The Nikon Z 14-24mm F2.8 S is an update to a Nikon classic, but one that's smaller, lighter and better than its F-mount predecessor. Learn about its design, performance and how it handles the bamboo wall of doom in this episode of DPReview TV.
I think one point that Fred was trying to make is that this $2400 lens has paid for itself with his work, where he has used it to shoot 350 properties.
Seen like that, the price is a good business investment.
@Thoughts R Us: Absolutely! But he mentioned "camera buying public," not working professionals, which is a different ballgame. I can't be the only one around here who has to keep his hobbies (however passionate) on a budget.
When I was young I used to subscribe to car magazines, but when half the articles became dedicated to expensive supercars I let those subscriptions lapse. That seems to be a trend on this site as well; perhaps people like me aren't worth marketing to!
Gary. I bought my 14-24 used for $1500 in 2010. I’m not immune to price. It was clear to me that was the lens I needed to get for my work By camera buying public I mean the whole spectrum. If I buy into the full frame Z system I’ll likely opt for the 14-30. After all I rarely shoot properties at f/2.8. My remarks are more along the line of “satisfaction” with the overall quality of the Z lens lineup and how it has developed. Frankly it’s looking like Nikon is the value leader in terms of price/performance. Also least you think I’m a lens snob - I bought a Z50 specifically to have a lighter weight rig to mount up on a pole (incredibly useful for my work). For it I got the 10-20 Dx and an FTZ. Decidedly “consumer” you might say - except not. Fabulous lens and 20 mpx sensor. It’s my go-to exteriors rig now.
It's also important to note that meanwhile three third parties are offering a filter set for the lens (Lee, NiSi and Coken). NiSi being compatible with 100mm filter plates. I would be interested in how those perform at the widest angle.
It's undoubtedly a great lens as is it's predecessor. It will be interesting to see how the trinity of lenses will hold against future Sigma and Tamron lenses.
Yes, the predecessor for F mount was a classic, really groundbreaking at the time, and set the standard for years to come. It still is a great lens.
It was announced with the D3, along with the 24-70 f2.8, and along with the D300. Now that was an amazing day, one that really shook up, in a good way, the entire world of photography gear.
I am really surprised that this new Z mount 14-24 is so lightweight. Really a great achievement by Nikon.
I still use the previous F 'holy' trinity on two D850's for press work. The 14-24mm is the only lens I still own since purchasing it with the D3 the other 2 are replaced. By means of construction it's well build. The ghosting can be horror when pointing it at certain angles in the direction of a light source for the rest an excellent lens. Will never toss it in or sell it. Will use it with an adapter in the future.
I guess it's already possible to use the Sigma and Tamron lenses, with the Techart adapter from E mount to Z mount. Some people could compare the 14-24mm Sigma vs Nikon, it would be interesting to see.
I enjoyed this review, though I already own this lens. I’d add that the lens cap that takes the 112mm filters can also be used on the z24-70 f2.8 S and the z 70-200 f2.8 S, ie the trinity. I use the Kase 112m magnetics, which are high quality, and being magnetic, incredibly easy to mount and remove.
This lens almost makes me regret returning, unopened the 7Z I purchased a few years ago. After many a sleepless night I decided to foray into the C-frame system and bought the Fuji TX-4. But still, this lens is quite lovely.
I debated for a long, long time whether to get the 14-30mm instead of the 14-24mm. Eventually I went with the 14-24mm because I wanted the ultimate in image quality. The 14-24mm certainly has not let me down. An ultra-wide f/2.8 zoom that is sharp corner to corner, weighs only about 600g and can take filters (all be it very large ones) is an incredible achievement.
Great lens all around, and lightweight as well. I was a bit surprised by their sun star test. Sunstars are actually quite ok at 14 mm. Not sure why all the sunstar samples in their video were at 24 mm.
Probably because sunstars at UWA tend to get lost in the wide FOV. Alright if you are pixel peeping your shot, but at full size their effect can be diminished.
I have the EF 16-35/4 which makes for beautiful sunstars, but I've noticed that at 16mm they can be quite small in the frame, unless I go looking for them. Perhaps pixel peeping was the wrong term. May I ask what you mean by my 'forum activity'?
Fair enough, thanks, but I like to keep up with gear, that's what DPR is for. As a landscape photographer I think Nikon do a great job and I would probably own a Z7 if it weren't so expensive to swap systems.
For beautiful sunstar, you just cannot beat Voigtlander and Loxia lenses. They don't even need to stop down much in reality. I shoot at F11 is not for sunstar but for DOF and best sharpness.
Chris & Jordan, I've noticed that when you review sunstars, you always seem to be looking for that totally regular shape with very thin and well-defined points. Have you considered that this might not be what everyone else is looking for?
Sunstars are after all an optical artifact, and while people do of course use them for effect I think there's plenty of room for more than just those ultra-clean, ultra-pointy ones. To me those types of sunstars look very artificial, which may work great in e.g. an urban landscape but isn't what I usually want in a natural landscape. When my subject matter is more organic and uncontrolled, I want sunstars that are a little messier and don't call so much attention to themselves.
Either way it seems like a subjective aesthetic question and not one where there is a single obvious best version. Heck, fashions in photography do shift over time and in ten years we may think of "perfect" sunstars as being played-out and tacky, with everyone wanting that more "organic, vintage" look in their photos.
