200 f2.8 VR S, IMO. It is simply idiotically sharp wide open, better than many primes, and basically is no better stopped down as I don't think it could be sharper! It is sharper than the 70-200 f2.8E VR wide open and stopped down. However, important as sharpness is, a lens's worth is not and should not be measured solely on sharpness! It is the overall IQ of a lens that really matters and again, with all the iterations of the 70-200 f2.8, they have been superb as far as overall balance of IQ - bokeh, color, CA, etc but the Z 70-200 f2.8 VR S is best of all. One might have a slight advantage here, the other a slight advantage there. However, the Z 70-200 f2.8 VR S seems to have achieved the best across the board yet.

This is just my opinion and what appeals to me about the Z 70-200 f2.8 VR S. Of course, YMMV.

If Mike ever gets the Z 70-200 f2.8 VR S and if he also thinks it is better than the 70-200 f2.8 E FL VR, he will be able to describe why it is better way better than I. He has the gift of being able to describe a lens's ability so as you think you have already used it even if you haven't.

Daniel Bliss said:

(The 20/1.8S has been great for me, talking of on-topic, though I think one corner might be a little behind the others. Overall clearly better than any F-mount wide angle I've used, note that I've not tried the Tamron 35/1.4 or Nikon 28/1.4E)

Click to expand...

Lance B said:

Daniel Bliss said:

Not to change the subject too much but I'm curious about the "meh"-ness of your 100-400. I've tried three of them; two of them, including the one I ended up with, very impressive including with the teleconverter, the other pretty dismal toward the long end within about 30 feet as the sweet spot gradually shrank to just a small sharp area in the middle by about five feet. (The other "good" one had a mechanical fault).

I've seen a number of different 70-200/2.8 S lenses and none has what the F-mount E series one has close up at the long end, though the S 70-200 is a bit better than the F-mount at the short end, not least because of closer focusing, and it's just generally more flare resistant in the bright than the E.

What's been your experience with those two?

Click to expand...

Mike does not have the Z 70-200 f2.8S.......yet!

I have had the 70-200 f2.8G VRII, then the 70-200 f2.8E FL VR and now the Z 70-200 f2.8 VR S. They were/are all excellent in their own right at their time in history and there is no doubt the 70-200 f2.8E FL VR is a superb lens. However, it is slightly overtaken by the new Z 70 200 f2.8 VR S, IMO. It is simply idiotically sharp wide open, better than many primes, and basically is no better stopped down as I don't think it could be sharper! It is sharper than the 70-200 f2.8E VR wide open and stopped down. However, important as sharpness is, a lens's worth is not and should not be measured solely on sharpness! It is the overall IQ of a lens that really matters and again, with all the iterations of the 70-200 f2.8, they have been superb as far as overall balance of IQ - bokeh, color, CA, etc but the Z 70-200 f2.8 VR S is best of all. One might have a slight advantage here, the other a slight advantage there. However, the Z 70-200 f2.8 VR S seems to have achieved the best across the board yet.

This is just my opinion and what appeals to me about the Z 70-200 f2.8 VR S. Of course, YMMV.

If Mike ever gets the Z 70-200 f2.8 VR S and if he also thinks it is better than the 70-200 f2.8 E FL VR, he will be able to describe why it is better way better than I. He has the gift of being able to describe a lens's ability so as you think you have already used it even if you haven't.

Lance B said:

(The 20/1.8S has been great for me, talking of on-topic, though I think one corner might be a little behind the others. Overall clearly better than any F-mount wide angle I've used, note that I've not tried the Tamron 35/1.4 or Nikon 28/1.4E)

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I bought the 70-200FL before I had a Z body for $1900, the S version was ~$800 more at the time. Been very happy with it and have no plans to change it out. Plus, I can use it on my D850, which I really enjoy shooting. Likely the best DSLR ever made, and certainly Nikon's finest. Call me old school, thinking about taking it out with my 500/4FL into the marsh.

Paddler213 said:

Lance B said:

Daniel Bliss said:

Not to change the subject too much but I'm curious about the "meh"-ness of your 100-400. I've tried three of them; two of them, including the one I ended up with, very impressive including with the teleconverter, the other pretty dismal toward the long end within about 30 feet as the sweet spot gradually shrank to just a small sharp area in the middle by about five feet. (The other "good" one had a mechanical fault).

