Don't know about superior those samples look awful on my phone you're best buying the tamron 15-30

The photographers here are the joke, not the equipment. I have never seen the DP Review hosers (who still call this the "Zed" 6) take a photo that would escape my Recycle Bin.

@ Barrym1966
Isn't barrym a type of enema?

The brands that don’t have good sensors will obviously focus on lenses. However you shouldn’t write Sony’s open lens mount out. Zeiss, Tamron, Sigma and Sony have been making some of the best lenses in the modern day.

Good glass has always made the system; experts in both stills and video know that. Before any light hits a sensor it has to go through a lens.

As for sensors, Nikon uses Sony sensors and they are virtually equal. Canon sensors are more than adequate as demonstrated by the amount of pro and award winning photos taken by them. When actually using the camera and not in some artificial test, Canon sensors are just fine.

Both Canon and Nikon bodies are known for superior handling and ergonomics, as well as durability. And bodies change far more frequently than lenses. Both Nikon and Canon will have several new bodies out and the lenses one buys today will still be in use.

Canon and Nikon know exactly what they are doing.

@gianstam..... right now Sony and Fuji have many more really good lenses for their mirrorless systems and it isn't even close with Nikon and Canon way behind so I don't really understand your comment. I guess you could also say Nikon and Canon believe that batteries are needed for a SYSTEM too.

@Clayton1985 if you looked past your hyper-reflexive nose zits you could see he's talking about the long term.

Because this lens was designed with size and weight in mind. Also, it has a filter thread, unlike any of the wider lenses you've mentioned.

I wish they'd make a 35-105 as i found it's ideal for me as an everyday lens

I think the point is that Sony tries to hide where their lenses are made and tries to suggest they are made in Japan.

Now granted, I don't believe that there's anything wrong in that; studies show that for any given company the quality of their products is the same no matter where they are made, because the key is the company in charge and what their manufacturing standards are.

My Sony 35/2.8 ZA and 55/1.8 ZA say made in Japan in a small grey typeface printed directly on the lenses. Not sure about this lens but the Nikon Z 35/1.8 is made in Thailand. Where does Nikon indicate this on their lens?

@Slatts-from-Oz I'll pay more for a higher quality product than cheaper crap that are made in China/Thailand. For example: Sony's a7r III... https://www.imaging-resource.com/articles/2017-weather-testing-nikon-d850-vs-sony-a7riii-canon-5div-olympus-e-m1II

Hey Fino you have trouble reading? Do you know the Nikon Z lenses are made in Thailand? Are they crap then?

@Canon not-sharpshooter - maybe, but I keep seeing Nikon and Sony photos that a Canon can't approach. So there's that.

CSC As I've said before, handheld photography of an arc welder.

Now can we stop with the pointless post! Its only making you look ridiculous.

Just like AF made photography easier in the 80s, mirrorless makes it easier yet again in the '10s.

Have you seen a photo shot on a DSLR that a MILC can’t do?

I have a full album of a Friday prayer in a mosque in Egypt. A DSLR CANNOT take these photos, they absolutely required silent shooting and a small inviting size.

Faster frame rates have been mentioned, should I add sharper results due to lack of mirror vibration and lack of FF/BF? Better exposure due to the entire sensor used as an exposure meter? As previously mentioned mirrorless does not do things DSLRs can't do but makes the whole process a heck of a lot easier.

When given the choice people go for simpler stuff, that's the reason why smartphones dominate the photographic world and that's also the reason why at the upper end of the market DSLRs are on the way out.

It could be Nikon doesn't want full-sized, non-compressed images passed on by others as their own. That said, full implementation of color (added) and corrections is a plausible reason too.

This is an absolute bargain. The performance of this lens for an UWA lens is first class and the fact you can use a regular 82mm filter is worth the price of admission alone. Making a highly corrected, yet compact and light UWA is no mean feat and we are really seeing the benefit of mirrorless and large mount here. The MTF curves for this lens are easily the best I've seen in a wide or ultra-wide angle lens and I own the very good Sony 12-24, heck plenty of primes would be jealous of those MTF's. When Nikon release a mirrorless D5/D850 sport/action camera this will be one of the first lenses I buy

@ Thoughts r US - "better than those who criticize a lens or piece of equipment without holding or working with it."
Ahahahah Jesus man, you're the very last man here who should say this... And yes, Nikon had so many quality issues/blunders in last couple of years, we need to be careful at least.
I hope that they get their A game this time, not like pa-th-etic Canon..

