Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Mirrorless Cameras => Topic started by: gkroeger on February 27, 2020, 12:35:50 pm
-
It is going to interesting to compare these two new lens offerings. Identical focal lengths and apertures, very close in price ($150 USD more for the Nikon). If a larger mount diameter is going to make a difference in image quality, it should be apparent at these short focal lengths. We will see if the touted advantages actually make a difference in the real world. The Nikon is bigger, heavier and costs more... does it deliver more? BTW, I don't have a horse in this race yet... but I am horse shopping.
Glenn
-
I think you are right with your expectations. This could be a make or break from my point of view.
I have the Z7 with the kit lens and the 50 F1.8 but I'm holding on buying new lenses. I contemplated switching to Sony several times because they have the lenses that I want while Nikon is slow providing, however I'm willing to wait if Nikon can really deliver. So far I've been unimpressed, sure they have good lenses but not necessarily that much better than Sony's options (its own or third party) while being significantly larger.
On these lenses, the Sony is cheaper (for 150 it doesn't matter that much) and smaller. If the quality is close and Sony is good enough (as in as good or better than what's on the market right now) I would call this a win for Sony.
-
I would personally decide who wins based on image quality.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
F/1.8 lens designs are no challenge for any of these lens mounts as far as I can tell; it’s only in the realm of f/1.2 and faster that Sony E mount could be cramped. And maybe other extreme designs like f/2 zooms; I do not understand much about zoom lens designs.
-
F/1.8 lens designs are no challenge for any of these lens mounts as far as I can tell; it’s only in the realm of f/1.2 and faster that Sony E mount could be cramped. And maybe other extreme designs like f/2 zooms; I do not understand much about zoom lens designs.
The Sigma 35 1.2 for Sony is a fantastic lens...nothing cramped at all.
-
The Sigma 35 1.2 for Sony is a fantastic lens...nothing cramped at all.
It's a very good lens, I wouldn't call it a fantastic lens. At least speaking of my copy. I find most S lenses to be superior to the Sigma 35mm f1.2, except probably the 35mm f1.8 S.
It's also a very heavy lens.
Some owners have expressed their disappointment though. Either they had poor copies or higher expectations.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
It's a very good lens, I wouldn't call it a fantastic lens. At least speaking of my copy. I find most S lenses to be superior to the Sigma 35mm f1.2, except probably the 35mm f1.8 S.
It's also a very heavy lens.
Some owners have expressed their disappointment though. Either they had poor copies or higher expectations.
Cheers,
Bernard
Here is what Roger at Lensrental says about the Sigma:
"The sharpest ultra-wide aperture lens that I had tested (before now) at f/1.2 was the Leica Noctilux-M 75mm f/1.25 ASPH. Despite the Leica’s $12,000 price tag, the Sigma is indeed sharper. I was honestly a little surprised at this."
Roger has tested many lenses and is very thorough.
I've also seen images of the bokeh from the Sigma...amazing.
You just might need to try another Sigma.
-
Here is what Roger at Lensrental says about the Sigma:
"The sharpest ultra-wide aperture lens that I had tested (before now) at f/1.2 was the Leica Noctilux-M 75mm f/1.25 ASPH. Despite the Leica’s $12,000 price tag, the Sigma is indeed sharper. I was honestly a little surprised at this."
Roger has tested many lenses and is very thorough.
I've also seen images of the bokeh from the Sigma...amazing.
You just might need to try another Sigma.
So you haven’t used the Sigma yourself?
I am willing to believe that there are some great copies of this lens.
And also that Sigma is better at lens design than Sony. So far they have shown no intention to come up with f1.2 lenses.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
So you haven’t used the Sigma yourself?
I am willing to believe that there are some great copies of this lens.
And also that Sigma is better at lens design than Sony. So far they have shown no intention to come up with f1.2 lenses.
Cheers,
Bernard
Yes, Sony seems to be focusing on compact lenses lately like the recently announced 20 1.8...which from initial reviews looks great.
But does it really matter who releases the lens. The comment was that the Sony mount is limiting from producing 1.2 lenses...well Sigma proved that statement false by releasing a class leading 35 1.2 lens. Still haven't seen any proof out there that Sony's smaller mount limits the glass for that mount.
-
Yes, Sony seems to be focusing on compact lenses lately like the recently announced 20 1.8...which from initial reviews looks great.
But does it really matter who releases the lens. The comment was that the Sony mount is limiting from producing 1.2 lenses...well Sigma proved that statement false by releasing a class leading 35 1.2 lens. Still haven't seen any proof out there that Sony's smaller mount limits the glass for that mount.
I have not seen any other review than sponsored reviews... not saying it might be a very good lens.
Sony has to produce stellar optics for that is the reason to buy into that system with the mirrorless pressure of Canon and Nikon producing very good optics as well.
They may even afford to loose money on it.
A good time for photographers... at least in the sense of cheap and good equipment. ( not in the sense of finding well payed work)
-
I have not seen any other review than sponsored reviews... not saying it might be a very good lens.
Sony has to produce stellar optics for that is the reason to buy into that system with the mirrorless pressure of Canon and Nikon producing very good optics as well.
They may even afford to loose money on it.
A good time for photographers... at least in the sense of cheap and good equipment. ( not in the sense of finding well payed work)
Lensrentals is definitely not a sponsored reviewer. They also review multiple copies which many other review sites don't. This takes out the stellar / lemon variance out of the testing equation.
-
Lensrentals is definitely not a sponsored reviewer. They also review multiple copies which many other review sites don't. This takes out the stellar / lemon variance out of the testing equation.
Please show me if there a review of the 20mm Sony...have missed it.
-
Please show me if there a review of the 20mm Sony...have missed it.
Haven’t seen the Sony 20 yet on Lensrentals. Awaiting.
-
Haven’t seen the Sony 20 yet on Lensrentals. Awaiting.
What are the initial reviews saying it’s great then?
Besides when you look at their 85mm f1.4 or 24-70mm f2.8 it’s difficult to argue that Sony has overall compactness as an important design criteria in mind. It looks more that they are attempting to go for maximal image quality (not necessarily succeeding), at least for their bright lenses.
Sigma has indeed demonstrated it’s possible to come up with a 35mm f1.2 with very good (if not excellent) image quality for FE mount. The futur will tell if more are to come.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Sigma has indeed demonstrated it’s possible to come up with a 35mm f1.2 with very good (if not excellent) image quality for FE mount. The futur will tell if more are to come.
Cheers,
Bernard
Or more likely if more are warranted. I wonder how many 1.2 lenses are sold compared to say 1.4 or 1.8 lenses. I'd bet there is at least a magnitude difference in sales numbers. How many will buy the expensive, heavy, large lens just to gain a minuscule amount of image quality...never to be noticed if only posting on the net or not printing huge. This fascination of utmost image quality damn the cost and size is really interesting to watch. The question that still remains is does one really see any difference in prints. I know that answer.
-
What are the initial reviews saying it’s great then?
Cheers,
Bernard
Yes, very positive reviews so far. Comparing it to the 24 1.4 with positive results.
-
Or more likely if more are warranted. I wonder how many 1.2 lenses are sold compared to say 1.4 or 1.8 lenses. I'd bet there is at least a magnitude difference in sales numbers. How many will buy the expensive, heavy, large lens just to gain a minuscule amount of image quality...never to be noticed if only posting on the net or not printing huge. This fascination of utmost image quality damn the cost and size is really interesting to watch. The question that still remains is does one really see any difference in prints. I know that answer.
Well, the same can be said of f1.4 vs f1.8, yet I would say that a majority of photographers think they need f1.4 lenses for either look or slightly lower ISO in low light situations.
It seems that Canon has designed the R system around f1.2 lenses.
Are they all wrong?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Yes, very positive reviews so far. Comparing it to the 24 1.4 with positive results.
Where can they be found?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Or more likely if more are warranted. I wonder how many 1.2 lenses are sold compared to say 1.4 or 1.8 lenses. I'd bet there is at least a magnitude difference in sales numbers. How many will buy the expensive, heavy, large lens just to gain a minuscule amount of image quality...never to be noticed if only posting on the net or not printing huge. This fascination of utmost image quality damn the cost and size is really interesting to watch. The question that still remains is does one really see any difference in prints. I know that answer.
I don’t buy that the faster lenses give better quality argument. All they do is give less depth of field and that only at the maximum aperture. Phones don’t do shallow depth of field and it’s one thing photographers can do to set themselves apart apart from phone users. I believe that is what drives the current excitement over bokeh and fast glass. Well that and nice price tags if you sell lenses.
Remember Patterson texture screens? Like that. A trendy fashion.
-
I don’t buy that the faster lenses give better quality argument. All they do is give less depth of field and that only at the maximum aperture. Phones don’t do shallow depth of field and it’s one thing photographers can do to set themselves apart apart from phone users. I believe that is what drives the current excitement over bokeh and fast glass. Well that and nice price tags if you sell lenses.
Remember Patterson texture screens? Like that. A trendy fashion.
Agreed.
I'm interested in compact and lightweight fast lenses but they are few and far between and pretty much restricted to manual focus.
-
I don’t buy that the faster lenses give better quality argument. All they do is give less depth of field and that only at the maximum aperture. Phones don’t do shallow depth of field and it’s one thing photographers can do to set themselves apart apart from phone users. I believe that is what drives the current excitement over bokeh and fast glass. Well that and nice price tags if you sell lenses.
Remember Patterson texture screens? Like that. A trendy fashion.
Camera and lens manufacturers would do well to remember that. All too often, the f/4 zoom lineup is treated as a poorer-quality - not just slower - afterthought, next to the f/2.8 flagship models.
The f/2.8 models certainly need to be the first to come out - they're the event/wedding photographer's bread and butter, after all, and, along with the superteles, the most publicly visible lenses of any camera system. If these aren't up to scratch, or are late to come out, it would be difficult for any camera system to gain market traction.
But, for actual use, most people would be better served by a quality f/4 zoom lineup - just as sharp, if not sharper, than the f/2.8 versions, and likely less than half the weight and size - along with one or two fast primes for those focal lengths where you really want to be able to blur the background to oblivion. I say 'sharper' because an f/4 lens is easier to design than an f/2.8 lens, so easier to make sharper, while those people who do not need f/2.8 in a zoom are probably using the lens for purposes demanding corner-to-corner sharpness - not the case for those shooting at f/2.8 for subject isolation.
For instance, for a travel photography setup:
14-24/4 - UWA
24-70/4 - standard zoom
35/1.4 - environmental portraits
85/1.4 - portrait lens; also fills the gap between the 24-70 and 100-400. Bonus points if they can make this one double as the macro.
100-400/4.5-5.6
You could substitute the 85/1.4 and 100-400/4.5-5.6 for a 70-200/2.8, if you're planning to shoot some action, don't need anything super-long and intend to use the 70-200 for the portrait role. Or substitute the primes for f/1.8 versions, for a more compact package.
Likely weighs about the same as the typical 16-35/2.8, 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 setup, but far more capable.
After all, f/2.8 zooms are really a compromise solution. They're useful for their flexibility, but are big and heavy, while having neither the subject isolation or the absolute crispness of a prime lens (particularly at shorter focal lengths). If, for the same weight, you can bring some super-sharp f/4 zooms and a few primes to really blow out the background when you need to, you'd have a much more capable kit.
The key is that, for this to work, high-end f/4 zooms actually need to be available. Not compromised solutions such as 24-105mm zooms (although the Sony 24-105 is very good as far as 24-105 zooms go) and not budget solutions, but lenses designed and built to the same standards as the flagship models. I don't mind if they cost just as much as the f/2.8 versions - the objective here is quality in a compact package, not low price. Leica has done it - their Summicron lenses are slower, lighter, but usually sharper than the corresponding Summilux or Noctilux models - but most other manufacturers seem to treat their slower lenses as 'budget' rather than 'lightweight' options.
-
Ditto @shadowblade. Give me high quality f/4 zooms. Nikon needs a 70-200 f/4 in their roadmap, and Sony really needs to redesign a 24-70 f/4 G to replace the marginal Zony.
-
Ditto @shadowblade. Give me high quality f/4 zooms. Nikon needs a 70-200 f/4 in their roadmap, and Sony really needs to redesign a 24-70 f/4 G to replace the marginal Zony.
A perfect example. The Sony 24-70 F4 is crap. I know I owned it. Even the ergonomics of that lens are bad with the zoom and focus rings right alongside. As Shadow says the 24 -105 is pretty good. I really like the 70 -200 f4.
I have no need for the F2 20mm. I have that covered by the fine Sigma 14-24 f2,8. If a more compact f4 version of that lens had been available that would have been my first choice. Don’t think I have ever used the lens at 2,8. I had the Sony 16 -35 f4 and didn’t like it.
-
At this point, the biggest difference between the Sony and Nikon 20mm f/1.8 lenses is that Sony has actually built some and gotten them in the hands of reviewers! https://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/sony_fe_20mm_f1_8_g_review/conclusion
As far as I can tell, there are still no sightings of the Nikon (nor the 70-200 f/2.8)?
Glenn
-
Ditto @shadowblade. Give me high quality f/4 zooms. Nikon needs a 70-200 f/4 in their roadmap, and Sony really needs to redesign a 24-70 f/4 G to replace the marginal Zony.
For a true high-end 'slow' zoom lineup, I'd abandon the classic 16-35, 24-70 and 70-200 focal lengths. These are designed with event photography and photojournalism in mind, with the ability to cover the wide and mid-telephoto ranges with just two lenses on two cameras (70-200/2.8 on one, either 24-70 or 16-35 on the other). But f/4 lenses are not photojournalistic lenses.
In a similar vein, 24-105/4 is designed for convenience - an all-in-one, walkaround lens that can do most 'family' photography. This again, is not the purpose of a high-end slow zoom lineup. There's nothing wrong with also having a 24-105 around for convenience - I can see plenty of reasons for owning a 24-105 for day-to-day use, even with an arsenal of more specialised glass to bring for dedicated photo trips. But it would be in addition to, not part of, a high-end f/4 zoom lineup.
To achieve maximal image quality while restricting size and weight requires restricting the focal length range of each lens.
I'd go for something like this:
12-21/4 - UWA. Sony's onto something good with their 12-24. A GM version (or L, or whatever designation Nikon uses) could have even better, no-compromises optics and coatings. Sacrificing a few millimetres at the long end would make designing sharp optics while avoiding excessive size or complexity much simpler.
21-35/4 - Wide angle. With a small zoom range and small aperture, the design requirements are nowhere near as onerous as a 16-35 or 14-24 f/2.8, so you could make this thing super-sharp.
35-105/4 - Standard zoom. 'Walkaround', if you will - less flexible than a 24-105, but, by eliminating the short end, you end up with a much less challenging 3x zoom, which can be made much sharper and smaller.
100-400/4.5-5.6 - There's no avoiding large lenses here. But a 4x zoom at the medium-to-long telephoto lens is not particularly onerous design-wise, and both Canon and Sony have done very well here. This covers pretty much all the telephoto needs for general photography.
Add in two fast primes for when you really want shallow DOF (likely two of 35/50/85/100/135mm, depending on personal preference, preferably with one of them also doubling as a macro) and you'd have a perfect kit for general travel photography, covering landscapes, street photography, portraiture, macro, etc., while being able to shoot sports or wildlife in a pinch if required (for a dedicated wildlife trip, you'd obviously bring different gear).
Also, use strong, lightweight alloys and composites wherever possible. Leave the heavy steel barrel for the macho crowd. You're not going to club a bear with your 70-200 - that's what the tripod's for. Design the optics for corner-to-corner sharpness, not maximal centre sharpness at the expense of the corners - these lenses will frequently be used stopped-down, for tasks where every part of the frame is in focus, much more so than a fast portrait prime, supertele or macro lens would be.
-
Does the Nikon 14-30 f4 S make up a very good, high quality start for your line up?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Does the Nikon 14-30 f4 S make up a very good, high quality start for your line up?
Cheers,
Bernard
That would totally work for me. We all have things we like and dislike about lenses but the specs for that look good. I have the Sigma 14 to 24. Lovely lens but a bit of a beast.
