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

[KLaban]

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.

[kers]

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.

[chez]

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.

[KLaban]

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 Kristiansen]

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.

[BernardLanguillier]

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. 

The only consistency I see in your arguments is that Nikon’s lenses are poor compromises but Canon and Sony are great! 

Those are just your own preferences. Why waste time trying to convince us that they are universal truths?

Cheers,
Bernard

[faberryman]

Those are just your own preferences. Why waste time trying to convince us that they are universal truths?

Oh, the irony.

[chez]

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.

[chez]

Oh, the irony.

Yep...

[BernardLanguillier]

Oh, the irony.

There is a difference between being opinionated and being inconsistent.

Cheers,
Bernard

[chez]

There is a difference between being opinionated and being inconsistent.

Cheers,
Bernard

Yes...you are consistently opinionated...and those opinions slant in one direction.

[SrMi]

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 :-).

[chez]

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.

[Martin Kristiansen]

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.

[BernardLanguillier]

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

[chez]

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.

[shadowblade]

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. 

The only consistency I see in your arguments is that Nikon’s lenses are poor compromises but Canon and Sony are great! 

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.

[jeremyrh]

I don't ever comment on equipment I've not used, never have, never will.

Where's the fun in that ?  :-)

[kers]

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.

[KLaban]

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.

;-)