I guess what I'm getting at is that I'd suggest you maybe consider presenting lenses' sunstar behavior in a more neutral way, where you show and describe what they look like but don't necessarily prioritize regular, well-defined points so strongly. Great work though as always—I've subscribed to your channel, watch pretty much all of your videos, and always find them enjoyable even when you're talking about equipment I have no intention of ever buying!
Sunstars usually require deliberate shooting techniques, so should be relatively easy to dial down the effect if you want, but really difficult to get it nice and sharp if the lens won't allow for that.
Halftrack: sun stars are already considered played-out and tacky some people just havent figured it out yet. They will soon be embarrassed over their tacky sun star phase.
Great review thanks! I'm really missing the focus window on Canon RF lenses meaning you can't manually pre-focus for difficult scenes - nighttime, mist etc. Seems like an oversight, although I suspect it was to put a few more dollars in Canon's pocket. Good work Nikon.
Looks great. I appreciate you guys covering more lenses recently.
I owned and adored the OG 14-24 for a decade and ultimately replaced it with the 20/1.8 because the bulk, weight and filter options. I'm happy to see they went quite a ways to improve the situation, however, I still see filters as problematic on this lens.
I think Nikon arguably has the 'best' mirrorless trinity but there are caveats.
Canon seduced me away with the 15-35 (and compact 70-200) on the r5. While it is not as wide as the Nikon, it is plenty wide for me and hits my b&b range of 28-35. This means it can be my general purpose photo and video lens. The 15-35 could be my 90% (of the time) lens where the 14-24, at best could be my 25% lens. I opted for the 50/1.2 and 70-200/2.8 to cover the rest in the most efficient and tight system I could find across all of mirrorless.
Something to consider when sizing up quality of life owning this brilliant lens. I'm sure this lens is ideal for many.
yeah, man. same. I shot Nikon for almost all of my adult life (20ish years) prior to getting an R5 three months ago. It is my first Canon camera (ok, I have a Canonet QL17). Still interested to see what happens next. Nikon isn't new to lagging and then coming on strong late in the game.
I still have some F-Mount G/E lenses waiting for a body and an FM3a to shoot my AIS and D lenses.
@aut0maticdan the EF 16-35 2.8 III lens is as good as the RF 15-35 optically and is lighter to carry around. And, it can be adapted on a Nikon Z camera via a very reliable adapter. If this is the only lens that you look for, I hope it will be a good solution to you.
On the other hand, the R5 is a great photography camera.
Looks like a nice all rounded lens, the sunstars are kinda meh but you kinda would expect that for a UW zoom, just as the falloff is not great or the bokeh . Good to see a nice offering from Nikon, but really should focus more on the longer end as that is what is truly missing.
Its a better lens than you imply. I'll quote you "This brand fetishisation is getting tiresome quickly.". It looks like a great lens and Nikon owners should be excited. Just because it doesn't have a different brand name on it is no reason to down play it. I am not a Nikon shooter, but they are lucky to have this option.
And if Nikon didn’t have this best in class 14-24mm but the best 100-400 instead sure enough there would be comments about tele lenses being not as important as a great UW zoom lens. :-)
The 100-400 and 200-600 are coming.
A unique 400mm f2.8 with built-in TC is coming.
I wonder what the web will be complaining about once these ship.
Dave Andrews where did I downplay it exactly? I just pointed out some rather obvious things. As I said underwhelming sunstars, falloff and bokeh is what you would expect for a UW zoom, so It apply for all, did I write brand x where better or call it a poor lens… No.
With modern day High resolution sensors tele converters are no longer relevant, the IQ is typically much better just cropping then using the teleconverter.
It’s a rather free lunch calling it the best 14-24…
But funny how the same users flocking competitors products releases suddenly is on the fence when other comments on their own brands.
@Malling wrote "With modern day High resolution sensors tele converters are no longer relevant, the IQ is typically much better just cropping then using the teleconverter."
Why is this so? I know and have read of many using high res cameras like the R5 and A1, with the long super tele lenses...who, guess what, also use teleconverters! Sometimes you appreciate having both a TC and high res with cropping.
There is a couple I know who shoot with an R5, and they regularly use the 400/2.8 with TC, and love it.
There's a very experienced birder I read on another forum who regularly uses an A1 with the 600/4 and a TC.
Also, the calculus works both ways. With modern sensors being so good, the loss of a stop of light with a 1.4X TC, or even 2 stops with a 2X TC, doesn't matter as much.
Trust me, high res sensors in high speed AF cameras are not going to make TCs go away.
But again, you are trying to downplay a (rumored) product of a brand other than Sony.
Before that it was a couple of Sony guys with A9s and before that a couple of Canon pros. It's almost like you know a photographer with the gear to support any point you want to make.
I am not suggesting that you don't know these people - just that curious as to how you come to know so many photographers who all have the latest gear. I only know two photographers and I work in the creative industry. What industry do you work in?
I’m not downplaying a product, I’m saying it’s not really a selling point worth very much. AF suffer when using teleconverters and your succesrate drops and sometimes noticeable meaning you can miss focus where you would otherwise would have succeed. That’s why cropping is often better as your hit rate is typically higher, and an in focus image will always beat one that misfired even when cropping, on top teleconverters degrade IQ. Teleconverters are from a time where high resolution where not available and it where the only solution to get additional reach, with modern sensors you can crop the heck out of it and get the shot. Lens makers makes them mostly for selling point, can charge more or to sell you an expensive extra piece. But reality is that it’s not really that much needed anymore.