@Thoughts R Us

"Better than those who criticize a lens or piece of equipment without holding or working with it."

I don't think you meant that with any humour or irony, did you?

You must be just about the most shameless man who's ever lived.

Naa hes just a paid Nikon cheerleader..

I'm honored to be so popular that I have so many who keep track of what I post!

It's also interesting how hot and bothered this can make so many people...it's just cameras and lenses...

But if you really followed everything I post, you would know that after criticizing Sony based on reports of others, I did spend some money to rent and try out the Sony a9 and some Sony lenses. I've noted that before, along with what I considered the positives and negatives. In fact I've been quite honest in saying that it elevated my opinion of the Sony and that if they had the a9 in a more rugged body with better build quality I would probably have bought one. I've even asked anyone here with connections to Sony to relay to them the idea that the a9ii needs to be housed in a more pro level body. And that opinion is not unique to me.

@Thoughts R Us

"if they had the a9 in a more rugged body with better build quality I would probably have bought one."

So you bought an EOS R instead. ROTFL.

@alexlex I guess that 14-30 on my desk isn't real then? Glad you pointed that out, I was convinced it was.

@Vince P D600 dust/oil issue, D750 several service advisories , Nikon DL scrapped, Nikon Keymission 360 flopped , Z bodies can’t AF a swinging barn door to save it’s own life ........

So no quality issues in the last couple of years then.

Come on, you can’t just throw out a blanket statement like that and actually believe that? Just because consumers can’t get their hands on a copy doesn’t mean anyone else can’t either. I’ve tried it briefly, working in the retail side of photography. Look outside the bubble my friend.

@Thoughts Since you own both: I have a Canon EOS R + 24-105RF + M50 + 11-22 + 22 + D3400 + 18-55 + 35

I am a dentist fulltime but getting quite involved in major video production, and now I am experiencing GAS since I saw that darned Z RAW firmware update. That coupled with the FF 4K, the 120p 1080p make me think of ditching the R + M50 and going for a Z6 + D3400 kit.

What do you think having owned both?

Thanks

@Thoughts R Us

"The EOS R has far better build quality than the Sony a9 IMHO...and a better grip and ergonomics."

Honestly, what you write... I can barely type a reply to this. The EOS R has a predominantly plastic body and controls, the A9 is mostly metal. It's nearly 15% heavier than the R with 10% less body mass. It has a mechanical shutter tested to 500K actuations.

Ergonomics? Are you joking? The A9 has 3 input wheels, three dials (including a dedicated exp. comp.) a joystick and four custom buttons. The R has the touch bar and an on/off switch on the left side of the camera that requires two hands to operate. It doesn't even have a joystick.

"But I use the EOS R differently than I would have an a9."

You don't say.

"The a9 is better for high speed action...but for that I use a 1DXII."

Oh so you've got a 1DXmkII as well as the R and the Nikon Z7 have you? Honestly. You take the biscuit, mate, you really do.

The EOS R doesn’t have a plastic body, check out the lensrental tear down, it’s a lightened magnesium body.

I own both an A7iii and an EOS R, the R is built better across the board.

You’ve been endlessly cheerleading everything Z since the beginning so your comments are totally expected and carry very little influence

It's interesting how some are so determined to be negative that they cannot even stand someone else being positive. So what if I am optimistic about a product? Does that hurt you at all? Isn't there enough negativity and cynicism in the world? I bet my blood pressure and stress levels are healthier with my attitude, and I'm trying to get even more positive.

Yes, I do have confidence that this will be a great lens and I bet I am found to be correct in that.

As to having influence, I don't post here to have any "influence" over people. Perhaps you do, but to me it is a bit arrogant to assume that any one person can have such "influence." I post here the same reason why one would contribute to any conversation, and that is simply to express myself. People can take it any way they please.

@Auke B: Nikon advertises that the Z series has good weather sealing.

