Nikkor Z 20mm f/1.8S vs Sony 20mm f/1.8G

[chez]

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.

[BernardLanguillier]

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

[chez]

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.

[BernardLanguillier]

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

[chez]

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.

[BernardLanguillier]

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

[chez]

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.

[gkroeger]

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.

[BernardLanguillier]

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

[BernardLanguillier]

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

[armand]

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.

[BernardLanguillier]

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

[kers]

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.

[chez]

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.

[BernardLanguillier]

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

[HSakols]

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. 

[chez]

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.

[HSakols]

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. 

[kers]

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.

[BernardLanguillier]

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