I did a search and was surprised to not see much discussed with the 20mm f1.8S lens. I've owned the 1.8G version and have loved it with many images I'm really happy with. Looking at photographylife, the Z version is superior as expected. With that said, I was hoping for feedback from people who have made this upgrade. I'm curious if the real, non-testing experience from a variety of people would also suggest the upgrade is worth it for reasons other than not having to use the ftz adapter? If you have some feedback, can you please let me know if your opinions include astro and/or landscapes, etc?
20 1.8S is sharper and has less coma on corners while shooting astro shots.
I owned a 20 1.8 F mount and loved it. I sold it recently to upgrade to Z mount as I don't like the FTZ mount on Z in general.
20 1.8G is still better than the S mount in some areas IMO
1. Lighter and smaller lens (yes! Z mount version is longer and heavier.. which beats me)
2. Sunstar on 20 1.8G is much better (one of the legendary sunstars of all F mount lenses in my experience)
kovairaja99 wrote:
20 1.8S is sharper and has less coma on corners while shooting astro shots.
I owned a 20 1.8 F mount and loved it. I sold it recently to upgrade to Z mount as I don't like the FTZ mount on Z in general.
20 1.8G is still better than the S mount in some areas IMO
1. Lighter and smaller lens (yes! Z mount version is longer and heavier.. which beats me)
2. Sunstar on 20 1.8G is much better (one of the legendary sunstars of all F mount lenses in my experience)
Thanks! Technical comments aside, do you feel the images with the S lens are worth the upgrade? From what you've written so far, I'm thinking I'd be okay holding onto some cash for a different upgrade one day? Cheers!
I've never used the Z 20mm f1.8 and I'm sure its amazing, particularly on full frame.
However I have extensive use of the 20mm f1.8 G on DSLR DX and the quality, even wide open is incredible, in practice surely good enough for anyone. Next year I plan to migrate to a DX Z mount camera (don't know which one yet, either a Z FC or a Z30 if released by then). I plan to keep my G 20mm and use on an adaptor as I am sure it will be fabulous on the Z mount 20 mpx crop sensors.
If I were buying from scratch for Z full frame, yes I would get the Z mount 20mm.
I have the 24, 35, 50, and 85mm S lenses. If the reviews of the 20mm are as accurate as the other reviews, then getting the 20mm f/1.8 S should be clearly superior in resolution and especially coma, which is important for astrophotography. You can check coma easily by placing specular highlights, i.e. light sources such as light bulbs, in the image corner in normal indoor light.
Just ordered the S lens after reading the Photographylife review and watching a couple of youtube astro reviews/comparisons of the 2 lenses.
Would I have ordered the S if I already G ? Probably not, but as I didn't and it was not much more for the S version I ordered that. Also ordered the Z mount version of the Laowa 15mm f2 Zero-D as well for astro on the Z6ii
Not much in the way of astro to do a comparison right now, but I'm just doing a quick trial with the 20mm f1.8S vs my 1.8G and at f11 there is so very little between them. I might have to revisit this in the spring, but right now I'm pretty underwhelmed. I don't shoot landscapes at apertures lower than f8. I suppose this should have been expected with this: https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-z-20mm-f1-8-s/3
I'm curious: I've always done landscapes with f8-11 and have sometimes tried to use 3 images with different focus points and then combine in photoshop. Do people do this with lower apertures to take advantage of the extra sharpness? If so, is it a noticeable difference? I see this f1.8S lens really shines at f4 and the lower apertures are where the advantages lie between the two lenses.
Another point to consider is the sunstars. I prefer the G over the S for this. The G makes a nice crisp 14 point star if that's something you include in your photog.