I like a lens to have the autofocus on off button on the lens and I also like a focus lock button. My favourite lenses all have internal focus and zooming, I really like that. My only lens that extends when zooming is the 24 to 105. I accept that in the interests of compact stowage that some lenses I want extend when zooming.
-
Does the Nikon 14-30 f4 S make up a very good, high quality start for your line up?
Cheers,
Bernard
I think we can do better.
14-30 is a very large zoom range for a UWA. No doubt there are optical compromises in the design that would not be present in a 14mm prime, and much less apparent in a 14-21 or 14-24mm zoom.
Action/photojournalism-oriented f/2.8 zooms need the larger zoom range due to the way they are used. As action lenses in a photojournalist's kit, they need to be ready to shoot at a wide range of focal lengths instantly. High-end f/4 UWA zooms would be more typically used in a different way - not for action shooting, but a slower, more deliberate style, often with the entire frame in focus and calling for corner-to-corner sharpness, rather like a bag of primes at a narrower aperture, trading wide aperture for the ability to zoom. Here, the purpose of a zoom rather than prime design is not so much for the ability to quickly change focal length, but for the ability to shoot at a large number of different focal lengths without having to carry 50 different primes around. Think landscapes, architecture, travel photography, etc. Here, it's acceptable - indeed, preferable - to have a smaller zoom range and require more lens changes, in exchange for a sharper lens. If you needed instant readiness for action shooting, you'd take the 16-35/2.8 zoom. If you needed the 'bag of primes' setup for non-action shooting, you'd take a 14-24/4 and 24-45/4 (or similar).
14-30/4 just seems like a compromise that doesn't need to be made for a high-end zoom. As a budget option, whose main role is to be a cheaper and less-capable alternative to an f/2.8 zoom, the specs are fine. But, for a lens whose role is not to be a cheap alternative, but a high-end lens optimised for a different purpose (light weight and ultimate sharpness, as opposed to the action/photojournalism-oriented f/2.8 zooms), the focal length range is too much of a compromise.
-
That would totally work for me. We all have things we like and dislike about lenses but the specs for that look good. I have the Sigma 14 to 24. Lovely lens but a bit of a beast.
I like a lens to have the autofocus on off button on the lens and I also like a focus lock button. My favourite lenses all have internal focus and zooming, I really like that. My only lens that extends when zooming is the 24 to 105. I accept that in the interests of compact stowage that some lenses I want extend when zooming.
This is what I like about the Canon RF 70-200/2.8 and the new Tamron 70-180/2.8. Because of their extending design, they don't take up two 'slots' in a camera backpack - you can fit them in the same space as a 24-70 or 24-105.
The only thing is they need to be built to the highest standards of dust and weather sealing. Not an insurmountable challenge, but a bit more difficult than with an internal zoom lens.
I'm waiting for reviews and testing of the 70-180 and, if it turns out to be fast-focusing and and sharp, will likely get one. Out of all the usual 'trinity' zooms, the 70-200 (or thereabouts) is the one you're most likely to want in an f/2.8 version, due to it's use for occasional action and utility as a portrait lens.
-
I think we can do better.
14-30 is a very large zoom range for a UWA. No doubt there are optical compromises in the design that would not be present in a 14mm prime, and much less apparent in a 14-21 or 14-24mm zoom.
Action/photojournalism-oriented f/2.8 zooms need the larger zoom range due to the way they are used. As action lenses in a photojournalist's kit, they need to be ready to shoot at a wide range of focal lengths instantly. High-end f/4 UWA zooms would be more typically used in a different way - not for action shooting, but a slower, more deliberate style, often with the entire frame in focus and calling for corner-to-corner sharpness, rather like a bag of primes at a narrower aperture, trading wide aperture for the ability to zoom. Here, the purpose of a zoom rather than prime design is not so much for the ability to quickly change focal length, but for the ability to shoot at a large number of different focal lengths without having to carry 50 different primes around. Think landscapes, architecture, travel photography, etc. Here, it's acceptable - indeed, preferable - to have a smaller zoom range and require more lens changes, in exchange for a sharper lens. If you needed instant readiness for action shooting, you'd take the 16-35/2.8 zoom. If you needed the 'bag of primes' setup for non-action shooting, you'd take a 14-24/4 and 24-45/4 (or similar).
14-30/4 just seems like a compromise that doesn't need to be made for a high-end zoom. As a budget option, whose main role is to be a cheaper and less-capable alternative to an f/2.8 zoom, the specs are fine. But, for a lens whose role is not to be a cheap alternative, but a high-end lens optimised for a different purpose (light weight and ultimate sharpness, as opposed to the action/photojournalism-oriented f/2.8 zooms), the focal length range is too much of a compromise.
I admire the Z 14-30 f4 S because it's a compromise: the compromise is its form, compact and lightweight. The Z 14-24 f2.8 S may or may not deliver a tad more performance and will be faster but I don't need either.
I'm not an anally retentive performance freak, the Z 14-30 f4 S is so superior to any wide lens I used to earn my keep and more than good enough for this mere tog.
Other makes and models are available.
-
I admire the Z 14-30 f4 S because it's a compromise: the compromise is its form, compact and lightweight. The Z 14-24 f2.8 S may or may not deliver a tad more performance and will be faster but I don't need either.
I'm not an anally retentive performance freak, the Z 14-30 f4 S is so superior to any wide lens I used to earn my keep and more than good enough for this mere tog.
Other makes and models are available.
That's the thing - you shouldn't need to go for the f/2.8 version to get a better (not just faster) lens. Camera companies need to treat premium-level f/4 zooms as lighter lenses, not as budget or optically-inferior lenses. (It's also perfectly fine to have a 'budget' line, which may be f/4, variable aperture or any other aperture, but that would be a completely separate line)
Basically, what I'm suggesting is three lines of lenses - fast (f/2.8 zooms), sharp and light (f/4 zooms) and cheap (budget line). Of course, all lenses would be as sharp and light as you could make them (within manufacturing and cost limitations), but the priorities would differ for the three lines. At the moment, all we really have are fast and heavy, or light and cheap.
To get a really sharp and light f/4 UWA zoom, though, you probably can't go for as large a zoom range as 14-30. You'd have to split that focal length range (probably up to 35mm) into two lenses. Of course, you'd leave the 14-30/4 all-in-one solution as part of a more budget-minded lineup, for those for whom price is the main concern, or for those who are really short on space or just don't use a UWA that much.
I suspect they'd find the 'sharp and light' lineup to be the most profitable line. 'Cheap' line consumers are too budget-minded to set a wide profit margin. Those who really need f/2.8 zooms and are willing to pay the price in size and weight would be far fewer in number, at least at the shorter focal lengths (I suspect 70-200/2.8 lenses would remain very popular, due to their versatility for action and portraiture) - it would be limited to the photojournalist crowd (weddings, events, etc.). But there are plenty of people willing to pay the monetary price for an f/2.8 zoom, but not the size and weight price, and are after the sharpest thing they can get, without any particular need for wide aperture (weather/dust sealing and other similar features being more important) - these are the well-heeled, frequent-flyer crowd who would be prime buyers of a premium f/4 zoom lineup and would be willing and able to pay the same price as a current f/2.8 zoom for something more suited to their needs (sharper, lighter and smaller, but sacrificing aperture).
-
You are reading what you want to read.
The 14-30 f4 is outstanding, not just very good.
If the 14-24mm f2.8 is even better it will because it will be the best wide zoom lens ever designed.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
That's the thing - you shouldn't need to go for the f/2.8 version to get a better (not just faster) lens. Camera companies need to treat premium-level f/4 zooms as lighter lenses, not as budget or optically-inferior lenses. (It's also perfectly fine to have a 'budget' line, which may be f/4, variable aperture or any other aperture, but that would be a completely separate line)
Basically, what I'm suggesting is three lines of lenses - fast (f/2.8 zooms), sharp and light (f/4 zooms) and cheap (budget line). Of course, all lenses would be as sharp and light as you could make them (within manufacturing and cost limitations), but the priorities would differ for the three lines. At the moment, all we really have are fast and heavy, or light and cheap.
To get a really sharp and light f/4 UWA zoom, though, you probably can't go for as large a zoom range as 14-30. You'd have to split that focal length range (probably up to 35mm) into two lenses. Of course, you'd leave the 14-30/4 all-in-one solution as part of a more budget-minded lineup, for those for whom price is the main concern, or for those who are really short on space or just don't use a UWA that much.
I suspect they'd find the 'sharp and light' lineup to be the most profitable line. 'Cheap' line consumers are too budget-minded to set a wide profit margin. Those who really need f/2.8 zooms and are willing to pay the price in size and weight would be far fewer in number, at least at the shorter focal lengths (I suspect 70-200/2.8 lenses would remain very popular, due to their versatility for action and portraiture) - it would be limited to the photojournalist crowd (weddings, events, etc.). But there are plenty of people willing to pay the monetary price for an f/2.8 zoom, but not the size and weight price, and are after the sharpest thing they can get, without any particular need for wide aperture (weather/dust sealing and other similar features being more important) - these are the well-heeled, frequent-flyer crowd who would be prime buyers of a premium f/4 zoom lineup and would be willing and able to pay the same price as a current f/2.8 zoom for something more suited to their needs (sharper, lighter and smaller, but sacrificing aperture).
Congratulations, you've just described the Z 14-30 S.
But what do I know, I'm merely a frequent-flying photographer and user.
-
You are reading what you want to read.
The 14-30 f4 is outstanding, not just very good.
If the 14-24mm f2.8 is even better it will because it will be the best wide zoom lens ever designed.
Cheers,
Bernard
Make it 14-24/4 instead of 14-30/4 and you could make it even better optically, with the same (or less) size and weight. A lens with a smaller zoom range is always going to be easier to design, and involve fewer compromises, than a lens with a greater zoom range. This is much more pronounced in UWAs and WAs than in telephotos.
To look at it from the other direction, the Canon 11-24/4 and Sony 12-24/4 are both extremely sharp lenses (when you get a good copy), considering how wide they are. Imagine how much sharper you could make them if you didn't have to deal with the extreme UWA end (and, in Canon's case, the mirror box) and made them 14-24/4 instead.
The basic premise is this:
In addition to a monetary budget, you have a size and weight budget for camera gear. Even if you have a cupboard full of lenses at home, you can only bring so much with you at any one time. Within that budget, you want to fit in as much capability as possible. Or, to look at it another way, you want to be able to carry the capability you require with as little size and weight as possible, to leave space for other things.
Every lens design requires compromises. Assume the same final price and start with the base of a slow prime. This will be just about the sharpest, smallest lens you can get at that focal length. The thing is, it's not very versatile - it's sharp, but won't isolate subjects very well, won't gather a lot of light for shooting in very dark conditions and only shoots at one focal length. If you want to be able to shoot at lots of different focal lengths using lenses like this, you'd need a whole arsenal of them, which would rapidly consume your size/weight budget. So you choose lenses that are more versatile, but sacrifice something else to get that versatility, so that your final selection gives you as much capability as possible (or as much as you need) while still fitting within that size/weight budget.
What are these compromises? Make it a zoom and you can shoot at a lot of different focal lengths with one lens, but you add size and weight and lose sharpness. But this can be worth it, since a zoom, although larger and heavier than one slow prime, is still lighter than the whole bag of slow primes it would replace. Give it a larger zoom range and you can shoot at even more focal lengths and have to change lenses less often, but you make it even heavier and less optically optimal. Widen its maximum aperture and you can shoot in darker conditions and isolate subjects better, but, again, you add size and weight and lose sharpness, since it requires more optical compromises to achieve this. Add lens-based IS and you can handhold at slower shutter speeds, but, again, you add size and weight and lose (potential) sharpness. Add macro capability and you make the lens larger, but can shoot smaller/closer subjects.
You could probably build a do-everything, 14-400mm f/1.4 zoom capable of shooting 1:1 macro - but it would probably be the size of a small car and be about as sharp a lens as a wine glass. The thing is, you don't need every capability in every lens at every focal length. You need to decide exactly what capabilities you need, what your size/weight budget is and what gear to bring to maximise your capabilities within that budget. Or you can approach it from the other direction, deciding exactly what capabilities you need, then seeing what gear you need in order to minimise the size/weight to achieve this.
To apply it to the 14-30/4 example, it has a number of compromises. It's a zoom, not a prime, so it's going to be larger and less sharp than a prime in that focal length. However, it has a narrower aperture than primes, so is easier to design from that perspective. It's also going to be smaller and lighter than carrying 14mm, 18mm, 21mm, 24mm and 28mm primes all at the same time, and require far less lens changing.
Now make it a 14-24/4 instead. It's still a zoom, but has a smaller zoom range, so you can make it smaller and sharper than a 14-30/4 zoom. Of course, it is less versatile, since it doesn't fill the 24-30mm range. But you're probably not going to be carrying just one lens - and, if you are, it almost certainly won't be a single UWA zoom. That gap can be filled by your 24-45/4 (or similar) zoom. If you don't need rapid access to every focal length and changing lenses is possible, it doesn't matter if one lens doesn't cover a particular capability if another one in your kit does. (if you need rapid access to certain focal lengths, e.g. as an event photographer, you'd build your kit differently).
In other words, it's not just about individual lens optimisation - it's also about kit optimisation.
Applying it more broadly to lens selection, consider the classic 16-35/2.8, 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 combination, with two camera bodies. Here, you have a jack-of-all-trades setup. It's a big, heavy setup. You can shoot every focal length from 16mm to 200mm and not require a lot of lens changing. The lenses may be sharp, but not as sharp as primes, zooms with a smaller range, or, potentially, slower zooms. You can achieve some subject isolation, but not as much as with primes. It's a perfect setup for some kinds of photography. If you're a photojournalist or an event photographer and may need to shoot any subject at any focal length at a moment's notice - and getting the shot is more important than getting the perfect shot - it's probably ideal. If you don't need instant access to every focal length and are after more subject isolation or sharper images, it's probably not. You're paying a huge premium in size and weight for capabilities you don't need and aren't using.
What else can you achieve with the same size/weight budget? Say you changed the zooms to f/4. Now you've halved the weight of your lenses and probably have sharper ones, since f/4 zooms, when built to the same standard as their f/2.8 counterparts, can usually be made optically better. You've lost some subject isolation and low-light capability - but you now have extra room within your budget to play with, to make up that deficit. Do you really need subject isolation and low-light capability at every focal length, from 16mm to 200mm, or just the ones where you typically shoot portraits at? Let's say you add in an 85/1.4 prime. Now, within your kit, you can achieve more subject isolation than an f/2.8 zoom setup can ever hope for, while still weighing less. You still have more size/weight to play with. Let's say you want an even sharper setup. So you replace the 16-35/4 and 24-70/4 with a 14-24/4, 24-35/4 and 35-105/4. You've just spent that size/weight budget, but now you have a sharper setup for the same weight (albeit with a bit more lens switching). But now you also have a significant overlap in the 70-105mm range. You aren't shooting events and have two camera bodies to mount lenses to, so you decide to replace the 70-200/4 with a 100-300/4. So, for a similar size and weight to the 'trinity' f/2.8 zoom setup, you now have a 14-300mm focal length range capability, sharper lenses and, with the 85/1.4 prime, more subject isolation capability. You've sacrificed the convenience of having most of your focal length range available at the same time - but, since you aren't shooting events, generally have time to prepare for a shot and can have two different lenses available on two bodies at the same time, might decide that this is a worthwhile tradeoff.
This is where the premium f/4 zooms come in. Make them slower than the f/2.8 zooms and you make them smaller and sharper. Reduce their zoom range and you make them even smaller and sharper. Cover their aperture deficiencies with one or two primes, where you could really use the wide aperture, which will do the job better than any zoom ever could. Or cover the versatility deficiency by also carrying a single 'walkaround' lens as part of your kit. No, it won't work for event shooters and others who need their entire focal length range ready to shoot at any one time. But it will work for many (possibly most) other photographers.
You probably won't have a setup consisting of all f/4 premium zooms, or all primes, or all f/2.8 zooms. You'd likely mix and match them, depending on exactly which capabilities you need, and at which focal lengths. You might even keep all of them in a cupboard at home, selecting your kit depending on the requirements of a particular shooting trip. At the moment, it's hard to do that - either you have fast, sharp primes, fast-ish, sharp-ish zooms and light, cheap zooms, but no slower, lighter, sharp zooms to fill the capability gap.