Drop in filters on the other hand, that is a selling point, something I wish Sony would do!
So in other words I’m right that it influences succes rate and thereby looses much of its appeal, again I ask what use is an image that is out of focus. What you complete ignore is that teleconverters inherently reduce IQ just like cropping and make AF noticeable slower and less responsive, and although an equal lens is also slower it doesn’t have the mentioned problem of IQ drop, that is why it exists because it’s noticeable better then a lens with a teleconverter. If teleconverters where a magical thing that could replace longer lenses, longer lenses would not exist, teleconverters are a compromise for those who cannot afford two lenses or find it to inconvenient. These reduces IQ as it has been the case on all teleconverters I ever seen even lens specific suffered noticeable from it.
An in lens TC will never be a significant advantage in a world with high resolution cameras. It’s actually quite irrelevant, but as you seem to not get that I guess you actually never used a high resolution sensor, the reason why most sports still use it, is because their camera tops out at 18-24mp, you cannot crop that very much so you need TC if you don’t have two lenses. When high resolution sensors will be the norm it will be the end of unreliable teleconverters, besides in lens teleconverters is hardly something new, Canon have made lenses with that for many years.
Nikon has no lead in anything, they haven’t had that for years, they make good glass but that’s about it, Nikon where never famous for their bodies, except for some few odd strikes here and there they have otherwise been the chasing party for most part in the modern age. They are several years behind on bodies currently. People have always bought Nikon for their glass this was also why I used to shoot with it before technology changed photography for good, with modern day AF system things have changed and it’s no coincidence it’s Nikon who is in problems as bodies where never truer their strong side.
"An in lens TC will never be a significant advantage in a world with high resolution cameras" A TC acts similarly to extension tubes. They allow a camera to focus closer to subject and make telephoto lenses act like Marco or close up lenses. They are superb for telephoto lenses with longer MFTs (minimum focus distances).
So the above quote is obviously incorrect, since high resolution cameras are popular for close up work and TCs allow them to get even closer (and without disturbing tiny skittish subjects)
I guess that my IQ4-150 isn’t high resolution enough…
High resolution certainly helps with cropping and the a1 and Z9 certainly offer many more options than the R3.
But I would still pick any day a 400mm f2.8 with built-in TC over one without. I did own a 400mm f2.8 for several years and the reality of photography is that it isn’t just blind data collection. Composition results from vision and few if any photographers have the ability to compose with cropping in mind. So a lens with buit-in TC will simply create many more creative options.
I know that your Sony centric mindset will never enable to admit to that. That’s fine.
As far as Nikon having been behind for many years, this is just completely false. They have had the best Dslrs since 2008 and it’s only a few months since mirroless can arguably be considered better than a D850.
So many misconceptions. i) TCs do not allow you to "focus closer to a subject". They maintain the lens' minimum focus distance. The reproduction ratio increases due to the increase in focal length, not due to closer focus. ii) Those who think that they can stand further away and just crop instead of using a TC apparently don't need/like shallow DoF. The main issue, to me, with heavy crops is not the resolution loss, but the fact that DoF will be quite large (lower initial reproduction ratio due to large distance to subject and inadequate focal length), something that's obvious even in small output formats and without pixel peeping.
Will someone explain the joke to me? This is the first time I have watched one of these videos and the first time I've hear of "Noct" measurement in this context.
NOCT (nominal operating cell temperature) is actually a real thing in solar energy production.
This is one more data point confirming what those looking at facts objectively already knew. Nikon is simply the best lens maker on the planet at the moment.
Add a Z7II and you have today the best 35mm landscape kit money can buy. And it’s also the cheapest and lightest.
Add a Z9 and you’ll soon also have the best action cam money can buy.
Nikon are good at making lenses as they have been so for many years, but the best that is Just an incorrect statement and can actually not be backed. Sony make just as good lenses and it should actually not even be a debate every one proclaiming otherwise is biased and cannot be taken seriously, even Voigtländer or Sigma zooms have proven to be on the same level.
This brand fetishisation is getting tiresome quickly. Appreciate what ever you shoot with make good lenses, this is not a sports team but just equipment it just need to get the job done, you won’t notice if one is a hair bit sharper, because that is actually what we are talking about in most cases.
Nikon hasn’t proved anything yet regarding AF-C, but some fans just is so biased that they have a blind fate in what ever their brans launch will be the best (not that really matters) lastly dos it really matter if the Z9 is good or bad it won’t make the other Z mount offerings any better or worse.
Sony makes good lenses and a few great ones, yes. The new 50mm f1.2 is great.
I have first hand experience with them.
But there isn’t a single Sony FE mount lens I can tthink of I’d rather have over it’s Nikon equivalent. Even the great 50mm f1.2.
Measurements do confirm this experience.
So I don’t see how Sony could be considered reasonably as being at the same level.
It’s still totally usable for any application and the gap isn’t huge. But claiming that they are all the same just doesn’t match reality.
As far as AF-C goes, it’s already a match for eye AF, why would the Z9 not be better overall when the super conservative Nikon themselves claims the Z9 is better than the already best in class D6? But ok, fair and agreed, we’ll have to test to confirm.
Nikon has done very well so far with their S line glass and I would say they currently have the best mirrorless f2.8 zoom trinity. However on the Sony side we have the 14mm f1.8 GM 24mm f1.4 GM 35mm f1.4 GM 100mm f1.4 STF GM 135mm f1.8 GM which have no Z equivalents at the moment. As for the 14-24mm f2.8 S the extra 2mm on the 12-24 GM is worth the extra cost because 14mm is not a substitute for 12mm.