I've seen a number of different 70-200/2.8 S lenses and none has what the F-mount E series one has close up at the long end, though the S 70-200 is a bit better than the F-mount at the short end, not least because of closer focusing, and it's just generally more flare resistant in the bright than the E.

What's been your experience with those two?

Click to expand...

Mike does not have the Z 70-200 f2.8S.......yet!

I have had the 70-200 f2.8G VRII, then the 70-200 f2.8E FL VR and now the Z 70-200 f2.8 VR S. They were/are all excellent in their own right at their time in history and there is no doubt the 70-200 f2.8E FL VR is a superb lens. However, it is slightly overtaken by the new Z 70 200 f2.8 VR S, IMO. It is simply idiotically sharp wide open, better than many primes, and basically is no better stopped down as I don't think it could be sharper! It is sharper than the 70-200 f2.8E VR wide open and stopped down. However, important as sharpness is, a lens's worth is not and should not be measured solely on sharpness! It is the overall IQ of a lens that really matters and again, with all the iterations of the 70-200 f2.8, they have been superb as far as overall balance of IQ - bokeh, color, CA, etc but the Z 70-200 f2.8 VR S is best of all. One might have a slight advantage here, the other a slight advantage there. However, the Z 70-200 f2.8 VR S seems to have achieved the best across the board yet.

This is just my opinion and what appeals to me about the Z 70-200 f2.8 VR S. Of course, YMMV.

If Mike ever gets the Z 70-200 f2.8 VR S and if he also thinks it is better than the 70-200 f2.8 E FL VR, he will be able to describe why it is better way better than I. He has the gift of being able to describe a lens's ability so as you think you have already used it even if you haven't.

Paddler213 said:

(The 20/1.8S has been great for me, talking of on-topic, though I think one corner might be a little behind the others. Overall clearly better than any F-mount wide angle I've used, note that I've not tried the Tamron 35/1.4 or Nikon 28/1.4E)

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I bought the 70-200FL before I had a Z body for $1900, the S version was ~$800 more at the time. Been very happy with it and have no plans to change it out. Plus, I can use it on my D850, which I really enjoy shooting.

Click to expand...

And you shouldn't "update" as you can use it on your D850. It is still a superb lens and definitely no slouch!

Paddler213 said:

Likely the best DSLR ever made, and certainly Nikon's finest.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

Paddler213 said:

Call me old school, thinking about taking it out with my 500/4FL into the marsh.

Click to expand...

The 500 f4E is also a gem. I even toyed with getting one a few years ago before they brought out the 600 f6.3 PF. Add the 1.4x TCIII to your 500 f4 and you get a superb 700 f5.6! Happy shooting.

Paddler213 said:

For the Z mount. 20mm or wider?

Click to expand...

I can only vouch for the 14-24 f2.8, a superb lens. I have not used the Z 20 f1.8, but I believe it is a fantastic lens.

Daniel Bliss said:

Not to change the subject too much but I'm curious about the "meh"-ness of your 100-400. I've tried three of them; two of them, including the one I ended up with, very impressive including with the teleconverter, the other pretty dismal toward the long end within about 30 feet as the sweet spot gradually shrank to just a small sharp area in the middle by about five feet. (The other "good" one had a mechanical fault).

Click to expand...

I have used on that was clearly blurry in the right-hand third or quarter of the frame at most focal lengths, The left-hand side was pin-sharp, so a good sample should indeed be quite good.

Paddler213 said:

Lance B said:

Daniel Bliss said:

Not to change the subject too much but I'm curious about the "meh"-ness of your 100-400. I've tried three of them; two of them, including the one I ended up with, very impressive including with the teleconverter, the other pretty dismal toward the long end within about 30 feet as the sweet spot gradually shrank to just a small sharp area in the middle by about five feet. (The other "good" one had a mechanical fault).

I've seen a number of different 70-200/2.8 S lenses and none has what the F-mount E series one has close up at the long end, though the S 70-200 is a bit better than the F-mount at the short end, not least because of closer focusing, and it's just generally more flare resistant in the bright than the E.

What's been your experience with those two?

Click to expand...

Mike does not have the Z 70-200 f2.8S.......yet!