-
Congratulations, you've just described the Z 14-30 S.
But what do I know, I'm merely a frequent-flying photographer and user.
Reduce the zoom range and make it even sharper.
It all depends how much capability you're willing to lose in one direction (say, zoom range) to gain more capability in another direction (sharpness).
I'm interested in matching optical quality of fast primes when shooting at modest apertures (say, f/5.6 or f/8). Essentially, a 'bag of primes' for landscape/non-action photography. A fast prime sacrifices size, weight and sharpness to achieve a wider aperture than a more conservative design. The wider the aperture, the more the sacrifice. A zoom sacrifices size, weight and sharpness to achieve a zoom range. The wider the zoom range, the more the sacrifices. The key here would be to find where the sacrifices to achieve a zoom range match the sacrifices needed to achieve a wide aperture, and find what focal length range you can achieve with an f/4 zoom while still matching the sharpness of an f/1.4 prime, when both are shooting at f/8. I don't know where that value lies. In the UWA space, I suspect it's a much shorter range than 14-30mm. Quite possibly 14-21mm.
-
I would have bought a 14 to 30 f4 in a heartbeat if it was available for my system. The 14 to 24 f2.8 was the next best thing and it’s bloody good. I’m not about to wait and pray for someone to make something I dream up in my head. I have more pressing things on my mind. Look at what is available, buy what suits you best and get on with the job. I promise you that your major limiter as a photographer is not the absence of a 14 to 21 F4 compact zoom lens.
Back to the two lenses under discussion. Nothing I shoot would be helped by a 20mm f1.8. I have never used my 14-24 at 2,8. Most likely never will. We all have our own styles I guess
-
You are reading what you want to read.
The 14-30 f4 is outstanding, not just very good.
If the 14-24mm f2.8 is even better it will because it will be the best wide zoom lens ever designed.
Cheers,
Bernard
Read a few reviews on the lens and they basically differ from your outstanding opinion. The vigneting and distortion appears horrible until it is corrected by software which makes the corners fuzzy. I'd call it a good consumer lens with a nice focal range.
-
The voices of experience.
-
Read a few reviews on the lens and they basically differ from your outstanding opinion. The vigneting and distortion appears horrible until it is corrected by software which makes the corners fuzzy. I'd call it a good consumer lens with a nice focal range.
There is nothing wrong to require SDC for certain lenses. The corners get a bit weaker, but high resolution compensates for the quality loss. Leica Q2 relies heavily on SDC (software distortion control) and still produces outstanding results. I expect increasing number of modern lenses to require SDC if cost and size are important criteria. See also Fuji GF 63mm lens, an excellent lens that requires lots of SDC.
-
There is nothing wrong to require SDC for certain lenses. The corners get a bit weaker, but high resolution compensates for the quality loss. Leica Q2 relies heavily on SDC (software distortion control) and still produces outstanding results. I expect increasing number of modern lenses to require SDC if cost and size are important criteria. See also Fuji GF 63mm lens, an excellent lens that requires lots of SDC.
Sure many lenses require SDC...but its not a free lunch. Take a look at the corner performance of the 14-30 below 16mm...it's pretty dismal. A lot of that dismal performance can be attributed to the software correction being applied.
Basically the good old saying of garbage in -- garbage out applies...there is not magic bullet in software correction.
-
I don't ever comment on equipment I've not used, never have, never will.
Neither do I rely on the eyes of others. I rely on my own eyes to make my own judgements on what I do use. If that equipment exceeds my needs and expectations it stays, if not it goes.
It's that simple, as am I.
-
Sure many lenses require SDC...but its not a free lunch. Take a look at the corner performance of the 14-30 below 16mm...it's pretty dismal. A lot of that dismal performance can be attributed to the software correction being applied.
Basically the good old saying of garbage in -- garbage out applies...there is not magic bullet in software correction.
please add some references... if you state that.
3 pages on two lenses that have not been in the hands of costumers and not been tested by trusted sources...
I don't ever comment on equipment I've not used, never have, never will.
Neither do I rely on the eyes of others. I rely on my own eyes to make my own judgements on what I do use. If that equipment exceeds my needs and expectations it stays, if not it goes.
It's that simple, as am I.
Especially wide angle lenses can have very particular behaviour as i have found out. Some curve the field of sharpness when stopped down, some behave different at different distances... etc things you do not find in regular tests.
-
please add some references... if you state that.
3 pages on two lenses that have not been in the hands of costumers and not been tested by trusted sources...
DXO testing: https://www.dxomark.com/nikon-nikkor-z-14-30mm-f4s-lens-review-2/
OK...but nothing spectacular.
Thom Hogan: http://www.sansmirror.com/lenses/lens-reviews/lenses-for-nikon-z/nikon-14-30mm-f4-s-lens.html
Again nothing spectacular. Thom was in fact disappointed.
-
I would have bought a 14 to 30 f4 in a heartbeat if it was available for my system. The 14 to 24 f2.8 was the next best thing and it’s bloody good. I’m not about to wait and pray for someone to make something I dream up in my head. I have more pressing things on my mind. Look at what is available, buy what suits you best and get on with the job. I promise you that your major limiter as a photographer is not the absence of a 14 to 21 F4 compact zoom lens.
Back to the two lenses under discussion. Nothing I shoot would be helped by a 20mm f1.8. I have never used my 14-24 at 2,8. Most likely never will. We all have our own styles I guess
Martin, it's refreshing to read such common sense.
-
Martin, it's refreshing to read such common sense.
Thank you.
I don’t want to come across as anti equipment of course. I like expensive shiny shit as much as anyone. But it can be a distraction, a very expensive form of procrastination.
-
Reduce the zoom range and make it even sharper.
It all depends how much capability you're willing to lose in one direction (say, zoom range) to gain more capability in another direction (sharpness).
I'm interested in matching optical quality of fast primes when shooting at modest apertures (say, f/5.6 or f/8). Essentially, a 'bag of primes' for landscape/non-action photography. A fast prime sacrifices size, weight and sharpness to achieve a wider aperture than a more conservative design. The wider the aperture, the more the sacrifice. A zoom sacrifices size, weight and sharpness to achieve a zoom range. The wider the zoom range, the more the sacrifices. The key here would be to find where the sacrifices to achieve a zoom range match the sacrifices needed to achieve a wide aperture, and find what focal length range you can achieve with an f/4 zoom while still matching the sharpness of an f/1.4 prime, when both are shooting at f/8. I don't know where that value lies. In the UWA space, I suspect it's a much shorter range than 14-30mm. Quite possibly 14-21mm.
Right... so the Canon 70-200mm f2.8’s collapsible design is not a problematic design compromise but the range of the 14-30mm f4 is. ;D
The only consistency I see in your arguments is that Nikon’s lenses are poor compromises but Canon and Sony are great! :o
Those are just your own preferences. Why waste time trying to convince us that they are universal truths?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Those are just your own preferences. Why waste time trying to convince us that they are universal truths?
Oh, the irony.
-
You are reading what you want to read.
The 14-30 f4 is outstanding, not just very good.
If the 14-24mm f2.8 is even better it will because it will be the best wide zoom lens ever designed.
Cheers,
Bernard
Show me where and how the 14-30 f4 is an outstanding...not just very good lens. Everything I read about it puts it at just very good...and barely at that.
-
Oh, the irony.
Yep...
-
Oh, the irony.
There is a difference between being opinionated and being inconsistent.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
There is a difference between being opinionated and being inconsistent.
Cheers,
Bernard
Yes...you are consistently opinionated...and those opinions slant in one direction.
-
Sure many lenses require SDC...but its not a free lunch. Take a look at the corner performance of the 14-30 below 16mm...it's pretty dismal. A lot of that dismal performance can be attributed to the software correction being applied.
Basically the good old saying of garbage in -- garbage out applies...there is not magic bullet in software correction.
I am not defending 14-30, I am defending the use of SDC. Take a look at the corners of output from the two examples I gave: GF 63mm and Q2. Calling the output of those two lenses garbage is ... ahem .. poetic freedom :-).
-
I am not defending 14-30, I am defending the use of SDC. Take a look at the corners of output from the two examples I gave: GF 63mm and Q2. Calling the output of those two lenses garbage is ... ahem .. poetic freedom :-).
It depends on how much adjustments the software has to do. The more correcting required, the more the image quality gets affected. It's not magic...its just trying to correct physical flaws.
-
I am not defending 14-30, I am defending the use of SDC. Take a look at the corners of output from the two examples I gave: GF 63mm and Q2. Calling the output of those two lenses garbage is ... ahem .. poetic freedom :-).
Overall I am definitely for SDC when it pops up and since it’s effects are seen on the corners where the eye generally doesn’t spend so much time we can get away from the downside of it, not always of course, depends what you are shooting.
One reason SDC annoys me on occasion is you lose a lot of image area. The Sony 24-70 had a lot of distortion at the 24mm end. Once you correct for the distortion the lens is no longer a 24mm, more like a 26 or 27 I would think. I tend to compose quite precisely, hang over from 35mm film days I guess, and the SDC results in my compositions falling apart. You get away with it shooting landscape of course but not with any geometrical structures or lines in the image.
So yes SDC has its place, such as when designing an ultra compact pancake or such, but sometimes it’s a problem. It’s not good or bad as such, just be aware of the downsides and the advantages and make an informed decision on the issue based on needs. Sony’s APSC 24 to 50 kit lens(could have the focal lengths wrong here) is a great example of this in action. Super tiny and sneaky for street or travel but hell the distortion is awful before correction. I still bought it though and have it lying around in my office.
-
Yes...you are consistently opinionated...and those opinions slant in one direction.
Indeed, the direction of facts and first hand experience.
How about this simple common sense rule, we stick to commenting on equipment we have first hand experience with?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Indeed, the direction of facts and first hand experience.
How about this simple common sense rule, we stick to commenting on equipment we have first hand experience with?
Cheers,
Bernard
Sometimes it's good to get various rounded reviews rather than relying on people who own the lens and have a bias. I'd much rely on people like from lensrentals that have no bias...just the facts.
As far as commenting on equipment...I have my views just like you Bernard. If you don't like my views...just skip by them...thank you.
-
Right... so the Canon 70-200mm f2.8’s collapsible design is not a problematic design compromise but the range of the 14-30mm f4 is. ;D
The only consistency I see in your arguments is that Nikon’s lenses are poor compromises but Canon and Sony are great! :o
Those are just your own preferences. Why waste time trying to convince us that they are universal truths?
Cheers,
Bernard
The Canon's collapsible design has no impact on optical quality. It may or may not make it less sturdy, but certainly makes it more compact. It's made compromises that would make it less than ideal for some other roles, but it's a perfect candidate for a light and sharp setup. You could make an f/4 version even smaller and, probably, sharper, but, if you were to need one of the 'trinity' zooms in f/2.8, it would almost certainly be the 70-200.
The 14-30's zoom range certainly does have an impact on image quality. This makes it a less-than-ideal candidate for 'light and sharp', but a great candidate for a 'budget', versatile UWA, alongside lenses with a similar design philosophy, such as the 24-120 or the various 24/105s. I'd lump Sony's 12-24/4 and Canon's 11-24/4 into the sane category - great for what they are, but with the potential to have achieved even higher image quality with a less ambitious focal length range and obviate the need for primes in that range, unless you specifically need a fast aperture.
Leave the 14-30 and various 16-35/4 lenses in the budget category where they do best and design some new, slow but super-sharp lenses able to equal the primes in the f/5.6-f/8 range and fill the 'bag of primes' replacement role that this light and sharp category would be best equipped to fill - lenses which leave the choice between prime and zoom solely down to the need for wide aperture and subject isolation, without a discernible edge in sharpness.
-
I don't ever comment on equipment I've not used, never have, never will.
Where's the fun in that ? :-)
-
Sometimes it's good to get various rounded reviews rather than relying on people who own the lens and have a bias. I'd much rely on people like from lensrentals that have no bias...just the facts.
As far as commenting on equipment...I have my views just like you Bernard. If you don't like my views...just skip by them...thank you.
Lensrentals does a very good job and they have many copies of a lens making there tests very reliable, however they only test a few parameters.
Important parameters, but nonetheless. First hands experience relies on the person and the specific use...
I for one use lenses in many circumstances- architecture , but also low light performances. However, I never do sports and only occasionally portraits.
-
I don't ever comment on equipment I've not used, never have, never will.
Where's the fun in that ? :-)
I leave that particular brand of fun to those who have nothing better to do and do nothing better.
;-)
-
The Canon's collapsible design has no impact on optical quality. It may or may not make it less sturdy, but certainly makes it more compact. It's made compromises that would make it less than ideal for some other roles, but it's a perfect candidate for a light and sharp setup. You could make an f/4 version even smaller and, probably, sharper, but, if you were to need one of the 'trinity' zooms in f/2.8, it would almost certainly be the 70-200.
The 14-30's zoom range certainly does have an impact on image quality. This makes it a less-than-ideal candidate for 'light and sharp', but a great candidate for a 'budget', versatile UWA, alongside lenses with a similar design philosophy, such as the 24-120 or the various 24/105s. I'd lump Sony's 12-24/4 and Canon's 11-24/4 into the sane category - great for what they are, but with the potential to have achieved even higher image quality with a less ambitious focal length range and obviate the need for primes in that range, unless you specifically need a fast aperture.
Leave the 14-30 and various 16-35/4 lenses in the budget category where they do best and design some new, slow but super-sharp lenses able to equal the primes in the f/5.6-f/8 range and fill the 'bag of primes' replacement role that this light and sharp category would be best equipped to fill - lenses which leave the choice between prime and zoom solely down to the need for wide aperture and subject isolation, without a discernible edge in sharpness.
A collapsible design is an important design compromise that should be reserved for consumer lenses.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
A collapsible design is an important design compromise that should be reserved for consumer lenses.
Cheers,
Bernard
Not my favorite either. I use my equipment every day under all sorts of conditions. I don’t trust collapsible lens design under those stresses.
-
A collapsible design is an important design compromise that should be reserved for consumer lenses.
Cheers,
Bernard
Consumer lenses like the various 24-70/2.8 zooms from all manufacturers, many 16-35/2.8 zooms and the Canon and Sony 100-400 zooms? As seen in professional kits all around the world.
-
Consumer lenses like the various 24-70/2.8 zooms from all manufacturers, many 16-35/2.8 zooms and the Canon and Sony 100-400 zooms? As seen in professional kits all around the world.
There is a major difference btwn a lens extending a bit and one doubling in length.
I share your view that 100-400 with a design that extend don’t have a sufficient level of robustness.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
There is a major difference btwn a lens extending a bit and one doubling in length.
I share your view that 100-400 with a design that extend don’t have a sufficient level of robustness.
Cheers,
Bernard
Seems plenty robust to me. I've had no problems shooting with it in snowstorms or tropical downpours, riding a horse for days with one clipped to the saddle, ready to shoot, or camping in the dust with one for weeks in Ethiopia's Danakil Depression. And that goes for both the Canon and Sony versions.
You can have shonky extending vs well-built extending, just like you can have cheap plastic vs high quality plastic.
Can an internally-zooming design be made more sturdy? Definitely? Is it always more sturdy? Definitely not - not if you've seen any teardowns of 70-200s and similar lenses. And does that mean that extending designs aren't sturdy enough for heavy use? Of course not.
A typical, internally-zooming 70-200/2.8 takes up twice the space in the kit compared to the Canon RF 70-200/2.8 or Tamron's new 70-180/2.8. Even if weight wasn't an issue, airline carry-on capacity is still limited by volume. If you're carrying a whole arsenal of lenses and aren't using the 70-200 for the majority of your shots, that extra space is invaluable - room for another camera body, a macro, a fast prime or something else, instead of taking up twice the space for exactly the same capability. If you only need a few lenses and the 70-200 is your most-used lens, it may be a different story.
-
A typical, internally-zooming 70-200/2.8 takes up twice the space in the kit compared to the Canon RF 70-200/2.8 or Tamron's new 70-180/2.8. Even if weight wasn't an issue, airline carry-on capacity ...