@malling: one says Nikon has the best landscape kit and you answer no, they're only making good lenses and there's no reason why the AF-C of a yet to be released camera can keep up with the competition.
I believe a good way to respond to brand fetish is not to say brand x is still better. The intention was probably the right one, yes it doesn't really matter if one brand produces images a hair sharper than the other, but my first read of your comment was really "no, Sony still wins".
Nikon, Canon and Sony all have excellent lens systems for mirrorless.
But I am surprised that Sony hasn't yet updated their 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8 lenses. I am sure when they do they will be great lenses, but for now they lag the other two brands in these important lenses.
It’s not just the 50, it’s also the 14,20,24,35,135,400,600, 12-24, 100-400, 200-600 all of these you won’t find a better lens in any competitors system. There is heavily rumours of a new 85, 100, 24-70 & 70-200 v. Ii when these come out probably this year or early next, I’ll certain they continue this trend, I don’t see any rational reason not.
In other words you find among the best in every single focal range this is actually backed up by data. So yes Sony is on level with Nikon, as every single of their latest gen. lenses Shows… you don’t judge a manufacturer of what they made +-5 years ago as that is most of their other lenses are, but what they make now. And it’s not like their lenses where bad back then, they where also top lenses back then, but technology moves on.
I don’t see it takes anything away from Nikon that another brand is just as good, Nikon misses long telephoto and manual mechanical coupled lenses for landscape.
Sometimes you actually use people or animals in landscape to show the scale etc. for that you need a good and reliable AF…
Criticising Nikon for a poorer AF-C is not brand bias it’s a simple fact Nikon doesn’t perform on their competitors level. Canon make excellent AF-C so see no bias here.
@malling: Saying that Nikon probably won't have the best AF-C is fine (by me at least).If you're implying that Nikon cameras can't even shoot landscape because they don't have top of the class AF-C then it's even more ridiculous than what you were criticizing. Besides, for moving animals AF-S is working fine on most cameras. If it moves too fast for AF-S then it can hardly be called landscape photography...
I don't know what's your experience with those cameras but having tested the Z6 and A7 III with my 3 years old son, the difference in misfocusses was not significant enough for me think that Nikon's AF is under par and couldn't shoot landscape in a reliable way.
Yes my mistake 100mm f2.8 STF GM Still my point stands that while Nikon has made some excellent lenses so far and some of them are truly class leading, so have Sony.
Both companies still have plenty of fantastic glass still to come I’m sure.
I did not write that, I wrote that AF is also needed in landscape when you include wildlife and people in it. But the AF-C on Nikon isn’t particularly great, where I Live the Z7ii is priced almost identical to the Sony A7R IV but performance wise it ain’t better then the substantially cheaper A7RIII. The IV has better DR, more resolution, better AF and cost many places the same or very slightly more. This is not meant as criticising Nikon or demising it’s performance, it’s still a good camera it’s just priced to high for what it is, it should really cost no more then the A7Riii as it performance vice is more performing like it then the newer version, even then I find the Sony AF better. .
This site and Jim Kasson (who posts in the Sony forum) both agreed the best ~50mm lens for $ today is the Nikon 50/1.8. Better than the Sony 55mm 1.8 which is twice the price.
Sorry, Malling but the Nikon Z7II is better than the a7RIII and a7RIV. At least equal in performance, perhaps better in some categories, but better ergonomics and weather sealing. No contest in those categories.
And yes, you did state the poor example of shooting landscapes with wildlife and people moving in it. As larkhorn noted, the ZII is more than good enough for that, and if the objects are moving that rapidly then it's not landscape shooting. I don't know a single landscape shooter that shoots landscapes with fast moving animals/humans in it, if the purpose is to show the landscape. That one hypothetical of yours reveals your intent and destroys your credibility.
@TheBestCameraIsTheOneYouActuallyShoot The Sigma Art 105mm f1.4 is sharper and has even better bokeh than the Nikon and is available on emount natively, plus its cheaper.
The Nikon may have a wider aperture and render a nicer image to you but it the sharpness, AF performance and extra versatility of the 135mm GM makes it the better lens for me.
The 135 f1.8 is a fantastic lens...tack sharp. But to me, and let me stress it is only my opinion, is that the 135 focal length is overall not as useful as some others. For portraits an 85 or even 105 makes more sense, and for telephoto a 200 would be a better focal length.
To me it would have made more sense for Sony to upgrade their 70-200 f2.8 lens and bring it to the same standard as their recent GM lenses. That would have been a far more useful lens for most.
@SNJops definitely some interesting focal length offerings by Sony there. Lets see what the future holds for Nikon. They are still just building up their lens offering and it is already impressive what they have achieved in such little time. I am more excited for a <= 19mm PC-E lens (tilt-shift) though.
@TRU Really, no contest?… the ergonomic between them is subjective, I personally do not agree at all, I find them very similar and regarding the weather sealing Im really interested where you got this “fact”.