Roger Cicala of Lens Rentals did a tear down of the Z7 and found the camera to be the best built mirrorless that he has so far seen, and praised its weather sealing.

I do agree that the Olympus also has great weather sealing. Both Olympus and Nikon make great products, it's a matter of choice.

@ecka84: I'm not saying that you or anyone else shouldn't post; obviously I don't have that power anyway.

What I am saying is that it's not a zero sum game. One doesn't have to tear down one brand in order to build up another.

I am also noting that this comparison game ignores the reality of how most consumers actually purchase. Most people considering this lens and/or the Z system are already Nikon owners and not at all interested in other brands. To many the most relevant comparisons would be with other Nikon options.

I don't understand why so many people are proud to admit that they are blissfully ignorant. Why you wouldn't want your brand to be compared to better UWA FF zooms is a real head scratcher to me. You're basically saying you're in love with a brand therefore I won't leave it regardless of how bad it is -or- you're saying you are being hold hostage by a brand due to financial impact and don't want to know what you might be missing. In either case it's pretty pathetic IMO. We should all want to know how our brand compares to the best of any category and Sony has the best ff MILC UWA zooms today (which also happen to be better than the best Nikon F mount UWA zooms). Sony is the reason we have Nikon Z today so at least Nikon understands the value of comparisons to other brands.

@Clayton: hold on with your assertions please. First, most people invested in one brand choose to stay with that brand out of realistic practicality. It would be foolish to constantly switch brands and most people don't have time for that. It's smart to instead go deeper and master the tools of the brand you have.

It's also smart to not always engage in some foolish comparison game that will only leave you feeling inferior no matter what. That's a loser's game played all too often with every type of product imaginable.

Again, the best photographers who develop their talent the most do not compare gear a whole lot but use what they have to achieve results.

As to Sony having the best UWA zooms..well this new Z may change that. And if we add in the Nikon F series which works seamlessly on the Z, or the Canon EF series which works seamlessly on the R, then Sony arguably does not have the best UWA or even close.

@multisystem

"it turns the theory of the big mount advantage into practice"

Sorry, that's just Nikon's marketing gimmick. This lens doesn't use anywhere near the mount real estate available to it. Even Sony uses a bigger rear element, closer to the sensor at that, on their competing 12-24/4:

https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/5999696813/photos/3843610/14-30-vs-12-24

I would think with the sales this system is going to make,they are getting these people.

Shouldn't the system already be making sales? Been on the market for a few months now...

Maybe,maybe not.Great new system and I hope sales are massive.

This lens will sell very well for Nikon.

“Will sell very well FOR NIKON “ which probably means another -5% in lens sales annually.

CanonSharpShooter needs to innovate! So predictable and stale.

@Stirling: Way of Mirrorless? Cos^4-law will cause vignetting, therefore vignetting isn't a thing of MILCs alone. The 24-105 is an extreme outlier. But even recent Canon lenses have tremendous vignetting (16-35/2.8iii . Lenstip: "Such high vignetting we haven’t seen so far in our tests. At 16 mm and by f/2.8 in the frame corners disappears 75% of light (−4.07 EV)". ).

Take a look at uncorrected files from some m43 lenses if you want to see extreme outliers lol . So you are comparing a 16mm end of an F/2.8 zoom to 24mm F/4 ? and the 24mm is still over a stop worse.

Mirrorless makers use software correction to a much greater extent than the DSLR' lenses. it is not a fault but a design choice the extreme vignette on the 24-105mm allows for a sharper lens and let the vignette be corrected in post .Plenty of RAW samples from many lenses in Dpreview try them out in RAW sofwtare that does not apply the fixes to see who is doing what

@HFLM,

I suspect that the assumption is, this is simply "the way of mirrorless" ...because companies have discovered that they can get away with using built-in (locked-in, really) profiles to hide vignetting and distortion issues, and it's going to be this way for many lenses because a lot of people have it in their mind that mirrorless kits are magically supposed to be significantly lighter and smaller than SLR kits.

In short, if you want "flawless" lenses that look amazing without any profile applied, your best bet is to stick with some of the older legendary lenses which had zero distortion and extremely low vignetting, without a profile. You can always use an adapter to get these lenses on your favorite mirrorless body.