I'm sure size is all important , meantime here's Roger Cicala on the Canon (https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/12/the-not-very-long-awaited-teardown-of-the-canon-rf-70-200mm-f2-8-is/) ...
This lens was a new design from the ground up. There’s no ‘that’s the way we’ve always done it’ holdovers. That’s a lot more work for the designers, but the result is a beautifully engineered, fully modern lens. It’s clean, functional, and straightforward.
It’s obviously very robustly engineered from a mechanical standpoint. The internal composites are strong as hell. There are double cams, rods, and posts everywhere. There’s no play in any moving parts. We can’t imagine there will ever be play in the moving parts unless you run over it with a truck. You could describe it as ruggedized, but I’m going to stick with Strong, Like Bull, and suggest we refer to this as the RF-SLB 70-200mm f/2.8 from now on.
It’s also the first lens in a decade that I can say was obviously designed with ease of repairability in mind, at least as far as they could. Replacing the filter ring or front or rear element is going to be quick and straightforward. The downside is, like many lenses with linear focusing systems, that focusing assembly is probably a ‘replace not repair’ part, and that will be an expensive, albeit rare, repair.
There are some of you who are going to scream about how you want metal lenses. OK, Boomer, go get you a metal lens and show us how strong you are. On every other 70-200mm lenses we’ve disassembled, there are multiple metal parts that we can bend with our fingers. There’s not a damn thing we can bend with our fingers in this bad boy. This is going to hold up better than a metal lens, it’s probably sturdier, and it weighs far less.
I haven’t tested it optically. I haven’t even shot with it. But after looking inside it, I want it. The engineering in here is pure art. And even I, the person who mocks construction at any chance I get, can’t find anything to complain about.
-
Fascinating. I find the stuff from Lens Rental always very good.
-
Fascinating. I find the stuff from Lens Rental always very good.
On a desperately needed lighter note, here's Roger Cicala's first comment below his blog post.
Roger Cicala Mod • 3 months ago • edited
One of my favorite amusements is reading the whatever-to-English Google translation of the translations of my blog post into other languages. Today, courtesy of my new favorite blogger, Adolfo at fotochismes.com, I got this gem:
"The good of Roger Cicala, master and lord of Lens Rentals and owner of a machine that measures MTF's that would be the terror of the shopkeepers, today takes the knife of butchers and, blood stained to the eyebrows, offers us the scavenging of this lens beast that seems to be liked a lot."
I'm going to see if I can get my title changed from "Director of QA" to "Master and Lord of Lensrentals and Terror of Shopkeepers"
;D ;D
-
Seems plenty robust to me. I've had no problems shooting with it in snowstorms or tropical downpours, riding a horse for days with one clipped to the saddle, ready to shoot, or camping in the dust with one for weeks in Ethiopia's Danakil Depression. And that goes for both the Canon and Sony versions.
You can have shonky extending vs well-built extending, just like you can have cheap plastic vs high quality plastic.
Can an internally-zooming design be made more sturdy? Definitely? Is it always more sturdy? Definitely not - not if you've seen any teardowns of 70-200s and similar lenses. And does that mean that extending designs aren't sturdy enough for heavy use? Of course not.
A typical, internally-zooming 70-200/2.8 takes up twice the space in the kit compared to the Canon RF 70-200/2.8 or Tamron's new 70-180/2.8. Even if weight wasn't an issue, airline carry-on capacity is still limited by volume. If you're carrying a whole arsenal of lenses and aren't using the 70-200 for the majority of your shots, that extra space is invaluable - room for another camera body, a macro, a fast prime or something else, instead of taking up twice the space for exactly the same capability. If you only need a few lenses and the 70-200 is your most-used lens, it may be a different story.
Very good, you are starting to understand my point.
Yes, a 16-18mm f4 zoom is less of a compromise than a 14-30mm f4. But why does it matter if a 14-30mm f4 can be made to be excellent as the Nikon Z is?
Similarly, it’s obvious that a non collapsing design will be more robust and superior optically because the need to make it collapsing has a tremendous impact of where the elements can be located etc... but does it really matter if a collapsible design can be made to be robust enough and optically good enough?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I haven't read the whole thread so forgive me if this has been said already.
On page 1 people are talking about f1.2 possibly being too much for the small Sony mount. I have two f1.2 lenses that seem to work well on my A7 and I remember reading someone from Sony quoting a formula for the maximum aperture the lens mount could support and I'm sure it was something like f0.6.
Googling may lead anyone interested to the quote / formula but personally I think the whole argument that the Sony mount is too small is based on smoke and mirrors from the competition and that in the real world it's almost certainly a non issue.
-
Very good, you are starting to understand my point.
Yes, a 16-18mm f4 zoom is less of a compromise than a 14-30mm f4. But why does it matter if a 14-30mm f4 can be made to be excellent as the Nikon Z is?
Similarly, it’s obvious that a non collapsing design will be more robust and superior optically because the need to make it collapsing has a tremendous impact of where the elements can be located etc... but does it really matter if a collapsible design can be made to be robust enough and optically good enough?
Cheers,
Bernard
There's no difference in optical quality between internal focusing and extending designs. If anything, extending designs require fewer optical compromises, since you aren't restricted to a fixed front element and a rear element that can only move a few centimetres.
The issue with a 14-30mm lens (same with 24-105, 50-500, 12-24 and other similar large zoom ranges, telephotos being much more forgiving than WAs/UWAs) is not that they cannot be made sharp, but how they fit into a role.
F/4 zooms really fill two-and-a-half different roles. One is to be a cheaper alternative to f/2.8 zooms, for the budget minded. Another is to replace a bag of primes in a portable high-end kit, for those who need sharpness but not wide aperture, rather like Leica's Summicron line in relation to its Summilux line. The half, which overlaps both other roles, is to be small and lightweight - in absolute terms when considering the budget/consumer category, and relative to the bag of lenses they would replace in the high-end role.
Lenses like 12-24/4, 14-30/4, 16-35/4 and 24-105/4 fill the first role very well, when the aim is to cover a wide range of focal lengths with minimal weight, size and cost. Sharp as some of these lenses may be, though, they aren't as sharp as primes. This makes them less than ideal in the prime replacement role, particularly in front of high-resolution 42/45/50/61MP sensors.
Generally, a prime will be sharper than a zoom at the same aperture. The thing is, a typical prime will have an aperture of f/1.2-1.8, while the zooms we are dealing with here are f/4. The zoom may require some compromises to achieve a variable focal length, but the prime will, equally, require other compromises to achieve a wide aperture. Make the zoom range narrow enough and you can make it about as sharp as a prime, within its aperture limits (or, at least, from f/5.6 onwards). This makes such lenses ideal for landscape, archictectural (with distortion correction) and general travel photography, where you need something as sharp as possible, but not necessarily wide aperture (and you can easily add an 85/1.8 or similar if you want to shoot portraits as well, or a lightweight 70-200/2.8 for action, since the optical penalties for a zoom design seem much less pronounced at telephoto focal lengths). Extend the zoom range too much, though, and you'll never achieve this sharpness, making the lens less than ideal as a prime replacement.
No, this setup won't be as light as a kit with f/4 zooms with a large zoom ratio. But it's not meant to be, and doesn't replace those zooms, despite the similar-looking specs.
So, you might go 14-30/4, 24-105/4 and 70-200/4 if you want an ultralight, decently sharp kit.
Or you would go for a 14-21/4, 21-35/4, 35-105/4 and 100-300/4 if you wanted an ultrasharp travel/landscape kit that still weighed less than the bag of primes it replaces. Add in a 35/1.x, 85/1.x and a macro and you'd have an all-purpose travel photography kit that weighs about the same as an f/2.8 zoom event photography setup and is much more fit for purpose.
So, two types of f/4 lenses. 'Sharp enough', with a wide zoom range, for convenience and ultimate portability, where the aim is to minimise weight for a given capability. And super-sharp, with a restricted zoom range to achieve this, as part of a prime replacement setup, where the aim is to maximise capability for a given weight.
-
For me primes give three things these f4 zooms don't.
1. Primes are faster with f1.8 being a great speed / weight balance.
2. Primes are lighter when attached to the camera hanging off your wrist. Even though f4 zooms are much lighter than their f2.8 counterparts...they are still heavier / bulkier than primes.
3. Primes have better image quality.
For these reasons plus my love of focusing on one focal length at a time has me gravitating to using primes for much of my photography.
-
I haven't read the whole thread so forgive me if this has been said already.
On page 1 people are talking about f1.2 possibly being too much for the small Sony mount. I have two f1.2 lenses that seem to work well on my A7 and I remember reading someone from Sony quoting a formula for the maximum aperture the lens mount could support and I'm sure it was something like f0.6.
That sounds like an exaggerated paraphrase of what I said:
... it’s only in the realm of f/1.2 and faster that Sony E mount could be cramped.
Let me explain what I mean by "cramped", but I note up front that the limitations of E mount are either very slight or only at extremes of very low f-stop.
The potential problem of a narrower (or deeper) lens mount is that with a combination of low aperture ratio and high exit pupil (desirable with electronic sensors in order to have light strike the sensor close to square-on even near the edges and corners, to avoid "microlens vignetting"), some of the light-cone heading to near the corners and edges will be blocked by the lens mount. With all these new mounts (and even the rather long and narrow Nikon F mount) this vignetting can be avoided by having a low enough exit pupil, but it seems desirable to keep it about 60mm or higher for 36x24mm sensors. An approximate formula for the maximum allowable exit pupil height to avoid any "lens mount vignetting" is
exit pupil height <= (sensor diagonal) * (mount depth) * (aperture ratio)/((mount depth) + (aperture ratio)*((mount width) - (sensor diagonal)))
Here are some values for Sony E mount, which has mount depth = 18mm, mount width = 46.1mm:
f/1.4: 77mm (comfortably high); f/1.2: 64mm (probably OK); f/1.0: 51mm (problematic?); f/0.95: 48mm (probably some noticeable problems with vignetting)
That fits with f/1.2 being OK, but about the lower limit, and with extreme designs like Nikon's 58/0.95 of reach.
This is a lot better than Nikon SLR F mount; slightly worse than Canon's SLR EF mount, and somewhat worse than any of the other modern mirrorless mounts: Leica/Panasonic/Sigma L, Canon R, Nikon Z, Micro Four Thirds, Fujifilm X.
The next most "cramped" option is Leica/Panasonic/Sigma L mount, 20mm deep, 51.6mm wide, giving:
f/1.4: 145mm (very comfortably); f/1.2: 103mm (still very comfortably); f/1.0: 74mm (still OK); f/0.95: 68mm (probably still OK)
For Nikon Z mount, even f/0.95 works with exit pupil height up to 134mm; it seems "over engineered" in this respect at least.
-
For me primes give three things these f4 zooms don't.
1. Primes are faster with f1.8 being a great speed / weight balance.
2. Primes are lighter when attached to the camera hanging off your wrist. Even though f4 zooms are much lighter than their f2.8 counterparts...they are still heavier / bulkier than primes.
3. Primes have better image quality.
For these reasons plus my love of focusing on one focal length at a time has me gravitating to using primes for much of my photography.
Different shooting styles and different needs call for different equipment.
If I were to use primes, I'd have to carry 20 of them around and still end up cropping a lot - for instance, if I needed 26mm instead of 24mm. I'd also never use most of their potential, since I'd almost exclusively be shooting at f/5.6, f/8 or narrower, so I'd be carrying most of this weight for nothing - it's not like they make any f/4 primes, superteles and tilt-shifts notwithstanding. And the constant lens changing, just to find the right focal length, would be a source of endless frustration.
Make a zoom with a narrow aperture and a small enough zoom range and you can make it as sharp as a prime within that f4-f/11 focal length range. With these, I could carry four lenses instead of twenty. Add in one or two fast primes for those focal lengths where I would occasionally need a fast aperture and I'm set.
Both of these setups would be useless for the event or wedding photographer crowd, who need more subject isolation and low-light ability than the slow zooms and instant access to multiple focal lengths, which the primes can't provide, but don't need the absolute sharpness of either.
And all of these would be far too heavy and bulky for the lightweight backpacking, climbing or trail running photographer, who just needs something small and lightweight to take photos for a travel blog.
-
Different shooting styles and different needs call for different equipment.
If I were to use primes, I'd have to carry 20 of them around and still end up cropping a lot - for instance, if I needed 26mm instead of 24mm. I'd also never use most of their potential, since I'd almost exclusively be shooting at f/5.6, f/8 or narrower, so I'd be carrying most of this weight for nothing - it's not like they make any f/4 primes, superteles and tilt-shifts notwithstanding. And the constant lens changing, just to find the right focal length, would be a source of endless frustration.
Make a zoom with a narrow aperture and a small enough zoom range and you can make it as sharp as a prime within that f4-f/11 focal length range. With these, I could carry four lenses instead of twenty. Add in one or two fast primes for those focal lengths where I would occasionally need a fast aperture and I'm set.
Both of these setups would be useless for the event or wedding photographer crowd, who need more subject isolation and low-light ability than the slow zooms and instant access to multiple focal lengths, which the primes can't provide, but don't need the absolute sharpness of either.
And all of these would be far too heavy and bulky for the lightweight backpacking, climbing or trail running photographer, who just needs something small and lightweight to take photos for a travel blog.
I've shot concerts and theatre using two cameras and two primes. I don't need every single focal length in order to get my shots. F4 zooms just are in no man lands as far as I'm concerned. Not light enough to be lugged around for 12 hour days, three weeks in a row, not fast enough to be used in many dim situations I shoot in...and image quality just not cut it many times.
I'm happy with a 25, 35, 85 setup for travel...maybe a 20mm for tighter closeup images.
-
I've shot concerts and theatre using two cameras and two primes. I don't need every single focal length in order to get my shots. F4 zooms just are in no man lands as far as I'm concerned. Not light enough to be lugged around for 12 hour days, three weeks in a row, not fast enough to be used in many dim situations I shoot in...and image quality just not cut it many times.
I'm happy with a 25, 35, 85 setup for travel...maybe a 20mm for tighter closeup images.
Image quality is the issue here - it's due to design of individual lenses rather than an inherent property of f/4 zooms.
Too often, f/4 zooms are treated as the cheap, 'budget' option, with compromised build and optical quality, aimed at consumers wanting something on the cheap. f/2.8 zooms, on the other hand, are built for the high end.
But, unless you're shooting action or events, what use is an f/2.8 zoom? Either you're shooting stopped down for depth of field, in which case you're not getting anything out of the lens' f/2.8 capability, or you're trying to really isolate the subject, in which case you'd be better off with a faster and sharper prime anyway. And, when you're going for subject isolation, you only need a few focal lengths, so primes fit the bill here. For many purposes, f/2.8 is really just dead weight over f/4, weighing twice as much without any actual benefit.
f/4 zooms (good ones, at least) and primes complement each other really well. You want to be able to isolate subjects, and/or shoot in low light, and, for this, primes are perfect. But, usually, you only need this capability at one or two focal lengths. At the same time, as a general photographer - not just shooting motor sports, or concerts, or macro, for example, but a bit of everything - you want a wide range of focal lengths available, but don't need particularly wide apertures at most of these focal lengths. f/4 zooms are perfect for this - or would be, if they actually made some more of them optimised for image quality rather than low price and/or large zoom range. At 'normal' (14-200mm) focal lengths, it's really f/2.8 zooms that are stuck out there in the middle - big and heavy, slower than primes, not as sharp as primes and not as sharp as f/4 zooms could be. Highly versatile, hence their attractiveness for photojournalistic-style shooting, but almost never the best lens for any given situation. The only reason many of us buy them is because the f/4 versions are often shoddy and of lesser optical quality. Were there more high-quality f/4 lenses available - optimised for image quality rather than price - there would be a lot of people buying them, even if they were no cheaper than their f/2.8 counterparts. I would certainly ditch my f/2.8 zooms straight away.