I’m looking forward to your source that say its no contest… i have been missing an objective test of weather sealing that include the 7R4. I assume you know of one…
In What field dos the Nikon Z7ii equal or beat the A7Riv I would really like to know… The IV has more details, higher DR across the range, it’s AF-C is better it can do pixel shift. It beats the Nikon on pretty much all relevant aspects when it comes to IQ. Some Nikon shooters I know off at least have the decency to acknowledge that. The Z7ii is just an Z7 with an additional processor and card slot, else it’s mostly just firmware updates. It’s mostly equal the A7R III, the III performance is vertical identical the DR performance meaning slightly better then the Z7ii, resolution on the A7RIII and 7Zii is so close you would basically not be able to tell them apart.
I like it has an additional processor, faster card and it’s ability to do focus bracketing but besides that, not really something the Nikon dos better, it’s overall fundamentally equal the Sony A7RIII where one leapfrog the other in one area and the other in another, But the Sony is only 2/3 the price.
I agree with photography-lover. I tried out the a7R4 and it to me it is one big disappointment. It's a spec sheet only, the camera equivalent of an empty suit. The EVF doesn't look as nice as the specs would indicate and in fact the Nikon looks better with less resolution. The AF isn't even all that, esp with long lenses, and it seems a bit sluggish in operation. It's not a great camera at all. It's a good one, very competent, but vastly overrated.
The Nikon Z7II solves the problems of the first Z7, in that the second processor makes the AF fast and responsive. Hands down it's the better choice over the a7R4. It certainly would be for most users the camera they enjoy more, operate more efficiently, and use more.
Yes I used them, I where not very impressed by the Nikon especially on the AF part, sure it’s better then Canon R or the first couple of Sony gen. But I honestly cannot see it should be anything special, the IQ wasn’t any better in fact it constantly ranked lower then the Iv and the handling part where mostly just different. I honestly think you guys hate Sony so much that no matter what they do you will find a way to say it’s bad, especially you TRU you proven that on more then one occasion.
Unlike you I don’t mind the other brands, I can shoot with all, it’s a tool, I just don’t see much point paying over price for it just because it has a Nikon or Canon sticker on it.
Malling, I am not sure why, but most of what you said is the opposite of what I read on review sites and hear from users. And I do not understand why an article about how good a Nikon lens is an attack on another brand or why you keep bring up other brands. The topic is how great this new Nikon lens is, and it appears to be a great lens. It would be a great lens on any system. And I do not shoot Nikon.
Malling, I've been very complimentary of the Sony A1 and their stacked sensor tech, and many of their more recent lenses. I've worked hard to re-evaluate my opinion of Sony, which was initially formed by the incessant trolling of Sony fans in threads discussing non-Sony equipment.
But I still don't like it when someone goes to a discussion of non-Sony gear and just drops in to try to paint Sony as somehow better. And in many cases the Sony is not better, esp in real world use.
A lot of Sony fans are trained to argue only on specs, and even then cherry picking only the specs that make Sony look good, and ignoring real world factors, like usability, ergonomics, and even whether any tiny spec advantage they cite makes any real difference.
I see very few Sony fans arguing that they really love using their cameras. It makes one wonder.
Because those are the only objective parameters to discuss, most other things that you like to discuss are subjective and depends on preferences. Some Like the DSLR like seize of the R5, other like you like the grip design and placement of buttons and dials of Nikon and guess some like what Sony do, there is simply put nothing to agree on. It’s allot easier to discuss objective things like IQ aspects, software and AF as that can easily be tested both out of the field as well as in labs. Like most other subjective things you cannot test ergonomics in any reliable and meaningful way.
The Sony A7RIII is well regarded as one of the best full frame sensors ever made, it’s backed by allot of objective data.
I like Nikon glass and I praised their lens many times, but Nikons problem is the AF system and their slow lens release, they need to sort those things out, I’m not being overly harsh demanding things others are capable of delivering.
@Malling: Just because factors like usability, ergonomics, etc, are subjective doesn't mean those factors do not exist or do not matter. It's foolish to concern oneself with only "objective' specs on paper, when they don't tell the whole story.
Sure once you get into more subjective material, you get into differences of opinion. But so what? That's part of being human. And it's part of life to evaluate products subjectively.
Subjective judgements should not be eliminated, precisely because they are more difficult to quantitize and reduce to a spec. We should vet those factors as well and not run from them.
And it is also true that with even with subjective factors, there are consensuses that emerge. There are some ergonomic factors that are better than others, as evidenced by a degree of consensus.
It's like with movies. It's all subjective, but there are some really bad movies that most can agree are bad, and there are some masterpieces that most agree are great.
BTW, I appreciate the most those reviews/commentary on products that do take into account the subjective. I don't need someone to read a spec sheet to me and compare it with others.
I value those who share and explain their judgement, regardless of whether I agree or not.
Look at all of the reviews where subjective judgement enters: cars, movies, music, theatre, architecture, art, clothing, etc. We can't run from the human factors.
If more people held Sony accountable for these human factors instead of just gushing over spec sheets, perhaps they would design more usable equipment.
"I've worked hard to re-evaluate my opinion of Sony, which was initially formed by the incessant trolling of Sony fans in threads discussing non-Sony equipment."
This quote sums you up but not in the way you intend. It is a lie followed by a smear. Your M.O.
The truth is you have never changed your presentation, which has always been to spread doubt about Sony's technical prowess, product quality and commitment to the industry. You do this entirely off your own bat and did not start doing it in response to Sony trolling - you are yourself the site's trolling epicentre, as evinced by your comments above where you suggest that the industry leading manufacturer somehow doesn't make 'useable equipment'.
