Nikon Z 24mm F1.8 S sample gallery

The Z 24 outperforms it in both sharpness center to edge and in lack of chromatic aberrations...*sigh*

https://www.ephotozine.com/article/nikon-nikkor-z-24mm-f-1-8s-lens-review--34224/performance

https://www.ephotozine.com/article/sony-fe-24mm-f-1-4-g-master-review-33030/performance

You asked, I supplied...sigh
That you don't like the testing methodology is a different story.
Despite this, the points made are relevant, the Z with all corrections turned off has far less chromatic aberrations than the Sony 24, and sharpness (based on the camera used) is better than the Sony.
That you like the results or agree with them is irrelevant to the original question you posed...supplying evidence ;)

Then blame yourself Mister Anders0n.
But don't complain afterards.

Cool story.....

Good for you. If you has the z lenses next to the f lenses, like I did, you wil see the reason. But again, good for you. At least you know what you do not want.

You will never see the difference in prints or sizes that are shared online, but hey, if it makes you feel better.

Also, ML cameras ARE capable of missing focus. There is a story out now about Canon's latest 70-200 lens, and how many people are having focus issues.

Regardless of what you forum fanboys say or think, in the real world, the Z system is a failure.

Whatever you say Champ!

Wait until next year when another dismal financial report comes out from Nikon. You'll see.

Looks a great lens to me. I just like taking photos and I don’t care about financial reports of Japanese electronics companies.

Sounds like paid trolling to me....😃

Sounds like a w@anker to me.

I've been using a Z6 since jan19 for work (in conjunction with a D850 and Df) and it has performed flawlessly. I am using the 24-70 f4 with it and mainly the F mount 14-24mm. Both work seamlessly.
In the hand if feels exceptionally well built. There are a few issues however, like slow start up being one of my biggest gripes. Compared to the D850 operationally it needs refinement but anyone having a go at the either the Z6/Z7 are having a laugh. The lenses aesthetically are disappointing but optically they are wonderful. Brilliant opening salvo from Nikon.

Only a fool would buy a Z6 when they already own a D850 and a Df.

only an idiot would spend his time telling people he doesnt know what they need.
you remind me of a crazy street evangelist screaming at people that do their best to avoid you.

@onlyfreeman.... It will come. Sony FF has been out now for what, 6 years? And only recently are they getting decent 3rd party lenses. In the beginning there were a few 2.8 primes, but now there is decent support with more appealing lenses.

onlyfreeman Besides Z mount supporting all Nikon F mount lenses (which already is a lot) through F to Z adapter, it also supports all Sigma F mount and more and more Tamron F mount lenses (and they are extending further support for Z system continuously). There also exists a Canon EF to Z adapter ... And finally, even all the E mount lenses can be mounted through a small adapter, supporting autofocus ! One needs to take into account that Z has the smallest flange distance of all mirrorless FF systems ... so highest chances for (future) adaptability. However native Z-mount support by 3th parties will take some time, just as it was the case for Nikon F mount before, due to their closed system.

I shot my contributions to this gallery on personal time, over a very wet cloudy weekend. It is what it is.

In regards to point light source reproduction / night landscapes, you may want to read that :
https://www.cameralabs.com/nikon-z-24mm-f1-8-s-review/2/
And look at that :
https://www.flickr.com/photos/cameralabs/49054661136/in/album-72157711750961742/

That looks very, very good. If it wasn't so pricey this would really tempt me to the Z system for night landscapes; currently I'm using a D500 + Sigma 18-35, which has a lot of compromises.

I am planning to put it through a real nightscaoe test in my next trip to Norway. Very curious how it will behave.

@Barney Britton you need to go on strike. That sounds like poor working conditions to me. Don't let them get away with it.

I was eagerly waiting for fprimes' opinion on this lens. Now I can cancel my plan to buy it.

I didn't say the Z 24mm/1.8 didn't have better corner coma performance. I said that it had build quality issues due to being largely constructed out of plastic and made in China. Read what actual users report about the lens:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/63250497

Of course you did : "Looks just like a 24/1.8G except" the "except" part being solely dedicated to the claim that it's got higher sample variation. Don't try to squirm your way out of it.
You obviously didn't read the whole thread you refer to, which isn't surprising (we know you). If you want more demonstrable examples of a misaligned sample of that lens, there are more solid ones around :
https://www.cameralabs.com/nikon-z-24mm-f1-8-s-review/4/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/cameralabs/49054663961/in/album-72157711750961742/
Add to that the easily debunkable claim that there is a necessary causal relationship between the use of plastic (what makes you think that the 24mm 1.8 G is any different BTW ? ) or the manufacturing locality and build quality and we're only short of any mention of 3D something to have your best combo of cretinous assertions. I'm giving you 8/10, this is a good trolling effort from you.

"Looks just like a 24/1.8G" is a reference to THIS sample gallery not Gordon Liang's evaluation gallery done with a well-centered lens that Nikon cherry picked for him to review.