-
Not Zooms, but Tamron jumps in the gap of 2.8 primes at the moment delivering small, very good lenses
they just released a 20, 24 and 35mm f2.8
Not expensive about 450$, and not heavy about 200-300 gram
https://www.tamron.jp/en/
Tamron has seen the Sigma light and are producing better optics than ever before, focussing on small and beautiful.
so yes i would like to see a comparison between the sony , nikon and the tamron 20mm
-
off topic: this is a major downside of the nikon S system of today- there are no third party lenses. Sony has this great luxury. Hopefully they will come soon.
-
I don’t currently own any Tamron lenses but I am considering the newly released 85mm 1.8. It’s good that at the 85mm length I choose between two Sony lenses, A Batis, a Sigma and now a Tamron. Spoilt for choice.
-
Image quality is the issue here - it's due to design of individual lenses rather than an inherent property of f/4 zooms.
Too often, f/4 zooms are treated as the cheap, 'budget' option, with compromised build and optical quality, aimed at consumers wanting something on the cheap. f/2.8 zooms, on the other hand, are built for the high end.
But, unless you're shooting action or events, what use is an f/2.8 zoom? Either you're shooting stopped down for depth of field, in which case you're not getting anything out of the lens' f/2.8 capability, or you're trying to really isolate the subject, in which case you'd be better off with a faster and sharper prime anyway. And, when you're going for subject isolation, you only need a few focal lengths, so primes fit the bill here. For many purposes, f/2.8 is really just dead weight over f/4, weighing twice as much without any actual benefit.
f/4 zooms (good ones, at least) and primes complement each other really well. You want to be able to isolate subjects, and/or shoot in low light, and, for this, primes are perfect. But, usually, you only need this capability at one or two focal lengths. At the same time, as a general photographer - not just shooting motor sports, or concerts, or macro, for example, but a bit of everything - you want a wide range of focal lengths available, but don't need particularly wide apertures at most of these focal lengths. f/4 zooms are perfect for this - or would be, if they actually made some more of them optimised for image quality rather than low price and/or large zoom range. At 'normal' (14-200mm) focal lengths, it's really f/2.8 zooms that are stuck out there in the middle - big and heavy, slower than primes, not as sharp as primes and not as sharp as f/4 zooms could be. Highly versatile, hence their attractiveness for photojournalistic-style shooting, but almost never the best lens for any given situation. The only reason many of us buy them is because the f/4 versions are often shoddy and of lesser optical quality. Were there more high-quality f/4 lenses available - optimised for image quality rather than price - there would be a lot of people buying them, even if they were no cheaper than their f/2.8 counterparts. I would certainly ditch my f/2.8 zooms straight away.
There is a reason why the holy trinity of zooms ( 16-35, 24-70 and 70-200 ) at f2.8 are the staple of many professional photographers...they deliver. I've assisted with numerous weddings and have photographed many concerts and the pros here all had 2.8 zooms.
F4 zooms are really the ones in no man lands. They are not light, they are not fast enough for many situations, they don't provide the isolation abilities when required, and their image quality is not good enough. Bottom line the f4 speed is really a consumer level lens where the lighter weight and much cheaper cost is what draws the consumer to f4 rather than f2.8 zooms. I use my f4 zooms for landscapes stopped down to f8 or f11...where they are fine. If a manufacturer would come out with a super duper image quality f4 lens...it will be priced out of the consumer market and would fail as f4 just does not cut the cake for professional use.
I think manufactures have it right...f4 zooms are targeted at the consumer market and 2.8 zooms at the professional market. Best not to blend these two as that blend will not meet either consumer or professional markets.
-
Couldn’t agree less Chez. Event photography and weddings are a tiny part of professional photography and currently not a very lucrative part. I have one F2.8 zoom and it’s my least used men’s commercially. I have done one shoot with it this year. The 70-200 Sony F4 is my most used lens akin with the 90mm macro. Not everyone is trying to blur out backgrounds.
It seems at the moment that most photographers are either trying to totally blur out backgrounds or are trying for infinite focus. Well every aperture is there to be used and all have a purpose. Sometimes you want to blur totally, sometimes a little, sometimes just a touch and sometimes not at all.
What I can tell you is if you want to totally blur a background then 2,8 doesn’t do it. You will need a very fast prime. To me that means the fast 2,8 zooms fall into an uncomfortable middle ground. Not as good or as fast as a prime. Not as convenient or as light as a F4 zoom.
-
Couldn’t agree less Chez. Event photography and weddings are a tiny part of professional photography and currently not a very lucrative part. I have one F2.8 zoom and it’s my least used men’s commercially. I have done one shoot with it this year. The 70-200 Sony F4 is my most used lens akin with the 90mm macro. Not everyone is trying to blur out backgrounds.
It seems at the moment that most photographers are either trying to totally blur out backgrounds or are trying for infinite focus. Well every aperture is there to be used and all have a purpose. Sometimes you want to blur totally, sometimes a little, sometimes just a touch and sometimes not at all.
What I can tell you is if you want to totally blur a background then 2,8 doesn’t do it. You will need a very fast prime. To me that means the fast 2,8 zooms fall into an uncomfortable middle ground. Not as good or as fast as a prime. Not as convenient or as light as a F4 zoom.
So you are trying to tell me more professional photographers use f4 zooms than 2.8 zooms. Really? Have any proof of this?
As far as total blur...that's a amateur's style. Most portraits / people shots are in the f2.8 range which provides enough blur in the background to give you focus on the people...yet does not totally obscure the background and take all the environment / context out.
I know quite a few professional photographers and exactly zero use an f4 zoom for their work.
-
The thought of being influenced in any way by the equipment choices of wedding or event photographers or by the classification of equipment by manufacturers really doesn't get my rocks off.
-
The thought of being influenced in any way by the equipment choices of wedding or event photographers or by the classification of equipment by manufacturers really doesn't get my rocks off.
Me neither...but just laying out the facts. I've shot enough events and weddings to know an f4 zoom will not cut the cake, that's from experience. I have an f4 zoom ( 70-200 f4 ) that I use when out taking landscapes, but for events when things get dim...not a chance.
-
Some examples of 2.8 images and the blur that is just enough to give focus to the subject, yet still keep the image environment visible.
-
The thought of being influenced by forum contributors facts just doesn't get my rocks off.
-
The thought of being influenced by forum contributors facts just doesn't get my rocks off.
The fact that you have to tell the world what does not "get your rocks off"...is a little concerning. Do you also go out and tell the world that you don't like Budweiser beer, or perhaps don't like sauerkraut?
-
There is a reason why the holy trinity of zooms ( 16-35, 24-70 and 70-200 ) at f2.8 are the staple of many professional photographers...they deliver. I've assisted with numerous weddings and have photographed many concerts and the pros here all had 2.8 zooms.
You mean basically one type of professional photographer - those who shoot events, weddings or news, in a photojournalistic style. Of course you see a lot of them - they're the most visible kind of photographer, since you come across them any time you go to a wedding, concert, corporate function or other event, and they aren't hidden away in a photographer's box somewhere.
Far less visible are the studio photographers, property photographers, travel photographers/bloggers and others, who you don't see because they're either hidden away in studios somewhere, operating away from crowds or on the road. None of them are using f/2.8 zooms. The Canon 24-105/4 happens to be a favourite of many a flash-wielding studio portrait photographer, since it's cheap and does the job. And sports/wildlife photographers, of course, make little use of these zooms - they're just too short.
The f/2.8 zooms need to be among the first lenses available, largely due to 'street cred' arising from their visibility, as you have more-or-less inadvertently demonstrated. But, unless you're shooting in a photojournalistic style - news, events or weddings - they're hardly the most useful lenses. They just happen to be commonly bought by non-event photographers, due to lack of better high-end options. If the f/2.8 zooms are good, but the f/4 versions are consumer-grade garbage, you're going to get the f/2.8 ones even if you never shoot them wider than f/5.6, because they're the only sharp zoom option available.
F4 zooms are really the ones in no man lands. They are not light, they are not fast enough for many situations, they don't provide the isolation abilities when required, and their image quality is not good enough. Bottom line the f4 speed is really a consumer level lens where the lighter weight and much cheaper cost is what draws the consumer to f4 rather than f2.8 zooms. I use my f4 zooms for landscapes stopped down to f8 or f11...where they are fine.
Quit harping on about the f/4 zooms' 'poor image quality' - it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. The image quality of most f/4 zooms is poor because they were designed to be cheap, not good. Doesn't mean that f/4 zooms have poor image quality as an inherent quality, as if they could be no different.
'Lightweight' and 'cheap' aren't the same thing. Leica's Summicrons are their lightest and smallest lenses, but also their sharpest. I - and probably most other people- prefer lightweight gear over heavyweight gear when they do the job equally well. So does anyone else who has had to lug 20kg of cameras on a multi-week hike, or carry them on a plane. I'm prepared to carry weight where the added weight provides some benefit, but am loathe to carry it when it doesn't do anything useful for me. Hence things like grips and aluminium tripods are out. f/2.8 zooms I tolerate because the . Release some f/4 zooms that are sharper than the f/2.8s and you'd likely find that sales of the f/2.8s drop by half, even if you price them the same. Many people - pros and amateurs alike - just don't need f/2.8 in a zoom.
If I want subject isolation, I usually want as much as I can get, but don't need it at every focal length from 14mm to 200mm. Usually, it's for some sort of portrait. Add in an 85/1.x prime and you've got that covered. If shooting action, maybe replace the 70-200/4 with a 70-200/2.8, but you don't also need your UWA and standard lenses to be wide aperture - you're not going to get much subject isolation out of them anyway. And I'd rather have them in a lighter, sharper f/4 version than a big, heavy f/2.8 which isn't as sharp because of all the extra compromises needed to build a faster lens.
No, most of the current f/4 zooms out there aren't as sharp as they could be at f/5.6-f/11. Almost universally, they lag behind primes. Usually, they also lag behind the f/2.8 zooms. This is because they're made to be budget lenses, not designed to be as good as they can possibly be.
If a manufacturer would come out with a super duper image quality f4 lens...it will be priced out of the consumer market and would fail as f4 just does not cut the cake for professional use.
I think manufactures have it right...f4 zooms are targeted at the consumer market and 2.8 zooms at the professional market. Best not to blend these two as that blend will not meet either consumer or professional markets.
The professional market is dead - it's a very small part of Canon/Nikon/Sony's sales. It's main value is in brand perception and marketing rather than in terms of actual sales volume. Consumers buy a brand because they see professionals using them. This is where the profit is made, and the real value of professional sales - not the comparatively few bodies/lenses actually bought by professionals, particularly since pros tend to specialise in a single type of photography, and, hence, need fewer lenses than enthusiasts shooting a bit of everything.
Besides, high-end amateurs have a lot more money to spend on gear than pros. Pros need income to exceed expenditure - and by a significant amount. Amateurs will spend as much as they can afford, and as much as they need, to get the best gear for what they shoot. Those amateurs in the business of buying full-frame cameras and multiple lenses are going to be making a lot more money than most pro photographers, and there are a lot more of them.
It's really the mid-priced consumer-grade f/4 zooms that don't have a place. Leaving aside those who are satisfied with an iPhone, the average consumer will buy a body and kit lens and be done with it, as an ultra-compact kit for travel or family photos that beats a camera phone. Maybe add a cheap telephoto or UWA if they're going on a particular holiday. They're going to baulk at buying a mid-grade lens that costs more than what their entry-level camera body is worth. Event/wedding pros will stick to their f/2.8 zooms. Other pros will use whatever gear is best suited to the job, which could be almost anything. Photo enthusiasts/high-end amateurs will spend big on gear and buy the best thing they can get for their style of photography. This doesn't include mid-grade, budget-oriented f/4 zooms. High-end f/4 zooms are another matter entirely. This is a group that tends to travel a lot and bring gear along (hence the premium on light weight and the popularity of carbon fibre tripods), with a subject choice that often includes landscapes, city scenes and others that don't require a wide aperture (a single fast prime can cover portraits, and will weigh less and do a better job than any f/2.8 zoom).
-
You mean basically one type of professional photographer - those who shoot events, weddings or news, in a photojournalistic style. Of course you see a lot of them - they're the most visible kind of photographer, since you come across them any time you go to a wedding, concert, corporate function or other event, and they aren't hidden away in a photographer's box somewhere.
Far less visible are the studio photographers, property photographers, travel photographers/bloggers and others, who you don't see because they're either hidden away in studios somewhere, operating away from crowds or on the road. None of them are using f/2.8 zooms. The Canon 24-105/4 happens to be a favourite of many a flash-wielding studio portrait photographer, since it's cheap and does the job. And sports/wildlife photographers, of course, make little use of these zooms - they're just too short.
The f/2.8 zooms need to be among the first lenses available, largely due to 'street cred' arising from their visibility, as you have more-or-less inadvertently demonstrated. But, unless you're shooting in a photojournalistic style - news, events or weddings - they're hardly the most useful lenses. They just happen to be commonly bought by non-event photographers, due to lack of better high-end options. If the f/2.8 zooms are good, but the f/4 versions are consumer-grade garbage, you're going to get the f/2.8 ones even if you never shoot them wider than f/5.6, because they're the only sharp zoom option available.
Quit harping on about the f/4 zooms' 'poor image quality' - it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. The image quality of most f/4 zooms is poor because they were designed to be cheap, not good. Doesn't mean that f/4 zooms have poor image quality as an inherent quality, as if they could be no different.
'Lightweight' and 'cheap' aren't the same thing. Leica's Summicrons are their lightest and smallest lenses, but also their sharpest. I - and probably most other people- prefer lightweight gear over heavyweight gear when they do the job equally well. So does anyone else who has had to lug 20kg of cameras on a multi-week hike, or carry them on a plane. I'm prepared to carry weight where the added weight provides some benefit, but am loathe to carry it when it doesn't do anything useful for me. Hence things like grips and aluminium tripods are out. f/2.8 zooms I tolerate because the . Release some f/4 zooms that are sharper than the f/2.8s and you'd likely find that sales of the f/2.8s drop by half, even if you price them the same. Many people - pros and amateurs alike - just don't need f/2.8 in a zoom.
If I want subject isolation, I usually want as much as I can get, but don't need it at every focal length from 14mm to 200mm. Usually, it's for some sort of portrait. Add in an 85/1.x prime and you've got that covered. If shooting action, maybe replace the 70-200/4 with a 70-200/2.8, but you don't also need your UWA and standard lenses to be wide aperture - you're not going to get much subject isolation out of them anyway. And I'd rather have them in a lighter, sharper f/4 version than a big, heavy f/2.8 which isn't as sharp because of all the extra compromises needed to build a faster lens.
No, most of the current f/4 zooms out there aren't as sharp as they could be at f/5.6-f/11. Almost universally, they lag behind primes. Usually, they also lag behind the f/2.8 zooms. This is because they're made to be budget lenses, not designed to be as good as they can possibly be.
The professional market is dead - it's a very small part of Canon/Nikon/Sony's sales. It's main value is in brand perception and marketing rather than in terms of actual sales volume. Consumers buy a brand because they see professionals using them. This is where the profit is made, and the real value of professional sales - not the comparatively few bodies/lenses actually bought by professionals, particularly since pros tend to specialise in a single type of photography, and, hence, need fewer lenses than enthusiasts shooting a bit of everything.
Besides, high-end amateurs have a lot more money to spend on gear than pros. Pros need income to exceed expenditure - and by a significant amount. Amateurs will spend as much as they can afford, and as much as they need, to get the best gear for what they shoot. Those amateurs in the business of buying full-frame cameras and multiple lenses are going to be making a lot more money than most pro photographers, and there are a lot more of them.
It's really the mid-priced consumer-grade f/4 zooms that don't have a place. Leaving aside those who are satisfied with an iPhone, the average consumer will buy a body and kit lens and be done with it, as an ultra-compact kit for travel or family photos that beats a camera phone. Maybe add a cheap telephoto or UWA if they're going on a particular holiday. They're going to baulk at buying a mid-grade lens that costs more than what their entry-level camera body is worth. Event/wedding pros will stick to their f/2.8 zooms. Other pros will use whatever gear is best suited to the job, which could be almost anything. Photo enthusiasts/high-end amateurs will spend big on gear and buy the best thing they can get for their style of photography. This doesn't include mid-grade, budget-oriented f/4 zooms. High-end f/4 zooms are another matter entirely. This is a group that tends to travel a lot and bring gear along (hence the premium on light weight and the popularity of carbon fibre tripods), with a subject choice that often includes landscapes, city scenes and others that don't require a wide aperture (a single fast prime can cover portraits, and will weigh less and do a better job than any f/2.8 zoom).