But yes I expect the Nikon to outsell this GM lens. The Nikon is 500$ cheaper and the Sony is only really bought by people who are willing to spend huge Money (1600$) more for the extra 2mm over the Sigma 14-24 F2.8 DG DN and at the same time don't want the F4 aperture of the 12-24 F4 Sony G. Quite a small market
On the Nikon the 14-24 F2.8 is simply your goto lens if you need a premium Quality ultrawide
I have news for you: those numbers on Owners/Wanted by...are just self reported. They in no way correlate with reality. We know that because even with unreleased gear we see some reporting themselves as owners.
Regardless of which brand you fancy, those numbers are meaningless.
I have news for you too.........Life is meaningless in a true sense with the passing of time? Believe in what you will; reality an illusion? Taking things so seriously; or too literally?
I have news for you: if you want to do humor on the internet, where we can't hear your voice or see your expression, then make it obvious. At least add a smiley face.
BTW life is what you make it; it can have plenty of meaning if you decide it will. But you have to make that choice; it's not just handed to you.
Success in life determined by chance like being born into a wealthy family; preferably aristocratic. Humour never travels well as Bernard Shaw remarked Americans and English people divided by a common language. Smiling in some cultures seen as weakness.
Nikon has hit it out of the ball park with almost every Z lens. They are not always the fastest or tiniest, but just great lenses. I ma reminded of one of their first, the 50mm F/1.8 which is these best 50/1.8 around, better than any similar lenses under $1200, and competes well with some costing more.
They already have a great system because it was made to work with 60 or 70 Nikon F lenses. These new Z lenses make it even better.
"I ma reminded of one of their first, the 50mm F/1.8 which is these best 50/1.8 around, better than any similar lenses under $1200"
There are no similar lenses - it's also the only 50/1.8 lens ever made with 12 elements and LD glass, which is why it's so good. The usual construction for a 50/1.8 is 6-7 elements with no special colour dispersion glass.
That they were able to achieve this level of performance and aperture in a lens that weighs less than the older F-Mount 16-35 F/4 is quite an accomplishment
UWA lenses like this are where the reduced flange focal distance of mirrorless is a HUGE benefit, as it greatly reduces the necessity of a retrofocus arrangement
@mbike999 Well what did you expect? UWA size and weight savings, as well as performance have been an argument for mirrorless for a Long time. -Nikon 14-30 F4 485g -Sony 12-24 F4 565g -Nikon 14-24 F2.8 650g -Sony 16-35 F2.8 680g -Sigma 14-24 F2.8 795g -Sony 12-24 F2.8 847g None of these lenses would have been possible like this on DSLR Mounts
@Samuel Lucifer Most, most lenses have been impressive. Their Trinity is outstanding, many of their F1.8 primes are good. But some lenses just didn't hit right. Some are larger than they should be at that performance Level (20mm, 35mm, etc...) The 24-200 is weirdly uncompetitive against the Canon and Tamron equivalents and the 50mm F1.2 went kinda meh
But that's true for all Lineups. Canon has some really weirdly poor lenses in the RF Lineup and Sony has many lenses that are outdated and underperforming. Would be great if you could use all manufacturer lenses on one single mount without problems
"great if you could use all manufacturer lenses on one single mount without problems" Of course, there's that qualifier, without problems. It's evident though that the Nikon Z mount is the most adaptable mount currently in existence due to having the shortest flange distance though by just a hair in some instances. Adapters like Techart have been pretty impressive. And Nikon Z also seems to have the shortest sensor stack glass which s/d theoretically help some lenses in working optically properly.
I'm happy with keeping my Sony glass on Sony, and my Nikon glass on Nikon. There's my Zeiss Batis and Loxia glass though that I would love to adapt to Nikon.
One point people forget. Nikon does a better job stabilizing their lenses. For static scenes and night shots (museums, etc.) this is a big help. It makes all lenses better.
@RubberDials - I said greatly reduces the need for retrofocus. I didn't say that it eliminates the need for retrofocus
A 12mm focal length lens is going to need some amount of retrofocus on anything but maybe a smartphone sensor, but far less aggressive retrofocus setup is needed if you don't need to clear 30-40mm of mirrorbox.
@panther fan: "The 24-200 is weirdly uncompetitive against the Canon and Tamron equivalents"
huh? I tested the Canon and it's not as good as the Nikon while being a lot heavier and costing more or less the same. The Tamron is only slightly better, according to reviews (haven't tried that one out yet), but starts at 28mm which is a showstopper for me (at least). But then again it's cheaper.
Please share your own findings if you tested the lenses. I spent quite the time searching for a potential upgrade to my Oly 12-100mm f4, so I hope I know what I'm talking about ;)
Well, a lens is either retrofocus or it isn't. Perhaps you were thinking more of a symmetrical design which is possible when there is a short registration. This lens isn't all that symmetrical though and in fact has two more elements than the F-mount version despite having one fewer element in the retrofocus group.
"The 24-200 is weirdly uncompetitive against the Canon and Tamron equivalents"
Weight is very important in this kind of travel lens. Nikon 24-200 (570g) is lighter than the Canon 24-240 lens (750g). Also, Canon lens requires software correction to fully cover the image circle at 24mm.
While Tamron has a larger aperture and optical advantage in the corner sharpenss, neither it doesn't have 24mm nor the image stabilization. These two are critical drawbacks of Tamron. Also, Sony's IBIS is not as good as Nikon's IBIS + VR. If I want to shoot at longer shutter speeds with hands, Nikon wins.