I have had the 70-200 f2.8G VRII, then the 70-200 f2.8E FL VR and now the Z 70-200 f2.8 VR S. They were/are all excellent in their own right at their time in history and there is no doubt the 70-200 f2.8E FL VR is a superb lens. However, it is slightly overtaken by the new Z 70 200 f2.8 VR S, IMO. It is simply idiotically sharp wide open, better than many primes, and basically is no better stopped down as I don't think it could be sharper! It is sharper than the 70-200 f2.8E VR wide open and stopped down. However, important as sharpness is, a lens's worth is not and should not be measured solely on sharpness! It is the overall IQ of a lens that really matters and again, with all the iterations of the 70-200 f2.8, they have been superb as far as overall balance of IQ - bokeh, color, CA, etc but the Z 70-200 f2.8 VR S is best of all. One might have a slight advantage here, the other a slight advantage there. However, the Z 70-200 f2.8 VR S seems to have achieved the best across the board yet.

This is just my opinion and what appeals to me about the Z 70-200 f2.8 VR S. Of course, YMMV.

If Mike ever gets the Z 70-200 f2.8 VR S and if he also thinks it is better than the 70-200 f2.8 E FL VR, he will be able to describe why it is better way better than I. He has the gift of being able to describe a lens's ability so as you think you have already used it even if you haven't.

Paddler213 said:

(The 20/1.8S has been great for me, talking of on-topic, though I think one corner might be a little behind the others. Overall clearly better than any F-mount wide angle I've used, note that I've not tried the Tamron 35/1.4 or Nikon 28/1.4E)

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I bought the 70-200FL before I had a Z body for $1900, the S version was ~$800 more at the time. Been very happy with it and have no plans to change it out. Plus, I can use it on my D850, which I really enjoy shooting. Likely the best DSLR ever made, and certainly Nikon's finest. Call me old school, thinking about taking it out with my 500/4FL into the marsh.

Click to expand...

Agree about the Nikon 70-200 FL-E lens. I also bought this lens for my D850. I still have this lens and it works fine on my Zf. And I still have my D850 for its 45MP sensor. I plan to keep them both. The D850 stops me buying a Z7

I don't feel the need to update the 70-200 lens and I'm very happy with it on the Zf. I only say all this because I feel the same way about my Nikon 14- 24 mm F 2.8 G lens. It also works fine on my Zf and I see no need to update it either

I know....in both cases the S lenses are better..... but how significantly better for my use? Maybe not the cost of upgrade better

anotherMike said:

Good question.

The 20/1.8S is excellent, but not "world class" in the way, say, the 35/1.2s is world class, if that makes any sense.

The 14-24/2.8S is the lens I would personally own if I needed wider-than-20mm focal lengths; it's so crazily close to the 20 prime in quality stopped down a touch it's not funny, and while it's not as good as the 24/1.8S prime at 24, it's still quite good, and it's good wider.

But again, at least at this stage of the game, I've not yet seen a world class lens at 20 or wider, and I've used all the Zeiss options, all the Nikon options and I think all the Sigma art options. There are excellent choices, but no world class ones. Read that carefully - I'm not saying the options we have are bad - far, far from it, but there is no "OMG" 20 or wider in the same way the 35/1.2S (or 35 Apo Lanthar, etc) or Plena or 85/1.2S can blow you away, if that makes sense.

The 14-24 in the states is on sale at a very nice price. If I needed that range, I'd be tempted, but I'm considering a 70-200/2.8S to replace my "meh" 100-400, so I'm not jumping on the 14-24 and will wait for either a nice sale on the 70-200 or a mk-II model of the lens before jumping.

Let us know what you end up with.

Click to expand...

The 20mm f/1.8S is excellent for astrophotography. The corners and edges looked absolutely great on my copy, even wide open. Stars looked round and sharp. I also thought that it handled flaring really well when I was shooting a lighthouse at night, which was a stress test. Just very good for night photography in general.

Regarding the 100-400.

It's a solid lens. Would have loved something this good in the F mount era, so we have to get that out of the way.

But the S line lenses raised the bar, and while I do consider this an S line lens it's "barely" one in that. But I'm very picky. I'm generally happy with it's performance in the 100-200 range, reasonably happy to 300, and not too impressed beyond 300, at distance. Compared to the best prime I have in the 105/135 range, it is clearly not as good, but still good, even centrally.

I have not shot the 70-200/2.8S (I have shot the FL); from what I've seen and from people I trust (and extrapolating that it's at least as good as the FL I have shot), it appears the 70-200/2.8S appears to be just one level better as a potential "prime replacer" for a broad part of the frame at the 85/105/135 ranges and is a bit better I think at 200. Obviously if I make the switch I lose "reach", but I find I shoot the 100-400 in the 100-200mm range, so the 70-200 makes more sense for what I do. Eventually if I do switch to the 70-200, I might augment with a 400/4.5 prime or if Nikon ever gets off their back side and introduces a proper 300/4 in native Z mount, that.