So are you saying all the manufactures have it wrong...that f4 zooms are aimed at the consumer market and f2.8 zooms at the professional market? You do know the f4 zooms far outsell the f2.8 zooms right...so I'm thinking the huge consumer market is buying up the f4 zooms just the way they sit. Do you really think they would buy a slightly better lens for say 1.5x the price of the existing f4 zooms? I know that answer and it is no way.
I think you just have to be happy with either using a consumer grade f4 zoom ( I do for landscape at times and it's great at f8 ) or use faster primes ( I do when traveling ) or just bite the bullet and get yourself a 2.8 zoom where not only do you get a faster lens...you get better image quality.
I also think you have it wrong when you think these other professional photography niches use f4 zooms extensively. Architecture use TSE lenses in order to handle distortion. Studio photographers use high quality primes as their goal is utmost quality in the images. Portrait photographers either use 2.8 zooms or primes. It's really hard to say any photography profession utilizes predominate f4 zooms as their staple.
-
Shadowblade,
I totally agree that very high quality f4 zooms are very valuable and that’s exactly what Nikon has provided us with with the 14-30mm f4 and 24-70mm f4.
They couldn’t be farther from consumer crap.
You’d know if you attempted to look at them without your brand filtering glasses.
These 2 lenses strike a truly amazing balance btwn very high quality, very compact size, convenience of range,...
You would be singing their praise like crazy if they had a Sony logo on them.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Shadowblade,
I totally agree that very high quality f4 zooms are very valuable and that’s exactly what Nikon has provided us with with the 14-30mm f4 and 24-70mm f4.
They couldn’t be farther from consumer crap.
You’d know if you attempted to look at them without your brand filtering glasses.
Cheers,
Bernard
Haven't used the 14-30...but did read reviews about it and no it's not crap...but it's not superb either...especially at the wide end. Your view of high quality is very subjective...I trust Thom's opinions on things as he shoot pretty straight.
-
Haven't used the 14-30...but did read reviews about it and no it's not crap...but it's not superb either...especially at the wide end. Your view of high quality is very subjective...I trust Thom's opinions on things as he shoot pretty straight.
Thom is by no means negative about the 14-30.
It’s better at 14mm than the Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 that, if you recall, was used by many Canon shooters because it was better than ultra wide primes... it stayed without response from competitors for 8 years which is just unheard of in the pro market. And, 14mm was the best focal length of the 14-24mm f2.8...
So, although 14mm is probably it’s weakest focal length, the 14-30 is nowhere poor at 14mm.
You know, companies mostly manage to achieve what they try to achieve. And Nikon has clearly attempted to deliver to the market exactly what you are asking for and that no other brand has ever attempted to achieve: top of the range f4 zooms with a moderate range of focal lengths. And they have, unsurprisingly, reached their objective. Why do I know Nikon was trying to achieve this? Because they have called their L glass “S” and those 2 lenses were among the first announced with the S logo.
Sony decided that they would focus their GM series or bright aperture zooms and primes, and they have succeeded also in what they were trying to achieve. But those are not the f4 zooms you are interested in. Those are just differences of strategies. Some match more of less your priorities as a photographer.
-
Thom is by no means negative about the 14-30.
It’s better at 14mm than the Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 that, if you recall, was used by many Canon shooters because it was better than ultra wide primes... it stayed without response from competitors for 8 years which is just unheard of in the pro market. And, 14mm was the best focal length of the 14-24mm f2.8...
So, although 14mm is probably it’s weakest focal length, the 14-30 is nowhere poor at 14mm.
You know, companies mostly manage to achieve what they try to achieve. And Nikon has clearly attempted to deliver to the market exactly what you are asking for and that no other brand has ever attempted to achieve: top of the range f4 zooms with a moderate range of focal lengths. And they have, unsurprisingly, reached their objective. Why do I know Nikon was trying to achieve this? Because they have called their L glass “S” and those 2 lenses were among the first announced with the S logo.
Sony decided that they would focus their GM series or bright aperture zooms and primes, and they have succeeded also in what they were trying to achieve. But those are not the f4 zooms you are interested in. Those are just differences of strategies. Some match more of less your priorities as a photographer.
Yes, it's an OK lens given its an f4 zoom...but has its warts. Here's Thom's summary.
"I originally recommended the 16-35mm f/4G, but the more I used it the more I decided that it didn't deserve that much praise. The 16-35mm f/4 is a useful lens for many, but not one that I could tell everyone to jump on board with. Since I'm getting the exact same feeling with the 14-30mm f/4 S, I'm not going to give it a Recommended rating."
Now I'm hearing great things about the Sigma 14-24 2.8 lens...many are selling their primes and replacing them with the zoom. Of course it's bigger and heavier, but it goes down to f2.8 and if image quality is your prime concern...it seems to excel at that.
Personally for the extreme wide angles I refer using a prime at around 15mm. I don't need anything wider. I'm eyeing the Tamron 17-35 2.8 lend which is compact / light yet is 2.8 and seems to deliver great image quality. Will rent it out and see for myself.
-
So are you saying all the manufactures have it wrong...that f4 zooms are aimed at the consumer market and f2.8 zooms at the professional market? You do know the f4 zooms far outsell the f2.8 zooms right...so I'm thinking the huge consumer market is buying up the f4 zooms just the way they sit. Do you really think they would buy a slightly better lens for say 1.5x the price of the existing f4 zooms? I know that answer and it is no way.
Take away the 24-105/4 and 24-70/4 kit lenses and it looks a lot more even.
And, yes, they have it wrong. It was right for 1990, when everyone had cameras, and has held on as a legacy. For 2020, it's completely wrong. Big Japanese companies are often slow to change direction.
The camera market is changing. The pro market is as small as it's ever been, while the consumer market is drying up, due to a combination of phone cameras, stagnant incomes, a preference for waterproof/shockproof 'action' cameras and technology reaching the point of 'good enough' for many people. The money isn't in selling cheap lenses to the masses, but in selling better and more task-appropriate lenses to high-end enthusiasts. Less volume, but more profit per unit sold.
The low end will stay (as kit lenses and for casual users who just want a camera and basic lens that covers the focal length needed) but the mid grade is dead. It's either low-end or high-end, with little role for anything in the middle. Photo enthusiasts will go for the high-end gear - they're buying the f/2.8 zooms now, since that's what's available, but would equally go for high-quality f/4 zooms which fit better with what they are doing. Beginners/mum-and-dad photographers will go for the kit lenses, not wanting to spend any more. But no-one gets excited about the release of a new, mid-grade 24-70/4 or 70-200/4 - too expensive for non-enthusiasts, while not capable enough for enthusiasts if it doesn't beat the optical performance of he f/2.8 zooms.
I think you just have to be happy with either using a consumer grade f4 zoom ( I do for landscape at times and it's great at f8 ) or use faster primes ( I do when traveling ) or just bite the bullet and get yourself a 2.8 zoom where not only do you get a faster lens...you get better image quality.
The only reason you get better image quality with f/2.8 zooms is because most f/4 zooms are built to be cheap, not good.
There's nothing inherent about f/4 zooms that means they have to be poorer than f/2.8 zooms. Design them with the same care and price point in mind and the f/4 versions will be sharper. Smaller aperture means fewer compromises needed to achieve the aperture, which generally means sharper. Ito also means smaller elements, which are easier to manufacture precisely and without flaws, for better quality and less copy-to-copy variation.
I used to carry a f/2.8 zoom trinity. Most of it was dead weight . The 70-200 would occasionally be used for a portrait, but, the rest of the time, it was like the equivalent of putting rocks in your pack - good for exercise, but adding no useful capability. Had the f/4 zooms been equally good, I'd have used them instead, and thrown in a f/1.x prime for portraits (or just had my macro lens do double duty).
I currently use a 24-70/2.8. It's sharp (after going through several copies), but not prime sharp. If it had a smaller aperture and zoom range, it could have been made even sharper, equalling primes in the f/5.6-f/11 range.
Due to the nature of the Sony lens lineup, I've been able to get away without other f/2.8 zooms adding dead weight. The 100-400 is sharper than the 70-200/2.8 (at landscape/wildlife distances - I've seen/heard that the 70-200 GM is super sharp at portrait distances, but loses out at infinity, a bit like the 90mm macro) so suits me just fine - one lens covers all my (non-wildlife) telephoto needs. Add in a prime for subject isolation when needed, or just use the macro for that.
I'm also using a 12-24/4. It's in the odd position of being as sharp as anything else in that focal length range, and that includes the Voigtlander primes - anything sharper doesn't reach 12mm. But I have no doubt it could be even sharper, particularly in the corners, if it didn't have so ambitious a focal length range - 2x zoom is a lot at UWA focal lengths. This is a case of using a consumer-grade lens because there's actually no better lens out there at the moment. I'll be keeping a close eye on the 12-24/2.8 GM when it comes out, to see if it adds image quality, or just weight and a wider aperture, but have no doubt that, had they gone for a smaller aperture and zoom range, with the same price target, they could make it even sharper.
I also think you have it wrong when you think these other professional photography niches use f4 zooms extensively. Architecture use TSE lenses in order to handle distortion. Studio photographers use high quality primes as their goal is utmost quality in the images. Portrait photographers either use 2.8 zooms or primes. It's really hard to say any photography profession utilizes predominate f4 zooms as their staple.
I never said that other pros use f/4 zooms. Most don't, because the ones available are mostly average at best. But 'don't' is different from 'won't'. They 'don't' use f/4 zooms because current f/4 zooms are no good. That doesn't mean they 'won't', were good f/4 zooms available.
It's a bit like how pro photographers (and high-end amateurs) didn't used to shoot Sigma or Tamron lenses (let alone other brands like Samyang). Their products were shoddy in some way (IQ or AF), so they didn't use them. The moment they lifted their game, they suddenly got a second look, and, now, they're rather popular.
Again, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Make the f/2.8 zooms good and the f/4 zooms cheap, but shoddy, and anyone who cares about the quality of their work has to get the f/2.8 version, even if they never use it wide-open. That's why it looks like so many pros use the f/2.8 versions - not because they're using it at f/2.8 (obviously event/wedding/news photographers are) but because there's no decent alternative.
Although you'd be surprised at what a lot of studio portrait photographers use. Most aren't shooting Rodenstock lenses on Phase One backs - that's commercial photographers shooting advertising campaigns, who often don't buy/own their own gear anyway. Instead, all their money's in the lighting equipment, since that's what most influences their image quality. Lenses and bodies are often the cheapest thing that will do the job - and that can mean really cheap. Bodies may be several generations old - they're shooting nonmoving subjects stopped down, with a deep DOF, so AF isn't an issue, and they're shooting at base ISO, so light sensitivity isn't an issue either. Lenses can be really cheap too. Corner sharpness doesn't matter when you're shooting portraits, and corners will usually be out of focus anyway. Wide aperture isn't needed when you're shooting stopped down and using flash. Zoom is great because you don't need to keep changing lenses during a shoot. Hence the popularity of the Canon 24-105/4 kit lens (now that the supply of the old 28-105s has dried up). Better to spend your gear budget on a Broncolor Para, which actually does affect your image quality (or, if you already own a parabolic reflector, saves you time by being much faster to set up and take down), faster IT systems to speed up your workflow or extra backdrops and props to add to your shots. Or, even better, realise that you don't actually need to spend that money to do the job and spend it on beer instead - you can do a lot with a few umbrellas and light stands, and they're much easier to bring to location shoots than large softboxes, and far quicker to set up or take down.
You're describing the situation as it is - f/2.8 zooms are good, f/4 zooms are shonky, so anyone who cares about output quality uses the f/2.8 version, whether they need f/2.8 or not. I, and others, are describing it as it could be - make f/2.8 and f/4 zooms equally good (at the same price point, this would mean f/4 zooms being sharper and better-corrected than f/2.8 versions) and you'd get a spread, with those needing the speed going for f/2.8, while those travelling light or after the sharpest option going for the f/4.
Besides, what pros (at least the most visible ones) use doesn't matter. Amateurs have the money and are buying most of the gear. Pros will get the cheapest thing that does the job, to maximise profit, and will have a smaller collection of lenses, since they're mostly only shooting one thing. f/2.8 are a photojournalist's tool - and probably the best thing for photojournalism and weddings. For anything else, they're an ill fit, often forced into the role due to lack of high-quality alternatives.
-
Sorry shadowblade, don't have the time nor the desire to read such a long verbose post. Hope you get what you want...but I think you are in the minority here. Most people that buy f4 zooms are happy with them and building better quality and more expensive f4 zooms would not bring in an extra nickel for the lens manufactures.
People that want better image quality move to 2.8 zooms or primes, leaving the f4 zooms as consumer level.
-
Shadowblade,
I totally agree that very high quality f4 zooms are very valuable and that’s exactly what Nikon has provided us with with the 14-30mm f4 and 24-70mm f4.
They couldn’t be farther from consumer crap.
You’d know if you attempted to look at them without your brand filtering glasses.
These 2 lenses strike a truly amazing balance btwn very high quality, very compact size, convenience of range,...
You would be singing their praise like crazy if they had a Sony logo on them.
Cheers,
Bernard
That's the problem. They're pretty average lenses ('average' in the technical sense, not the vernacular sense as a euphemism for 'poor'). Sure, they're lightweight and fairly cheap - if that's what you need, then they're great. But, for those who are after performance first, with weight and price being secondary concerns, they offer very little.
They're sharp, but still beaten at the same aperture by their f/2.8 counterparts, not to mention primes.
By definition, buyers of f/4 zooms don't need wide apertures - at least not in that focal length range. But they do need optical performance. Often, these will be travelling photographers, for whom weight matters. They will shoot a lot of landscapes, cityscapes and similar subjects, where everything is in focus and needs to be sharp. They will often also have one or two primes for their wide aperture needs, since these primes will blow any f/2.8 zoom out of the water when it comes to that. Many will be shooting Z7s or A7r3/4s, so you can't count on sensor resolution being the limiting factor (especially in the corners).
When push comes to shove, many of these people will opt for the f/2.8 zooms due to their marginally better optical quality, all the while grumbling about weight.
For an f/4 zoom to be attractive to those whose priority remains optical quality, it needs to at least beat the corresponding f/2.8 zooms, if not some of the primes. If it does not, it remains 'consumer crap', attractive mostly to those whose priority is weight, size +/- price, above all else - or, worse, stuck in the mid-tier doldrums, attractive to no-one. The 14-30 is decent, but doesn't quite match the various 14-24 options out there (not to mention the 24-xx lenses at the longer end of the range). Good in an absolute sense, but those who prioritise image quality are still going to choose the optically better lens.
The only reason the Sony 12-24/4 gets a pass at the moment is because there is no other lens out there, of any grade, that matches it at those focal lengths. I wouldn't give the Sony 16-35/4 or 24-105/4 the same pass (despite the Sony 24-105 being probably the best 24-105/4 out there at the moment).
Keep the 14-30 where it is - it clearly does a great job as an ultralight option. But make a new 12-21/4, 14-21/4 or 14-24/4, and make sure it beats the various 14-24/2.8 lenses at the same aperture, and gives the f/1.8 primes a good run for their money. That would be a really compelling lens.
-
That's the problem. They're pretty average lenses ('average' in the technical sense, not the vernacular sense as a euphemism for 'poor'). Sure, they're lightweight and fairly cheap - if that's what you need, then they're great. But, for those who are after performance first, with weight and price being secondary concerns, they offer very little.
They're sharp, but still beaten at the same aperture by their f/2.8 counterparts, not to mention primes.
If weight and price are secondary to image quality...why not just get the 2.8 zooms?
-
If weight and price are secondary to image quality...why not just get the 2.8 zooms?
That's exactly what I did - for lack of better options. Not because f/4 zooms can't be good enough, or even sharper.
