Nikon Z 24mm F1.8 S sample gallery

Quick, everyone sell your F-glass for 40% of what you paid for it, and then buy all Z glass. Help save Nikon!

Dec 14, 2019permalink

Mike99999

Looks worse than Batis 25/2 and GM 24/1.4.

Dec 14, 2019permalink

NexLupus

Except it’s not.
Every review that has done a side by side against the 24 1.4 GM has shown this lens is far better.

Dec 15, 2019permalink

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

Of course both of you will be able to point to us any shred of evidence to support both of these claims... *sigh*.

Dec 16, 2019permalink

NexLupus

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

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

Dec 16, 2019permalink

*re-sigh*

Ephotozine's tests are conducted on two different cameras in that case, and presumably with the cameras' internal jpeg files (their methodology page is unclear on that most crucial detail but I quote : "All lens corrections in camera are switched off and the highest resolution possible chosen"). That's already enough to make any measurement incomparable between the two.
Ephotozine's CA test, provided its methodology is sound, only tells you something about lateral CA I believe.
Ephotozine's Imatest test, provided its methodology is sound, describes a lens' performance in a way that's totally useless for actual photographers. If you were to use Imatest as Ephotozine does it to describe the two lenses below, you'd get one single number for the FX corner while someone with a reasonably functioning pair of eyes would notice that things require quite a lot more nuance to be field relevant : https://3.img-dpreview.com/files/p/E~forums/63404983/e6d9bb1849d243c994c2526781f05fd5

Dec 16, 2019permalink

NexLupus

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 ;)

Dec 16, 2019permalink

You didn't supply : what I'm asserting is that Ephotozine's bar charts are no evidence whatsoever for what you claim (BTW you can't turn off lateral CA correction on the Zs's internal jpeg files anyway...) - but I'm not surprised as I don't think that you've ever bothered to read their methodology page or even start to understand what they're actually measuring (that said I'm not sure Ephotozine does as well)...
There are much better nuggets of evidence laying around the web to support your claims, at least to some degree (one of which I actually don't disagree with) but you'd be a lot more credible if you limited yourself to a more precise terminology than "CA !" (what type of CA are we talking about ?) or "sharp" or "not sharp boo" (cf my link above : depending on exactly what you're looking at one lens can be both "sharper" or "less sharp" than another one, something Ephotozine's bar charts will never, ever be able to convey).

Dec 16, 2019*permalink

Let's play a little game : which of the following is "sharper" than the other ? https://ibb.co/fDpscXw
Surely if one of these is "much" sharper than the other, it should be easy to pick them appart ?

Dec 16, 2019permalink

AKH

The people images are impressive and the Z50 is just an amazing camera.

Dec 13, 2019*permalink

Leswick II

I thought, oh finally an astro lens w/o the "wingets" on the edge. Then I look and there is not one shot included. I guess we get what we pay....

Dec 13, 2019permalink

Trubbtele

Wery nice!

Dec 13, 2019permalink

Trubbtele

Wery nice!

Dec 13, 2019permalink

Einride

Looks fantastic! I own several of the S lenses and I am extremely impressed with them.

Dec 13, 2019permalink

Chris Schmauch

I own all the Z lenses and full frame cameras. I use them on a daily basis, shooting professionally full-time. Guess what? The lenses look plain, but are durable and most importantly, excellent consistent performers. Already having two lenses at the 24 mm range, I was hesitant to pick this one up but I used to have the F mount 24/1.4 and used it a lot in low light situations. I’ve used it at five or six shoots since I received it a week or so ago and guess what? It’s great! These are all amazing tools that level up Nikon’s game in the quality department, not that it was lacking. I still have my D850 and 70-200 for the amazing 3D AF tracking, but more and more it stays in the bag.

Dec 12, 2019permalink

Sounds like a paid advertisement to me.

Dec 13, 2019permalink

Still see zero reason to switch to Z. If I ever go ML, it probably won't be with Nikon, anyway.

Dec 12, 2019permalink

dust99eye

Z will focus correctly even with wide angles. Last DSLR I had was D810 and I really liked the AF-S G 24mm/1.8. However, that combination was hopeless in focusing accuracy despite both camera and lens working ok in other combinations... You know, the usual DSLR stuff :-)

Well now I am in Sony camp with plenty of good 24mm options. I am also happy that to photographers loyal to Nikon now have a good 24mm Z mount option. This is a lens Nikon had to make!

Dec 12, 2019permalink

Schorschl

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

Dec 12, 2019permalink

Rocket09

Cool story.....

Dec 13, 2019permalink

fpessolano

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.

Dec 13, 2019permalink

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.

Dec 13, 2019permalink

Whatever you say Champ!

Dec 13, 2019permalink

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

Dec 14, 2019permalink

User3871298095

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

Dec 14, 2019permalink

stratman1976

Sounds like paid trolling to me....😃

Dec 14, 2019permalink

WaterDragon

Sounds like a w@anker to me.

Dec 14, 2019permalink

WaterDragon

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.

Dec 14, 2019permalink

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

Dec 14, 2019permalink

paradiddlesix66

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.