A much more aggressive retrofocus arrangement is needed for a 12mm lens that needs to clear a 40mm mirrorbox than one that needs to clear 15-20mm or less.
They're both retrofocus but there's a massive difference in how aggressive the arrangement has to be
I don't usually disagree with what you say but I can't let you off on this one. I am not wrong, a retrofocus lens is any lens where the back focus distance is longer than the FL. The degree of back focus is irrelevant to the definition.
You can see by looking at the lens block diagrams I linked that there's almost no difference to the front negative group of the new lens over the DSLR one. Not that your term 'aggressive arrangement' is quantifiable in any optical sense.
Many people seem to think that the absence of a mirror box has been significant - good number of them liked your comment :) - but the reality is that more mirrorless lenses are retrofocus not fewer and lenses are getting longer and more asymmetrical for reasons of telecentricity.
That is an excellent trio and the upcoming Z9 seems to pack quite a punch too. There's never not a good time to be able to afford the best of the best, but those who can spend $10k+ on a kit have gotten some really fantastic options recently. There's really not much more I could wish for except for the price to come down.
Sorry, but have to ask, what video did you just watch? The video concluded that the Z 14-24 and the Z trio of 2.8s are class leading, even edging out Canon's offerings.
Right… you must find the alternatives from Sony and Canon totally unusable then because they are clearly worse.
But yes, my Rodenstock 23mm HR with it’s dedicated center filter and a carefully captured LCC is better on the Arcaswiss Rm3di with the IQ4-150. What else comes close?
I'm curious whether there are any sunstar filters that are high optical quality and produce good sunstars. . . That would be an alternative for people who want the capability but who don't have access to a lens that gets the job done well.
So true. The Canon RF 28-70 f2 apparently has better sunstar even though it is not a wide-angle lens. I do wish Nikon can once again create a lens with such a great sunstar like their F mount 20 1.8G lens.
sunstars are an important criteria in UWA (zooms) for me especially and probably for alot of other photographers. In fact many UWA-Zooms struggle in this regard, but a $2500 lens that seems as bad as the nikon here really is a disappointment.
I'm not married to my system and actually consider the Z5 to be the best budget option (if only there was 3rd party lens support). Anyway i think its a dealbreaker to have undefined, mushy sunstars in the top of the line UWA-zoom lens. Actually what is said in the video from min 3:00 doesnt sound great too, did that get you triggered also? There might be scnearios where the sunstars are better than in the gallery, but from what i've seen so far the lens seems to disappoint in regard to sunstars.
Sunstars are better taken at f16 and above. But we are judging the photo with F11. You could check my gallery or other photos in insta at #nikonz1424mm
i did check on more images and while the sunstars werent as bad as in the dpr gallery still it seems good sunstars sadly wasnt a no1 design criteria of this lens for nikon. So as said in the video, sunstars arent as good as the competition, if this is important to you better look for another system.
Nikon Z has impressed me more since owning it that any other camera I have used. Small portable and very sharp zoom lenses with first rate high res bodies.
I completely agree. I knew Nikon was going to do something amazing with the Z system when I bought the Z6/Z7. They have flown mostly under the radar in the last several years with the release of quality Z lenses.
As I have repeatedly told others who predicted Nikon's doom, the Z system has the potential to be successful in the long run, if given the time. The race is a marathon, not a sprint.
Nobody overlooks Nikon and it is one of most recognized corporate names in the world. That's not to say everything they make is great, or that they're a fun company to deal with. But even people who don't own a camera recognize Nikon.
I want one. No need to get one as I have the Sigma 14-24 F mount that I love and I simply don't shoot wide often enough to justify the purchase, but I'd still like this in my kit some day! Just like the other f/2.8 S zooms.
This year, despite the disruption, plenty of amazing cameras, lenses, accessories and other products came through our doors. Now, as the year winds down, we're highlighting some of our standout products of the year. Check out the winners of the 2020 DPReview Awards!
The Nikon Z 14-24mm F2.8 S completes the 'holy trinity' of traditional F2.8 zooms for Z-mount. It's more practical than its AF-S predecessor, but is the higher price reflected in its performance? Take a look at our sample gallery to find out.
As 2020 draws to a close and Nikon gears up for its final product releases of the year, we caught up with Keiji Oishi, Satoshi Yamazaki and Takeshi Suzuki to talk about the upcoming Z 6/7 II, and where the Z system goes from here.
Nikon's mirrorless lens roadmap just moved two steps further forward with the launch of the new 14-24mm F2.8 S and 50mm F1.2 S for Z-mount. Read on to learn more about these two premium Z-mount lenses.
The Nikon Nikkor Z 14-24mm F2.8 S and 50mm F1.2 S have been officially announced and are due to ship before the end of the year. The 14-24mm arrives in November for $2400; the 50mm will sell for $2100 starting in December.
The Sigma 20mm F1.4 DG DN Art has solid build quality, some useful functions and weighs less than you'd expect. Does it take pretty pictures though? We have the answers.
The Panasonic GH6 is the latest in the company's line of video-focused Micro Four Thirds cameras. It brings a new, 25MP sensor and 10-bit 4K capture at up to 120p. We've put it to the test, both in the studio and out in the field.
Is the MSI Creator Z17 the MacBook Pro competitor Windows users were hoping for? In our tests it delivers big performance and offers a few good reasons why you might choose a 12th-Gen Intel laptop over a Mac.