I'll take the sharper option, whichever one it is. In the case of the Canon 70-200/4 IS (back in 2009, when the competition was the softer 70-200/2,8 Mk I) and the current Sony 12-24/4 (where no real competition exists), it was the f/4 lens. In other cases, it's an f/2.8 lens - the aperture adds nothing useful (except in the case of 70-200, when it can also cover for action/portraits), the weight is annoying, but, if it's the sharpest option, I'll take it. But I'll keep looking for something better/lighter, and, if it comes along, I'll take it.
Make them all f/4 and I'd take them any day, even at the same price. Price the f/4 lens like the current f/2.8s, with zoom ranges chosen to optimise image quality rather than convenience, and you could make them much sharper than the f/2.8s for the same price, likely matching primes in the f/4-11 aperture range.
(Re: zoom ranges - good examples are Sigma's 24-35/2 and Tamron's new 70-180/2.8. Non-standard zoom ranges, chosen to optimise an area of performance other than the two-body, instant-shooting convenience desired by even photographers. In the case of the Sigma, it was to achieve an f/2 aperture. In the Tamron's case, it was in order to be able to make a lens half the size of a 70-200 design. Take the same approach for optical quality - make it 12-21 instead of 12-24, or 35-105 instead of 24-105, if it means you can make a sharper lens, then fill the gap with a 21-35.)
-
That's exactly what I did - for lack of better options. Not because f/4 zooms can't be good enough, or even sharper.
I'll take the sharper option, whichever one it is. In the case of the Canon 70-200/4 IS (back in 2009, when the competition was the softer 70-200/2,8 Mk I) and the current Sony 12-24/4 (where no real competition exists), it was the f/4 lens. In other cases, it's an f/2.8 lens - the aperture adds nothing useful (except in the case of 70-200, when it can also cover for action/portraits), the weight is annoying, but, if it's the sharpest option, I'll take it. But I'll keep looking for something better/lighter, and, if it comes along, I'll take it.
Make them all f/4 and I'd take them any day, even at the same price. Price the f/4 lens like the current f/2.8s, with zoom ranges chosen to optimise image quality rather than convenience, and you could make them much sharper than the f/2.8s for the same price, likely matching primes in the f/4-11 aperture range.
(Re: zoom ranges - good examples are Sigma's 24-35/2 and Tamron's new 70-180/2.8. Non-standard zoom ranges, chosen to optimise an area of performance other than the two-body, instant-shooting convenience desired by even photographers. In the case of the Sigma, it was to achieve an f/2 aperture. In the Tamron's case, it was in order to be able to make a lens half the size of a 70-200 design. Take the same approach for optical quality - make it 12-21 instead of 12-24, or 35-105 instead of 24-105, if it means you can make a sharper lens, then fill the gap with a 21-35.)
I shoot primes for 3 reasons:
1. Best image quality
2. Fastest lenses
3. Lightest lenses for a given aperture
If you truly put image quality on a pedestal above cost and weight...then primes are your friends.
By the way, what do you shoot. Maybe post some samples to give us a feel where high quality f4 zooms is your answer. Also, what is the final destination of your images.
-
I shoot primes for 3 reasons:
1. Best image quality
2. Fastest lenses
3. Lightest lenses for a given aperture
If you truly put image quality on a pedestal above cost and weight...then primes are your friends.
You no longer have the best image quality if you have to crop because your lens doesn't exactly match the required focal length. Crop a 42MP image taken with a 35mm lens down to the angle of view of a 46mm lens and you're down to 24MP. If you have a 50mm lens but need 62mm, you're down to 27MP. Stitching is possible (and I do it whenever possible) but not always - sometimes there are moving elements or rapidly-changing light, and other times you can't use a tripod.. And foot zooming isn't a thing with landscapes/cityscapes and a lot of travel photography - you can't foot zoom off a cliff or 200m into the air, and it changes your composition (yes, you want that mountain in the background, but also that rock in the foreground). You're stuck with one vantage point for any given composition, and need to find the right focal length for that.
It's also no longer the lightest option once you factor in that you'd need to bring 20 or so lenses to cover the 14-400mm focal length range.
When not on a dedicated wildlife trip, I only need fast lenses and wide aperture at one or two focal lengths, for subject isolation when shooting the occasional portrait or 'artsy'-type shot. I don't need that throughout the entire focal length range. It's easy enough to throw one or two primes into the mix. For every other focal length, wide aperture is a hindrance rather than an advantage, since it adds weight without any functional benefit (wide aperture, like anything else, is only of benefit if you're actually using it).
By the way, what do you shoot. Maybe post some samples to give us a feel where high quality f4 zooms is your answer. Also, what is the final destination of your images.
I've been posting for years. Here's one example. You can't foot zoom, since it would change the composition drastically (or you'd be standing in traffic). You can't stitch, since the cars would move. You're need to do it in one shot (or at least most of the frame in one shot - you can blend the buildings in multiple exposures).
Lots of them end up as large prints - 30x90" panoramas, or for single frames (where zooms are most relevant - if you can stitch, you can use a prime) 40x60" prints.
-
So you are trying to tell me more professional photographers use f4 zooms than 2.8 zooms. Really? Have any proof of this?
As far as total blur...that's a amateur's style. Most portraits / people shots are in the f2.8 range which provides enough blur in the background to give you focus on the people...yet does not totally obscure the background and take all the environment / context out.
I know quite a few professional photographers and exactly zero use an f4 zoom for their work.
No I have no proof that more professional photographers use f4 zooms than f2.8 zooms. I also never said that.
I have no idea how many professional photographers you know. I doubt it’s as many as I know since I have been a professional photographer since 1994 and before that worked for professional photographers in photolabs from the time I left the military at age 21. No idea why any of this is even relevant.
I use F4 zooms. Most of my career I didn’t use f2.8 zooms since most of my career was spent shooting large format film and MFDB. Now I shoot what ever the job calls for. For me that is virtually never f2.8 zooms. I shoot a lot of furniture, interiors, clothing, products. Next week I am doing three days of documentary style work for a client to show off their factory and some pharmaceutical products. I’m pretty sure I won’t miss the 2.8 zooms I don’t have.
-
Just to say that if we think there is a correct answer to this argument and one solution we are being naive. Surely as adults we can understand that there are different styles, types of photography, budgetary constraints, technical requirements, weight restrictions and other factors that make the very concept of a “correct choice” ludicrous. If someone doesn't agree with you it does’t actually mean you are wrong or they are wrong or that your status or very reason for existence is being called into question.
I know some of the reasons people insist of buying f2,8 zooms and why they are irrelevant for some. No it’s not because one side cares more about quality than the other. That’s just dick swinging and doesn’t actually prove anything. Both f4 and f2,8 zooms will give quality sufficient for the job. If you are all about quality as the most important thing then get a MFDB.
-
Just to say that if we think there is a correct answer to this argument and one solution we are being naive. Surely as adults we can understand that there are different styles, types of photography, budgetary constraints, technical requirements, weight restrictions and other factors that make the very concept of a “correct choice” ludicrous. If someone doesn't agree with you it does’t actually mean you are wrong or they are wrong or that your status or very reason for existence is being called into question.
I know some of the reasons people insist of buying f2,8 zooms and why they are irrelevant for some. No it’s not because one side cares more about quality than the other. That’s just dick swinging and doesn’t actually prove anything. Both f4 and f2,8 zooms will give quality sufficient for the job. If you are all about quality as the most important thing then get a MFDB.
And all this dick swinging came about when I said many professional photographers use the 2.8 trinity of zooms and you jumped in with dick swinging saying you don't use 2.8 lenses and you said I couldn't be more wrong. Maybe look at what you say before you jump on others.
-
And all this dick swinging came about when I said many professional photographers use the 2.8 trinity of zooms and you jumped in with dick swinging saying you don't use 2.8 lenses and you said I couldn't be more wrong. Maybe look at what you say before you jump on others.
I never said you are wrong. My words were I couldn’t agree less. Do you see the difference? Are you aware that I can disagree with you and have valid reasons for doing so and that those reasons may be I have problems to solve that you do not have or have experiences you have not been exposed to? In a debate people put there point of view across and then give reasons as I did.
I do have one f2,8 zoom. I bought it because there was no quality f4 option available. I use an f4 70 to 200 rather than an f2,8 for reasons that have been done to death on this thread. I bought the f4 in preference to the 2,8 and do not regret that decision. I am a professional photographer and have earned all my money as such for decades. I know many professional photographers who have made the same decision. I also know many who use f2,8 zooms. I also know many who don’t use zooms at all. I’m sorry if that goes against you clearly fondly held beliefs.
-
People, please, just use what you as individuals want and need to use and be done with it.
-
I never said you are wrong. My words were I couldn’t agree less. Do you see the difference? Are you aware that I can disagree with you and have valid reasons for doing so and that those reasons may be I have problems to solve that you do not have or have experiences you have not been exposed to? In a debate people put there point of view across and then give reasons as I did.
I do have one f2,8 zoom. I bought it because there was no quality f4 option available. I use an f4 70 to 200 rather than an f2,8 for reasons that have been done to death on this thread. I bought the f4 in preference to the 2,8 and do not regret that decision. I am a professional photographer and have earned all my money as such for decades. I know many professional photographers who have made the same decision. I also know many who use f2,8 zooms. I also know many who don’t use zooms at all. I’m sorry if that goes against you clearly fondly held beliefs.
Again...if you would have read carefully I said many professionals use 2.8'zoons...to which you said you couldn't agree less...implying not many professionals use 2.8 zooms. Well I still stand by my initial statement that many professionals use 2.8 zooms...and I know I am not wrong here...so you can strongly not agree because you don't use them...but you are wrong thinking professionals ( in fact many professionals ) don't use 2.8 zooms.
-
One thing is sure, I shot with the Nikon 14-30mm f4 at 14mm yesterday and was once again impressed by the image quality in the corners. Just remarkable. It’s similar to what I am getting from my Rodenstock 23mm on Arca... not 100% as good, but most probably very hard to tell apart on A2 prints, which is simply ming boggling.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I buy everything then I am only stuck with which one to use.
-
One thing is sure, I shot with the Nikon 14-30mm f4 at 14mm yesterday and was once again impressed by the image quality in the corners. Just remarkable. It’s similar to what I am getting from my Rodenstock 23mm on Arca... not 100% as good, but most probably very hard to tell apart on A2 prints, which is simply ming boggling.
Cheers,
Bernard
That's odd as the reviewers appear to be disappointed at the image quality at 14mm. I guess either you have an exceptional copy and others not so good or the image quality standards of the reviewers are higher than yours.
As long as you are happy I guess.
-
That's odd as the reviewers appear to be disappointed at the image quality at 14mm. I guess either you have an exceptional copy and others not so good or the image quality standards of the reviewers are higher than yours.
As long as you are happy I guess.
Don’t know... the Rodenstock 23mm is considered one of the finest wide glass there is. Many reviewers have never even seen one.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Don’t know... the Rodenstock 23mm is considered one of the finest wide glass there is. Many reviewers have never even seen one.
Cheers,
Bernard
I thought this was about the 14-30? That's what Thom tested is it not? Same with the other testers. All disappointed with the 14-30 under 16mm and in fact Thom was disappointed with it at 30mm as well.
Like I said, could be cool variation...but too many reviewers giving the same impression at the wide end...or your standards differ from the other testers. As long as you feel happy...that is what counts.
-
I thought this was about the 14-30? That's what Thom tested is it not? Same with the other testers. All disappointed with the 14-30 under 16mm and in fact Thom was disappointed with it at 30mm as well.
Like I said, could be cool variation...but too many reviewers giving the same impression at the wide end...or your standards differ from the other testers. As long as you feel happy...that is what counts.
I compare my copy of the 14-30mm to the best wide on the market and see little difference.
This isn’t about my happiness.
I honestly don’t care if the 14-30mm f4 is amazing or not, I just use what’s best for my needs.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
https://blog.kasson.com/nikon-z6-7/20mm-f-1-8-nikkor-s-initial-testing/
https://blog.kasson.com/nikon-z6-7/nikon-sony-20-1-8-foliage-test/
-
https://blog.kasson.com/nikon-z6-7/20mm-f-1-8-nikkor-s-initial-testing/
https://blog.kasson.com/nikon-z6-7/nikon-sony-20-1-8-foliage-test/
The Sony looks better with those samples.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
As Jim Kasson writes in its conclusion:
"Pretty close. Since the a7RIV has a higher-resolution sensor than the Z7, some of its performance here says more about the camera than the lens."
I think it is not a good way to test two lenses on different sensors- the sensor may make some difference; especially if it has more pixels.
For sure the Nikon lens will do better on the Sony sensor.
-
I will wait for more testing but so far it's disappointing. The light fall off for example it's not related to the sensor resolution.
-
I will wait for more testing but so far it's disappointing. The light fall off for example it's not related to the sensor resolution.
Maybe the two lenses are both great, depending on the use...
Anyway i would like to have a basic Lenstip Review on both. Unfortunately this Polish site is not capable to do many reviews.
Again a 20mm lens, like many wide angle lenses may have surprises, that tests are not showing.
One of them: the field of sharpness may vary strongly along with aperture and distance.
Also Nikon makes S-lenses with minor breathing to use them in video.
-
What Jim needs is an electronic Techart E to Z adapter. That way you can have both lenses on the Z7. Sure, it's not ideal to use adapters, but it would be interesting to see.
-
I have been using a lot the Sony 135mm f1.8 GM vs the Nikon 85mm f1.8 S.
The Sony lens is technically excellent, sharp,... and so is the Nikon. Probably a technical draw overall. But... I just far prefer the look of the images shot with the Nikon lens.
Some of the may result from some body driven aspects (colors), but there is more to it. It’s about look of bokeh and the transition from sharp areas to oof ones,...
Nikon has also been known for, and explicitly wrote about this, their intend to merge 2 lenses in one:
- sharp accross the field at medium apertures when it matters for landscape,
- optimized look at wide aperture when attempting to have limited DoF (typically close up for wide glass)
So we’ll have to test at various distances to understand what they optimized the lens for.
Nikon being the marketing disaster they are we can’t expect them to tell us about it...
Finally, not all the lens can be designed by the best engineer in the team. The 20mm f1.8 may end up just being a very very good lens and not an outstanding one generally speaking. Even so it could still be outstanding for some usage such as landscape work.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Interesting review on the sony lens here:
https://www.cameralabs.com/sony-fe-20mm-f1-8-g-review/
It seems a very good lens with even for 20mm a fine bokeh. very sharp corners even wide open.
one special thing about this lens:
Vignetting is high at f1.8 lower at f2.8 and again high at f4???
PS the nikkor S lens (es) just have to be very good for there is no choice for the Z-owner at the moment.
-
PS the nikkor S lens (es) just have to be very good for there is no choice for the Z-owner at the moment.
Not quite, the TechArt adapter works ok and is totally fine for such a lens.
If the Sony really is better Nikon users can just buy the Sony.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Are there any downsides of this techart adapter?
-
Are there any downsides of this techart adapter?
AF is slow and not trustable on moving subjects.
Other than that not really.
It turns the Nikon Z into a universal camera.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
AF is slow and not trustable on moving subjects.
Other than that not really.
It turns the Nikon Z into a universal camera.
Cheers,
Bernard
It also limits your AF points to the middle part of the sensor...or maybe that's a Nikon feature. ;D
-
Another review of the Sony 20 1.8 G.
https://www.cameralabs.com/sony-fe-20mm-f1-8-g-review/
Looks like a winner given it's image quality, size, weight and cost.
-
It also limits your AF points to the middle part of the sensor...or maybe that's a Nikon feature. ;D
Which is of little relevance for a 20mm lens.
One thing is sure none of the excellent S lenses will ever be usable on a sony body.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Which is of little relevance for a 20mm lens.
One thing is sure none of the excellent S lenses will ever be usable on a sony body.
Cheers,
Bernard
So Sony can sell lenses to Nikon users but Nikon can’t sell lenses to Sony users. I guess the hope is that the Nikon lenses are so good that the advantage they offer will tempt the users of Sony bodies to sell their cameras and switch to Nikon. If that doesn’t happen then advantage Sony.