Dec 15, 2019*permalink

What you need is some common sense. If you want to buy redundant gear, be my guest. I understand there are a lot of low-IQ individuals out there. It's OK, Forrest.

Dec 15, 2019*permalink

Schorschl

It seems Mister Anders0n that you are the only f@nboy here...
Think about.

Dec 16, 2019permalink

Astrotripper

This just enforces my opinion that Nikon has the best and most logical lens lineup among the new FF mirroless options.

This one drives this point home. The decision to go for high quality f/1.8 primes was the right one.

This one really looks very impressive.

If I would ever entertain an idea of going FF, Nikon would be my top pick. Because of lenses like this one.

Dec 12, 2019permalink

onlyfreeman

The only thing they're missing is third party lens support in my opinion. They should make some kind of deal with the lens manufacturers, this could be beneficial for everyone.

Dec 13, 2019permalink

m_black

@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.

Dec 13, 2019permalink

Zakzoezie

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.

Dec 13, 2019permalink

onlyfreeman

I get it, but if they just worked with the third party lens manufacturers, what do they have to lose? It only increases popularity of the system, it brings in more customers and more money. Right?

Dec 13, 2019permalink

sirkhann

This lens is totally convincing and was able to put me in thougths about getting into the Z system! And the sample shots provided demonstrate goodedge-to-edge sharpness, plus some pleasing bokeh! CAs wide open were well caught, too!

Thank you, Barney Britton!

Still, I find Milvus 25/1.4 to be an interesting alternative - a bit more expensive, but also with greater light-gathering ability. Decisions, decisions...

Dec 12, 2019permalink

Entropius

No samples for what a lot of people will use it for: night landscape.

It's hella expensive but if it delivers extraordinarily low coma in the corners with low vignetting...

Dec 12, 2019permalink

Barney Britton

No clear skies when I had the lens, I'm afraid. The long exposure beach shot (in the gallery) is about as close as I could get but you can see it was still very cloudy.

Dec 12, 2019permalink

Fly18

@Barney Britton

So you only had it one day/night? Shouldn't creating a DPR gallery be like a work assignment? Not just best effort. I am guessing here, of course.

Dec 12, 2019permalink

Barney Britton

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

Dec 12, 2019permalink

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/

Dec 12, 2019permalink

Entropius

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.

Dec 12, 2019permalink

MrBrightSide

I've been in the wilderness quite a bit and unless the moon is out there's not much light. Or are you talking about those light-painted starscapes?

Dec 13, 2019*permalink

fpessolano

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

Dec 13, 2019*permalink

Lessiter

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

Dec 13, 2019permalink

Entropius

You've got to get dregs of light where you can find them; I don't usually do light painting. So either you need a *very* long exposure time for the land, or get some moonlight as you say. And so it's a balance between getting enough moonlight for the land without totally washing out the starlight.

You can do things like take ten 15s exposures from the same tripod position, stack them for the land image, and then choose only one for the sky. (Since the stars move you have to get fancy if you want more than 15s integration time for them.)

Dec 13, 2019permalink

BWfoto

These Z mount lenses are upping the bar on edge to edge performance. They are in a class of their own. I do however wish this was a small f 2.8 or even F 4 lens to keep size down. Then later they could make an F1.4 for those needing or desiring a fast wide.

Dec 12, 2019permalink

Photo_AK

28 and 40mm small lenses are on the roadmap, probably f/2.8 pancakes ...

Dec 13, 2019permalink

misspiggy01

it performs at f2 like my 24 ai-s at f8. not bad.

Dec 12, 2019permalink

Looks just like a 24/1.8G except that it apparently has a higher risk of being de-centered thanks to its cheaper build quality. What a great reason to upgrade to Z! /s

Dec 12, 2019permalink

One only needs to look at that :
https://www.flickr.com/photos/cameralabs/49054661136/in/album-72157711750961742/
vs
https://www.flickr.com/photos/38912116@N00/21497795668/in/album-72157658641657688/
Or that :
https://www.flickr.com/photos/cameralabs/49054665421/in/album-72157711750961742/
vs
https://www.flickr.com/photos/thomasrubach/21659693746/in/album-72157658641657688/
to quickly realise that, as usual, fPrime’s opinion is as well informed as your average Daily Mail reader.

Dec 12, 2019permalink

Rajeshb

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

Dec 12, 2019permalink

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

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:

Dec 12, 2019permalink

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.

Dec 12, 2019permalink

"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.

Dec 12, 2019*permalink

"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.

Dec 12, 2019*permalink

A Owens

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

Dec 12, 2019permalink

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

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:

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.

Dec 12, 2019permalink

A Owens

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.

Dec 12, 2019permalink

Rocket09

'It’s harsh, but it’s the truth...."

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

Dec 13, 2019permalink

fpessolano

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.

Dec 13, 2019permalink

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

Dec 13, 2019permalink

Mackie, yeah people who shoot Z seem to be very sensitive snowflakes. Any negative review or comment needs to shot down immediately lest it burst the Z fantasy bubble, haha.

Look it isn’t just me. The market has spoken... Z is in distant third place for mirrorless well behind Sony and Canon. What do you think is stopping people from buying them? Must be something.