The reality is I'm getting older and trying to make decisions about a kit that saves a bit of weight and space, without sacrificing too much IQ, for when I travel by air. So I'm leaning to a core kit of the 20/1.8S, 24/1.8S, 35/1.2S, 50/2 Voigtlander Apo Lanthar, 85/1.8S and the 70-200/2.8S. Dependent on what I do, the 105 or 135 primes may take the place of the zoom.

We'll see; I'm curious if Nikon updates the 70-200 next like they did the 24-70, or not.

quattro88 said:

Paddler213 said:

For the Z mount. 20mm or wider?

Click to expand...

1. I just got Viltrox 9mm f2.8 for my new Z 50ii. It's an excellent lens, very sharp in center and corners and edges. Amazing, considering the price. I also have Viltrox 20mm f2.8 and it is excellent, too. I was waiting for 14mm f4 for my Zf, but got impatient to wait for it to become available and decided to get 9mm for Z50ii instead. No regrets!

Click to expand...

Would love to hear your thoughts on the 14 and 20 on full frame. I previously owned the Z 20 1.8 S and Viltrox 16 1.8 which were both fantastic, but ultimately too large and expensive for my infrequent, casual use.

Thus I (and I expect many others as well) am just looking for a small, cheap pairing with a 24-120, which both the 14 and 20 seemed exactly for.

For extra context in the DSLR days I had both the Tamron 15-30 and Sigma 14-24 and again, just another big zoom.

I just received the Viltrox 14mm Air. Early use indicates it is a shockingly good lens, plus it’s tiny and lightweight. It definitely will give you a wider perspective over 24mm, which the Viltrox 20mm doesn’t really provide.

I used to have the Viltrox 20mm, and while it’s a decent lens, the more recent Air releases seem to have better optics. I did not find the V 20mm to be that much wider than 24mm, and switched to the Viltrox 16mm 1.8 until the 14mm came out.

The 16mm is the way to go if you need ultra wide and wide aperture. The 14mm is even better if you want smaller/lighter and/or normally stop down.

ahinesdesign said:

I just received the Viltrox 14mm Air. Early use indicates it is a shockingly good lens, plus it’s tiny and lightweight. It definitely will give you a wider perspective over 24mm, which the Viltrox 20mm doesn’t really provide.

Click to expand...

Congrats, it seems to be a very good lens. I've read several reviews and they are all quite positive.
So far not available here in the Netherlands but I'm certainly interested .
Please post a landscape at f5.6 if you can find the time.

André

ahinesdesign said:

I just received the Viltrox 14mm Air. Early use indicates it is a shockingly good lens, plus it’s tiny and lightweight. It definitely will give you a wider perspective over 24mm, which the Viltrox 20mm doesn’t really provide.

Click to expand...

!!! What I expected, 20 is not enough... You confirm!

ahinesdesign said:

I used to have the Viltrox 20mm, and while it’s a decent lens, the more recent Air releases seem to have better optics. I did not find the V 20mm to be that much wider than 24mm, and switched to the Viltrox 16mm 1.8 until the 14mm came out.

The 16mm is the way to go if you need ultra wide and wide aperture. The 14mm is even better if you want smaller/lighter and/or normally stop down.

Click to expand...

Thank you, thank you ...
from a Zoomer in need of a wide, light, fixed lens for night events.

I was prone to Viltrox 20 for the Zf, finger ready ...
... but then I saw the 9mm DX Air first review.
It would fit perfectly on my Z30, [15mmE on Z30]
What stopped me short:
[9mmE on Zf] and 10MP are not so attractive anymore !

Before I also looked at the 16mm .. it was so better!!
But and 3 times more expensive with not enough room in my bag.
>That you also pointed out

So 14mm will be my choice, comforted by your findings!!!
[21mmE @20MP on Z30]

( it's available on AliEx for under 200€, 15-day delivery )

Poldersnapper said:

...
So far not available here in the Netherlands but I'm certainly interested .
Please post a landscape at f5.6 if you can find the time.

André

Click to expand...

I've found it on AliEx for under 200€.

( 15 days free delivery )

AlainCh2 said:

Poldersnapper said:

...
So far not available here in the Netherlands but I'm certainly interested .
Please post a landscape at f5.6 if you can find the time.

André

Click to expand...