So to spell it out to you and rest of the Z peanut gallery again... in THIS gallery the 24/1.8G could have taken the same shots and none of us would have known any better. If it literally takes pixel-peeping images shot at a diagonal and at night to prove the 24/1.8S is better than the 24/1.8G, then the $1,000 that Nikon is asking for S version is unlikely to be worth it to most.

Can't figure out why the Z cameras aren't selling? It's because the improvements to image quality with the S lenses seem to be purely incremental.

"done with a well-centered lens that Nikon cherry picked for him to review". So it's proven you have difficulties to read. Let me quote just one single line from Cameralabs' review to make it easier for you : "My copy of the lens was less well centered than I would have accepted for a keeper". So much for cherry picking. This is a moot point anyway as we don't have any statistical data available in regards to sample variation with Nikon's two 24mm 1.8 lenses.
"If it literally takes pixel-peeping images shot at a diagonal and at night to prove the 24/1.8S is better than the 24/1.8G" The differences you see in Cameralabs' long distance bokeh test scene linked above (which you probably didn't look at) are caused by the same aberrations that are causing the differences in point light source reproduction off centre. There are several samples in this gallery that would be good candidates to show these differences in OOF areas.

Actually it outperforms the Otus at a fraction of the price.

Again, it outperforms the Otus only if one pixel peeps. Not good enough to warrant anyone changing to.

Read the blunt review of the Z cameras and lenses one year later that PetaPixel just rendered:

https://petapixel.com/2019/12/12/the-state-of-nikons-z-mount-one-year-later/

It’s harsh, but it’s the truth and not the fantasy that the Z aficionados keep trying propagate in these comments and on the forums.

It's not a review. But his opinion boils down to the Z not being "pro". Which is fair. "Pro" market is tiny and still mainly DSLR. Z has started with F4 zooms and F1.8 primes. All modestly priced given their exceptional. performance. F2.8 zooms and F 1.2 primes come next as does the"pro" bodies. The first being the 24-70 which is now the best 24-70 ever made in any mount.
Even this article states that while a 1.8 Z lens is not exciting, when you step back and look at the results, you say wow!
One needs to be more discriminating about what one reads on the internet. Much of it is paid messaging.

'It’s harsh, but it’s the truth...."

That's hilarious. That 'review' from Jaron was a joke.

Cheaper build? Not really. The 1.8g feels cheap vs the 1.4g. The 1.8z feels on par but lighter than the 1.4g. I had them all.

Prime, go back to your CCD colors and 3D Pop fantasyland. Nobody shooting Zs cares what you think.

What do you care? Honestly, why are you even here? It's not that Z shooters are unaware of the shortcomings, they just get sick of BS merchants who have never touched the stuff hovering and dropping bombs on links like this. So, why are you doing it? Do you think anyone here cares what you think about this stuff?

I think the 24 1.8 G is an excellent all-purpose lens so if the Z lens compares well with the G variant, that’s a good thing.

"Look through my comments and you see I call out BS wherever it hides".
Looking through your comments the only thing one can ever see is you manufacturing a sh*tload of it with entertaining persistence.
Nice grandiloquent claim imbued with ridiculous self-importance, I'm giving you 6/10 for that troll.

Yeah, maya, continue talking that nonsense. My comments are routinely voted into most popular because I tell it like it is. Only here on a Z dominated article do I not get the same number of upvotes. Why? You guys don’t accept alternative opinions when it comes to Z... let no one speak ill of it!

Oh poor thing... he's not getting the likes he thinks he deserves... Here, I've just given you one. Happy ?

Man, what a complex. Your garbage doesn’t sell here. Go back to taking silly snaps of your kids and wax on about colors nobody sees. Holy toolbox

LOL....I have come to expect average snapshots from you while you are celebrating your self proclaimed brilliance. Have you ever shot with a Z? Nope. Have you ever used this lens? Nope. Have you ever even handled a Z? Probably nope. Per usual, your opinion is worth what everybody here paid for it. Stick to your unicorns. At least they are entertaining to the terminally bored.

I work with two D750's and a couple of Sigma Art primes - almost all better than the Nikons at that time. On my Z6 + FTZ, the Sigma Art's focus is better and more reliable than on the D750. Gone is the 70% hit rate or calibration, it's more like 95% now. Couldn't be happier.

I currently don't own or need native Z lenses. But what I have seen - and I do look into it, obviously, is that all the S F1.8 primes en F4, F2.8 zooms show incredible image quality from corner to corner. I mean, the 50 F1.8S is sharper at F1.8 than my Sigma 50 F1.4 at F2. And that Sigma was considered a winner. Everytime an S lens gets tested and I look at the samples, I'm amazed. I'm just afraid it will get very boring when I have a bag full of S lenses, when I look back to the days I went into my bag and grabbed "my sharpest lens". When now, all of the primes are tack sharp.

But please, Nikon, improve the Z's AF (tracking) and don't ask $4000 for a new Z body that finally gets it and I can ditch the D750's.