Dec 13, 2019permalink

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?

Dec 13, 2019permalink

I’ll tell you why... because there’s a lot of Nikon hype and fan generated fake news about the supposed pros of Z. In reality the Z cameras are currently not significantly better than modern DSLR’s and in several ways worse (at least when it comes to Z vs DSLR, less so Sony/Canon). I’m playing the necessary role of the questioning the emperor’s new clothes.

It’s particularly important for this to be done here on an open forum as we all know that the Z forum itself is closed to any divergent thought and discussion. But don’t think I’m only calling BS on Nikon Z. Look through my comments and you see I call out BS wherever it hides... Sony, Canon, Panasonic, and Adobe have all been guilty on occasion as well.

Dec 13, 2019permalink

CAT Productions

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.

Dec 13, 2019permalink

"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.

Dec 13, 2019permalink

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!

Dec 13, 2019permalink

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

Dec 13, 2019permalink

Thanks. And here's an upvote for you for lifting my comment into "Most Popular" despite it only garnering 4 votes, haha!

Now please shift your fire to Mr. Anders0n. He's in the lead with his post about the Z lenses being ugly when we all know damn well that they are the prettiest lenses Nikon has ever made, LOL. /s

Dec 13, 2019*permalink

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

Dec 14, 2019permalink

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/63389127

Always a kind word from you, Mackie, you’re becoming such a nice fellow as you age. Oh, and I’ve extended to shooting vehicles as well now and probably do it with more 3D Pop than anything you’ve shot cars with, and certainly if you are shooting with a flat Z lens. :-D

Dec 14, 2019permalink

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.

Dec 15, 2019permalink

Caleido

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.

Dec 16, 2019*permalink

A Owens

Barney's "Gear of the Year part 2" article is worth a read for anyone still struggling to understand the Z system strengths.

Dec 16, 2019*permalink

SaltyPeanut

fPrime and Angry Anderson are Fx anger junkies that hate the fact that DSLRs have become yesterday's news.

Quoting the petapixel article lmao. No, the Z isn't perfect, but that article was written by an oxymoron:
"And though the weather sealing isn’t top of the line, it’s good enough and I have soaked them pretty good. I pretty much stood under a waterfall for 30 minutes and they’re fine."

Dec 19, 2019permalink

These lenses are terribly ugly compared to F-mount. Nikon should've kept the gold ring. Performance wise, I'm assuming this is a little sharper in the corners. Personally, I couldn't care less and wouldn't switch from F for this. My F-glass gets the job done just fine.

Dec 12, 2019permalink

LeitzKameraAktion

If Z lenses had the gold ring, maybe some users would complain they looked too much like F mount lenses, and were not clearly differentiated.

Dec 12, 2019permalink

drsus

Yeah, I pick my lenses on looks too.... :/

Dec 12, 2019permalink

ewelch

You want ugly? Look at some of the Chinese independent manufacturer lenses coming out that look like Eastern European lenses from the 60s.

This lens looks just fine. You wanna know which looks count? It's what's in the NEF file.

Dec 12, 2019*permalink

timberD

no photographer would be caught with an ugly lens ....

Dec 12, 2019permalink

Phil Flash

I reminded of Austin Powers "Goldmember" -- "I like goooooooold." I like the minimalist, basic design rather than the silly bling of gold or red rings.

Dec 12, 2019permalink

madecov

Less paint or additional plastic trim to wear off or break. Though I do wish there was a better way to differentiate the lenses. They are so similar in size and look.

Dec 12, 2019*permalink

They look cheap and cost a lot. What a winning combination.

Dec 12, 2019permalink

(unknown member)

Its indicative of the type of people frequenting this website that there is more interest in the look of a lens than photography.

Dec 12, 2019permalink

Performance comes first, of course, but they could at least try. If they're going to charge big bucks, it should at least look like a premium lens, not something from a Cracker Jack box.

Dec 12, 2019permalink

SheepStar

You're supposed to look through the camera, not at it.

Dec 12, 2019permalink

That doesn't really help, because then I see the ugly EVF.

Dec 12, 2019permalink

BWfoto

It is no Gisele Bündchen but like my wife it can give a mean.......... image

Dec 12, 2019*permalink

Serjojeee

To me they look fine and the metal focusing ring will never need replacement. All those fancy rings are for people with narcissistic disorder.

Dec 12, 2019permalink

Old Cameras

With a Bedazzler and some rhinestones you could pimp it and be the envy of all your friends.

Dec 12, 2019permalink

SheepStar

@Mister Pedanticson

What doesn't really help is being pedantic. I guess if you can't take a good looking photo, the next best thing is to have a good looking camera.

Dec 12, 2019permalink

m_black

Your opinion is your opinion. I thought they looked bland at the beginning too. But the more you use them the more you appreciate their understated looks. Then when you go back to the F mount lenses with their alphabet soup of a lens name printed across the top and the gold ring, they start to look gaudi. Especially with an adapter on the equally understated Z camera. The Z lenses look great. In my opinion.

Dec 12, 2019permalink

(unknown member)

@mgblack me too, they look sleek

Dec 12, 2019permalink