-
So Sony can sell lenses to Nikon users but Nikon can’t sell lenses to Sony users. I guess the hope is that the Nikon lenses are so good that the advantage they offer will tempt the users of Sony bodies to sell their cameras and switch to Nikon. If that doesn’t happen then advantage Sony.
True.
I personally look at this as a photographer and having as many options as possible is good for me.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
True.
I personally look at this as a photographer and having as many options as possible is good for me.
Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard, there are so many lens options for Sony...many native mount that if one cannot make brilliant photographs with those lenses, one should maybe switch hobbies. Manufactures are scrambling over themselves to create Siny mount lenses...brilliant move by Sony to open up their mount.
You Bernard...you can use these brilliant lenses crippled with the adapter.
-
At the risk of butting in on this irritating game of ping pong, I'll just say that I would love to see Nikon opening their Z mount.
-
At the risk of butting in on this irritating game of ping pong, I'll just say that I would love to see Nikon opening their Z mount.
Met too, Nikon thinks not doing it will be better for them. That remains to be seen.
Meanwhile Jim Kasson just performed a test with both lenses on the Z7 and sees now that both lenses are OK and not performing much different at 46MP.
So 63mp vs 46mp makes some difference as it should.
-
Met too, Nikon thinks not doing it will be better for them. That remains to be seen.
Meanwhile Jim Kasson just performed a test with both lenses on the Z7 and sees now that both lenses are OK and not performing much at 46MP.
So 63mp vs 46mp makes some difference as it should.
Bringing an adapter into the picture definitely will affect the performance of a lens...in not a good way. Lenses are typically designed for a specific sensor so adapting that lens ( which brings in tolerances ) onto a non native sensor has all sorts of possible performance issues. It's a good test if one is deciding on which lens to use on the Z7...but not a very good approach if one is deciding on the best image quality a given lens can generate.
-
Bringing an adapter into the picture definitely will affect the performance of a lens...in not a good way. Lenses are typically designed for a specific sensor so adapting that lens ( which brings in tolerances ) onto a non native sensor has all sorts of possible performance issues. It's a good test if one is deciding on which lens to use on the Z7...but not a very good approach if one is deciding on the best image quality a given lens can generate.
So i guess you buy new lenses with every camera...
since the 20mm Sony lens will not be any good on a Sony 7 III body?
Performance issues are already noted- slower AF on moving subjects - I don't see it will change optically (or maybe a incidental flange problem)
With all the pixel peepers here we would have known already.
-
At least if appears that these 2 lenses are generating agreement on the fact that the performance of these f1.8 lenses are, realistically, probably the most important aspect of a mirrorless system.
Those interested in facts will see that when tested on the same camera both lenses are excellent (probably the 2 best 20mm lenses ever designed), with the Sony a bit sharper in the center and the Nikon a bit sharper in the corners.
Actual usage will confirm other aspects but I doubt that they would impact real world photography in a meaningful way.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
So i guess you buy new lenses with every camera...
since the 20mm Sony lens will not be any good on a Sony 7 III body?
Performance issues are already noted- slower AF on moving subjects - I don't see it will change optically (or maybe a incidental flange problem)
With all the pixel peepers here we would have known already.
Nope...all Sony cameras have the same specks for their sensors...just like all Nikon cameras have the same specs. The adapter tries to duplicate those specs, but manufacturing tolerances make a difference in the final images. You are basically adding another tolerance level by using an adapter which from personal experience with multiple adapters...there are variances.
Don't know what you mean by your last sentence. You know a lot of people using the newly released Sony 20 1.8 lens on their N7 cameras?
-
At least if appears that these 2 lenses are generating agreement on the fact that the performance of these f1.8 lenses are, realistically, probably the most important aspect of a mirrorless system.
Those interested in facts will see that when tested on the same camera both lenses are excellent (probably the 2 best 20mm lenses ever designed), with the Sony a bit sharper in the center and the Nikon a bit sharper in the corners.
Actual usage will confirm other aspects but I doubt that they would impact real world photography in a meaningful way.
Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard, I must agree with you, both seems to be fine lenses. Love the size and weight of the Sony though.
-
Bernard, I must agree with you, both seems to be fine lenses. Love the size and weight of the Sony though.
Smaller is nice. The Sony seems clearly superior in terms of « quality per gram ».
Now in the real world I personally never carry only a 20mm lens. It’s always part of a system. What will matter is the total bulk/weight.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Smaller is nice. The Sony seems clearly superior in terms of « quality per gram ».
Now in the real world I personally never carry only a 20mm lens. It’s always part of a system. What will matter is the total bulk/weight.
Cheers,
Bernard
A few extra grams in the pack on your back really doesn't matter...a few extra grams hanging off your wrist is where it really matters. That's where individual weights of lenses really makes a difference.
-
A few extra grams in the pack on your back really doesn't matter...a few extra grams hanging off your wrist is where it really matters. That's where individual weights of lenses really makes a difference.
Certainly but the lenses for which this is relevant are.
- heavy lenses
- lenses that are used a large % of the time
- lenses used hand held
This doesn’t apply to a 20mm f1.8 but it does for a 24-70mm f2.8 for instance.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Certainly but the lenses for which this is relevant are.
- heavy lenses
- lenses that are used a large % of the time
- lenses used hand held
This doesn’t apply to a 20mm f1.8 but it does for a 24-70mm f2.8 for instance.
Cheers,
Bernard
Maybe for your shooting, but I carry wide angle on my camera an awful lot when photographing narrow tight places in alleyways or when photographing inside. Right now I carry the 16-35 lens for such occasions...this 20mm will replace the need of carrying the heavier lens.
My other travel lenses are also nice and light allowing me to carry a camera on my wrist for 12 hour days without fatigue. This is the reason why I shoot mirrorless...for the nice small lenses I use for travel. Nothing over 500gm...in fact only 1 lens over 400gm.
-
Maybe for your shooting, but I carry wide angle on my camera an awful lot when photographing narrow tight places in alleyways or when photographing inside. Right now I carry the 16-35 lens for such occasions...this 20mm will replace the need of carrying the heavier lens.
My other travel lenses are also nice and light allowing me to carry a camera on my wrist for 12 hour days without fatigue. This is the reason why I shoot mirrorless...for the nice small lenses I use for travel. Nothing over 500gm...in fact only 1 lens over 400gm.
I just walked one hour carrying a GFX-100 and 120mm f4 macro and that was a bit heavy but... you need to do a bit of workout if you expect a Z7 and 20mm f1.8 to be too heavy... ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I just walked one hour carrying a GFX-100 and 120mm f4 macro and that was a bit heavy but... you need to do a bit of workout if you expect a Z7 and 20mm f1.8 to be too heavy... ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
I travel for a month at a time, carrying my camera with me for 12 hours, day-in...day-out. Hope you didn't exhaust yourself carrying your camera for 1 hour.
-
I travel for a month at a time, carrying my camera with me for 12 hours, day-in...day-out. Hope you didn't exhaust yourself carrying your camera for 1 hour.
Would you mind sharing the actual % of images you shot with your 16-35 at or below 20mm during your last month long trip? You can find this in LR or C1 Pro. While you are at it, the % of images shot with your 16-35mm would be interesting too.
Thanks.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Would you mind sharing the actual % of images you shot with your 16-35 at or below 20mm during your last month long trip? You can find this in LR or C1 Pro. While you are at it, the % of images shot with your 16-35mm would be interesting too.
Thanks.
Cheers,
Bernard
Trip to Vietnam.
12% of the images were 20mm or less.
17% of the image were taken with the 16-35.
-
Trip to Vietnam.
12% of the images were 20mm or less.
17% of the image were taken with the 16-35.
Thanks.
The difference of weight between a Z7+20mm f1.8 S and a7rIV + 20mm f1.8 is 142 gr.
Based on your stats, you would have to carry this extra weight about 1 hour per day.
Is that really relevant?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Thanks.
The difference of weight between a Z7+20mm f1.8 S and a7rIV + 20mm f1.8 is 142 gr.
Based on your stats, you would have to carry this extra weight about 1 hour per day.
Is that really relevant?
Cheers,
Bernard
Doesn't work that way Bernard and you know it. There are days, depending on where I'm shooting, the lens might be on the camera all day, then it might sit in my bag for a week. So yes...carrying the extra 142gm on my wrist for a whole day would cause more discomfort.
Surely even you Bernard would love lighter than heavier gear.
-
Doesn't work that way Bernard and you know it. There are days, depending on where I'm shooting, the lens might be on the camera all day, then it might sit in my bag for a week. So yes...carrying the extra 142gm on my wrist for a whole day would cause more discomfort.
Surely even you Bernard would love lighter than heavier gear.
142 gr is as negligible as it gets.
Let’s see, what are the other lenses you would typically use?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
142 gr is as negligible as it gets.
Let’s see, what are the other lenses you would typically use?
Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard, I'm not going to play your little game. Bottom line, the Sony 20 1.8G is a great lens at a great size and weight...in my books a winner. Yes, the Nikon is also a good lens...but weighs much more, 30% more, than the Sony which leaves it less desirable in my books as a travel lens.
Like I said Bernard, all things being equal ( and I believe the Sony image quality is even better wide open than Nikon ) I'd take a lighter lens than one that is heavier. Surely you must agree with this.
-
My take is that both lenses are excellent... among the best 20mm lenses available. Nikon continues to deliver outstanding lenses in their S line for Z mount. The Sony is at least a good or better. This shows that for moderate aperture, wide angle lenses, the Sony E mount diameter is not a limiting factor. A larger mount diameter might be an advantage for some exotic, fast lenses, but the E mount is not going to consign Sony to the dustbin of history as some have posited.
I will say, that having used both Sony A7Rx and Nikon Z6/7, I would rather hand-hold the Nikon system even if it weighed a hundred or so grams more.
-
Bernard, I'm not going to play your little game. Bottom line, the Sony 20 1.8G is a great lens at a great size and weight...in my books a winner. Yes, the Nikon is also a good lens...but weighs much more, 30% more, than the Sony which leaves it less desirable in my books as a travel lens.
Like I said Bernard, all things being equal ( and I believe the Sony image quality is even better wide open than Nikon ) I'd take a lighter lens than one that is heavier. Surely you must agree with this.
The thing being that considering only one lens gives a very partial view but anyway, I understand your position.
As far as I am concerned I do base my light kit on the excellent 24-70mm f4 S and complement it with whatever prime (often f1.8 lens) I think I’ll need, including some Sony FE mount lenses if needed.
On my last 4 days trek I packed a 14-30mm f4, 85mm f1.8, Leica 180mm f2.8 and light pano head. But it was pretty easy stuff with no more than 20km/1,000m vertical a day.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I have finally had the opportunity to shoot with the 20mm f1.8 S.
It's simply an outstanding wide. Very sharp even wide open, beautiful look with a remarkable 3D feel to the images.
The images have a rightness to them that is recognizable in S glass.
The oof highlights show a unique, somehow facetted look, that is not unpleasant, certainly less disturbing than the concentric circles visible in too many highly corrected lenses.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
As I said, will see, but my initial feeling of disappointment remains. Maybe I would have been less disappointed if Nikon didn't make such a big deal about their wider mount, which has an advantage particularly for wider focal lengths. I mean if they can't be better here, then where?
From that initial data, Nikon is larger, heavier, more expensive, and at best has similar performance.
-
As I said, will see, but my initial feeling of disappointment remains. Maybe I would have been less disappointed if Nikon didn't make such a big deal about their wider mount, which has an advantage particularly for wider focal lengths. I mean if they can't be better here, then where?
From that initial data, Nikon is larger, heavier, more expensive, and at best has similar performance.
The price is the same in Japan. Level of sharpness is similar ar 46mp, we don't know whether it will still be the same at higher resolution. We just know that the Sony is sharper on a 60mp a7rIV than the Nikon on a 45mp Z7, we don't know the result of the Nikon on a 60mp Z8.
I haven't tested the Sony so I don't know, but the look of the bokeh of the Nikon is very good in absolute terms and outstanding for a wide lens.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I used the 24mm nikon G1.8 and the 24mm nikkor S1.8 and by any test the S lens is better.
That said i still like the G lens better because of some personal preferences; how the images looks...the softer rolling of from sharpness to unsharpness.
What i want to say is that it is part a very personal experience what lens to prefer, especially if the measurable quality of the lenses are about equal.
-
The price is the same in Japan. Level of sharpness is similar ar 46mp, we don't know whether it will still be the same at higher resolution. We just know that the Sony is sharper on a 60mp a7rIV than the Nikon on a 45mp Z7, we don't know the result of the Nikon on a 60mp Z8.
I haven't tested the Sony so I don't know, but the look of the bokeh of the Nikon is very good in absolute terms and outstanding for a wide lens.
Cheers,
Bernard
Really? We talk about bokeh from a 20mm. That's the last feature I'm concerned about. Give me sharpness to the edges, great contrast and colour...and make it light.
-
Really? We talk about bokeh from a 20mm. That's the last feature I'm concerned about. Give me sharpness to the edges, great contrast and colour...and make it light.
This is about close up, some creative possibilities.
Agreed that this is not the main usage. I will use mine at f5.6 for landscape images most of the time I believe.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Agreed that this is not the main usage. I will use mine at f5.6 for landscape images most of the time I believe.
Why not just use you 14-30 stopped down to f8? Where I hope the lens shines is in astophotography.
-
Why not just use you 14-30 stopped down to f8? Where I hope the lens shines is in astophotography.
I'm looking to use it for travel and cultural photos, the Sony version. Great focal length for tight markes or indoors and the f1.8 really comes in handy when it gets dim.
I have the Zeiss 21 ze for my landscape and love the colours and contrast from that lens.
-
I still have my Nikon 20mm AFD 2.8 prime. Too bad they couldn't design something that small again. My sharpest wide angle is my Olympus 8mm 1.8 lens. I bought it for underwater photography but I'm using it more and more on land.
-
camera labs just finnished a review of the nikkor S 20mm f1.8
https://www.cameralabs.com/nikon-z-20mm-f1-8-s-review/
It is a pitty they do no show it directly against the sony, but from what i read i would prefer the Sony lens.
-
camera labs just finnished a review of the nikkor S 20mm f1.8
https://www.cameralabs.com/nikon-z-20mm-f1-8-s-review/
It is a pitty they do no show it directly against the sony, but from what i read i would prefer the Sony lens.
Yes, the Sony appears overall to be the better lens.
I would assume that the chief designer of the 20mm is probably not their most talented designer.
Still, I have not seen any softness in corners at typical landscape apertures.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Yes, the Sony appears overall to be the better lens.
I would assume that the chief designer of the 20mm is probably not their most talented designer.
Still, I have not seen any softness in corners at typical landscape apertures.
Cheers,
Bernard
For “landscape apertures” why not use the 14-30? What does the 20 F1.8 bring at apertures smaller than F4, because there’s plenty that’s not bringing?
-
For “landscape apertures” why not use the 14-30? What does the 20 F1.8 bring at apertures smaller than F4, because there’s plenty that’s not bringing?
The 14-30mm f4 is an excellent choice for landscape.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I'm a Sony user still on an original A7 and recently bought the Sony 20mm f1.8. We're all isolating so all I can do is test and use the lens about the house and garden but so far all I can say is that this lens looks just about perfect to me. Performance throughout the frame from wide open seems outstanding. One criticism some seem to be making is that it's susceptible to flare but I can't say that I've found that yet.
I bought the lens with a few uses in mind and to be honest I'd have been happy if it had only equalled the old Sigma 20mm f1.8 I had for my Canon DSLR's but of course this new Sony lens is vastly better.
So, I now have these Sony lenses, 28-70mm f3.5-5.6, 20, 35, 55 and 85mm f1.8's. The 35, 55 and 85mm lenses all have weakness I can point at and nit pick but overall I think they're excellent and this latest 20mm even more so. I also have the Voigtlander 35mm f1.4, 40mm f1.2 and 50mm f2 pro lanthar. These modern lenses have pushed my film era primes out and I haven't used them for a while now but I don't know if I can bring myself to sell them.
PS.
When I did a decentering check at f1.8 I couldn't believe the performance of the 20mm f1.8. Performance throughout the frame is IMO incredible.