I've found it on AliEx for under 200€.
( 15 days free delivery )

Click to expand...

Thanks, I'm on the waiting list of a trusted shop nearby which is better in case I get a decentered copy.

Good first images with the 14mm on Fred Miranda's site BTW.

André

KLHman said:

The Z 20mm is a fantastic lens as is the Z 14-24 f/2.8. I have had both and my preference is for the Z 14-30 mm, it is my very favorite lens. It is sharp, it is smaller/lighter, it's got great resolution, and it covers the same angle of view of the other two lenses. The f/4 is not, in my opinion, a limitation, just bump the ISO up a bit to make up the difference with pretty much no noise penalty.

I guess it will also depend on your use for the lens. I do tons of landscapes and lovelovelove the Z 14-30. Here's a link, if interested, to my Flickr album with a bunch of images with the Z 14-30.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/klhman/albums/72157717878862071/with/52675714436

Ken

Click to expand...

Nice images, congrats! I was in doubt re which WA zoom to get. The 14-24 f/2.8 was not an option, too large and heavy for use with the Zf, especially since I use camera mostly for travel, family, street photography, 99% handheld, etc.

The final two on my list were the 14-30 f/4 S and the new Tamron 16-30 f/2.8 G2, which was recently released. There were already a few online reviews but I looked for more detailed ones and found the 14-30 and the older Tamron version, in Nikon disguise (Nikkor 16-28 f/2.8), tested at Photography Life (a good resource site).



Not a lot of difference between these two lenses, the 2.8 has lower distortion, which has a price for correction in the 14-30, as the tests show. The Tamron design also seems a bit better regarding flare resistance, which is a bit surprising, given that the S line gets the best coatings in Nikkors.

The 14-30 wins for the wider end (but the distortion correction eats on that bit), the Tamron design wins for speed (f/28 to f/4). I ended up gertting the new Tamron, I like to shoot even in very low light situations w/o flash, and I have found it to work incredibly well. Haven't done brick wall tests and the like, and my shooting style is not so "exact" as to actually be sensitive for tiny resolution differences in extreme corners.

Anyway, for the OP, I hope the links above will be of some help.

Nikon AF FF 17-28mm f2.8, Viltrox AF 14mm F4 FF or Viltrox AF 9mm f2.8 APS-C.

Poldersnapper said:

AlainCh2 said:

I've found it on AliEx for under 200€.
( 15 days free delivery )

Click to expand...

Thanks, I'm on the waiting list of a trusted shop nearby which is better in case I get a decentered copy.

Good first images with the 14mm on Fred Miranda's site BTW.

André

Click to expand...

Sure, that is a better choice !!!

But I'm limited to online shops.
I prefer for that Amazon, never had any return issues with them

Here we go !!!



Even AliExp never got me deceived on wrong articles received, or not perfect items!!

- > many times reimbursed without return, making a video showing the issue

( hopefully it will continue that way )

--
___.............................!............................ ___
-------- Mid of French/Italian Alps --------- I Love my Carnivores. >https://eu.zonerama.com/AlainCH2/1191151
.
Photography ... It is about how that thing looks when photographed..
( Avoid boring shots )

Nice gallery! I love seeing great photos of the PNW. You do a nice job of keeping the entire wide frame interesting, even when there's a lot of open space around your subjects.

I'm just curious. How often do you find yourself using the extra 6mm on the 14-30mm lens? I have the 14-24 Z lens and don't usually feel like I'm missing 25mm to 30mm. I tend to only pull that lens out with the sole intention of focusing on ultra-wide scenarios. But sometimes--especially on walkabouts--I just can't help myself and I am drawn to a composition where just a little more reach would be handy without changing lenses or cropping later.

rhlpetrus said:

The 14-30 wins for the wider end (but the distortion correction eats on that bit)

Click to expand...

There's a "trick" I learned to almost entirely reduce the edge distortion when using the Z 14-30 which I use at 14mm the majority of the time. When you activate the horizon line on the Z cameras there are actually two lines - the one directly in the middle of the viewfinder and if you tilt the camera pointing down/up - even the slightest bit it activates the 2nd horizontal line which then is above/below the dead-center horizon line. I have learned to keep the two lines merged as one meaning I am holding the camera completely level. Sometimes in order to do this I need to adjust my own position meaning maybe to crouch down so I can get the shot I want and keep the camera totally level along the horizon so there is only one horizon line showing in the viewfinder. Once I figured this out it has become a habit.

Ken