What’s the best camera for around $2000? These capable cameras should be solid and well-built, have both speed and focus for capturing fast action and offer professional-level image quality. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing around $2000 and recommended the best.
What's the best camera for shooting landscapes? High resolution, weather-sealed bodies and wide dynamic range are all important. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for shooting landscapes, and recommended the best.
Most modern cameras will shoot video to one degree or another, but these are the ones we’d look at if you plan to shoot some video alongside your photos. We’ve chosen cameras that can take great photos and make it easy to get great looking video, rather than being the ones you’d choose as a committed videographer.
Although a lot of people only upload images to Instagram from their smartphones, the app is much more than just a mobile photography platform. In this guide we've chosen a selection of cameras that make it easy to shoot compelling lifestyle images, ideal for sharing on social media.
This new filter size means owners of lenses with 39mm front filter threads will now have a native option for attaching UV, circular polarizing and Black Pro-Mist filters without the need of a step-up ring.
Across nearly every major specification, Omnivision's new 200MP OVB0A matches up with the 200MP HP3 sensor Samsung announced back in June, including pixel size, binning ratio and autofocus technology.
Laowa just released a series of extremely compact anamorphic lenses, including a 35mm T2.4 and 50mm T2.4. These pint-sized optics make anamorphic capture very accessible, but how do they perform? We have answers.
Drill Sergeant Chris Niccolls is back, this time in all-new Technicolor, to teach you cadets the basics of photography. This time around he's here to help with the ins and outs of white balance and perspective.
Have you ever come away from a busy shoot, wishing you could pay someone else to do all of your editing? Imagen might be just what you need. Click through to watch wedding and commercial photographer Jon Taylor Sweet use the power of Imagen to automatically edit photos from an engagement shoot.
Samsung's new Odyssey Ark monitor is the ideal display for customers who love to live on the cutting edge of technology. The 55" curved display is massive, bright, fast and impressive. It's also $3,500.
Sigma's 24mm F1.4 DG DN Art lens is solid and well-built. We took it around the Emerald city to see the sights and to prove that it doesn't always rain in Seattle. Check out our sample gallery to see how this optic for L-mount and Sony E-mount performs.
Sony’s Xperia Pro and Pro-I smartphones have received an update that adds new professional monitoring overlays to the devices’ built-in monitoring capabilities for select Alpha camera models, as well as the ability to livestream to YouTube.
Shortlisted entries for the annual Astronomy Photographer of the Year awards were recently announced. Overall winners will be revealed on September 15th.
Our team at DPReview TV recently reviewed the new Canon EOS R10 mirrorless camera. Check out these sample photos shot while filming their review and let us know what you think of the R10's image quality.
A production copy of the Canon EOS R10, the company's newest entry-level APS-C mirrorless camera, has arrived in Canada. Chris tells you what you need to know, including how the R10 stacks up to the competition.
Photographer Mathieu Stern loves the strange and unusual. He also enjoys DIY projects. He combined these passions by turning a disposable camera lens into a cheap lens for his mirrorless camera.
Camera modifier and Polaroid enthusiast Jim Skelton wanted to use the affordable Instax Wide film but didn't want to use a cheap, ugly Instax 100 camera. He hacked together the Instax 100 and a stylish bellows-equipped Polaroid Model 455.
Autel has released firmware updates for its Lite+ and Nano+ drones. These include accessible flight logs, the ability to turn off voice notifications when using the Sky app and an increase the maximum flight distance.
CineD's new video tour and interview with Sigma's CEO Kazuto Yamaki offers fascinating insight into the building's design and Sigma's philosophy toward creating better imaging products. Yamaki-san also talks about Sigma's new F1.4 prime lenses, Sigma's Foveon sensor and the ongoing chip shortage.
We've shot and analyzed our studio test scene and find the X-H2S gives a performance very close to that of the X-T4, despite its high-speed Stacked CMOS sensor. There's a noise cost in the shadows, though, which impacts dynamic range.
The Sigma 20mm F1.4 DG DN Art has solid build quality, some useful functions and weighs less than you'd expect. Does it take pretty pictures though? We have the answers.
The latest version of Sigma's 20mm F1.4 Art lens comes with substantial improvements, especially for astrophotography. Check out our gallery, including some astro images, to see how it performs!
Canon has partnered with Takara Tomy, the company behind Transformers, to release a run of Canon EOS R5 mirrorless camera models that transform into Optimus Prime and a Decepticon.
Midwest Photo was robbed late last week after a stolen truck broke through the store's front entrance. The store is in the progress of recovering from the damage and stolen goods. Photographers should be on the lookout for any suspicious product listings online.
OM System Ambassador Peter Baumgarten visits the wetlands of central Florida to photograph birds with the OM-1. Travel with Peter to see how he shoots, and view some of the spectacular photos he captures along the way. (Includes sample gallery)
We go hands-on with Sigma's latest 'Digital Native' wide-angle lenses for L-mount and Sony E-mount cameras to see what features they have and what sets them apart from the rather limited competition.
Sony has announced in-camera forgery-proof photo technology for its a7 IV mirrorless camera. The technology, aimed at corporate users, cryptographically signs images in-camera to detect future pixel modification and tampering.
CRDBAG's CRDWALL is a thin, space-efficient storage solution that you mount on your wall. It uses tracks, cords and hooks to store your gear flat against the wall without hiding it from view.
Comments