All cameras are also computers these days and so there will always be a computational element to the image processing, and moreso with mirrorless.

But even in the film era, the greats would manipulate the images in the darkroom and "edit to taste." All cameras capture 3D reality as an analog or digital representation and then that is somewhat subjectively interpreted back into a 2D image that we can understand. There is no such thing as a 100% "pure" image as in 100% fidelity to the original reality.

Underwhelming comment that does nothing to further useful discussion or make you seem thoughtful.

Wow, that's interesting I was just getting ready to say that these are some of the best sample images I've seen in a while. Certainly better than the Sony 24 f1.4 from a couple of days ago (I'm referring to the images themselves not the quality of the lens so don't get your panties in a bunch).

If anyone thinks these are "great" sample images that really "sell the lens", they're way off. Either that or they literally don't care about corner sharpness, and just glanced at the web-res images to notice the low vignetting/distortion.

CanonSS,
you'd benefit from some innovation in your comments as well since you keep posting the same sh*t over and over. You sound like a broken record.

JPEGs do not hide flare.

Nikon said "no RAWS!"

They're hiding something, believe me!

believe you? LOL

Distortion, they are hiding lots of distortion.

That said I would be fine with that trade off. Usually it is worth it. Just look at the Fuji X lenses, they have tons of distortion, but since ACR doesn't give users the choice nobody ever complained. And they are regarded as some of the best lenses available.

They know it is the right trade off to make, and I agree. But they don't want to scare classic DSLR users away

Odd. I'm not seeing any in the shots I've made with it.
But you won't believe that without seeing samples of course.
And that doesn't bother me one little bit.
Unless of course, you're being sarcastic. Full points then. :)

@trebledee

You already have the 14-30 F4? Would you like to share some RAWs? We would be very interested. Thanks in advance

@panther fan. Like the author of the article, I have a pre-production sample. However, I have been asked not to show or distribute any files by Nikon Europe as it's merely to be used for feedback to them. I shoot a heck of a lot of aircraft interiors with the 14-24 F mount so they asked me to try this out, as they did with the pre-production Z 7 some time ago. It goes back to Nikon tomorrow, together with the files I shot this last week for them to do with as they will.

I like the new lens very much and I am loving the Z system. I'll put it this way. My poor D850 and 14-24mm are feeling like spare grooms at a wedding.

Obviously there's going to be a lot of 'pictures or it didn't happen' to my remarks, no problem. I know what I see and I know my feedback to Nikon is valued.

@Radek Matyas, you must have missed the news: Nikon (and others) have found a way to lock-in their raw lens correction profiles, so you won't even see all the distortion and vignetting that they're hiding even when you open the images in Lightroom/ACR. Sorry! In fact for the Z 24-70 S that I reviewed, the whole lens profile tab was greyed out, I literally couldn't turn it off, period. Maybe there's a way, but the point is that Nikon is making it very hard for the adverage photographer to see under the hood of these lenses.

As long as the final results look OK, I'm fine with that. Unfortunately, the corners are going to get pretty noisy in some situations, I fear.

If you use a basic RAW software that doesn't support lens profiles, or remove / modify the metadata you should be able to see what the image looks like without corrections.

Of course there's no substitute for fast primes and there's always compromises. But the versatility of this zoom for both landscape, architecture, indoor and street photography is fantastic, especially in such a light package as well.

A fast 14mm f1.4 is more a of a specialty lens that is good for astrophotography and low light, but at what cost?

@photomedium , depends what you shoot an astrophotographer would want faster . Personally despite owning it since it came out in 2007 i have only shot a handful of shots wide open. For a landscape shooter the smaller size and ability to mount filters is a real advantge

Shot on a digital camera and viewed on a digital device so.....yeah.

Reduce to 5 MP, move all color sliders a bit in random direction, remove anything that seems really black or white, blurr the hell out of it and add a bucketfull of grain, resharpen and then it looks analog.

The question remains: Apart from polarizers and the occasional ND, does anyone use filters anymore? I do, but I'm so old I remember when you could buy a whole San Juan island for the price you'd pay for a Zeiss Otus today.