I wish Nikon made some kind of ultra wide zoom, but more than just 17-28mm.
There is 24-120/4, but for me, putting this on Zf would be too heavy for travel.
Something like 20-70mm/4 would be nice, so this is a reason why I'm asking - anyone tried that Sony lens on Nikon camera?
I heard Sony 20/1.8 has huge distortion on Z, so this 20-70mm may be the same...
The Sony 20-70/4 is a great travel lens, but like many modern lenses, it benefits from lens correction profiles in LR. I'm not sure how/if you can apply those easily if using the lens on a Nikon Z body, and if the image quality is on par with what you would get on a Sony body.
Additionally, the weight differennce between a Z 24-120 and the Sony 20-70/4 is around 140 g, and then you have to add something like the $250 Megadap ETZ21 Pro+ adapter, so there really isn't any weight savings there.
Have you tried the Nikon Z 14-30/4?
Personally I really like the 24-120/4. Sure, it is a tad bigger and heavier, but once you have a camera body + lens you need a small bag, then it doesn't matter much.
Per a month-old post from MikeE, the Sony 20-70 works fine on Z bodies with the ETZPro21+ adapter.
The only caveat is that you have to manually select the lens profile in LR.
phinix wrote:
I heard Sony 20/1.8 has huge distortion on Z, so this 20-70mm may be the same...
That's not true at all. There was a problem with first version of megadap adapter(to thin), corners were a bit mushy(worse than on Sony cameras). That got fixed with the second one and it also works great with Viltrox adapter.
As for distortion the only difference is you dont get the built in corrections on Nikons bodies with Sony lenses but that 's really no issue if you're using any software with profiles(like LR etc...) so you can apply them in post.
I'm using G 20/F1.8 and it's great, same with GM 24/F1.4. Both work work very well with my Z6III and Z8.
Also like people above said already - for all in one combo - Nikkor z 24-120/F4 is amazing.
patotts wrote:
The Sony 20-70/4 is a great travel lens, but like many modern lenses, it benefits from lens correction profiles in LR. I'm not sure how/if you can apply those easily if using the lens on a Nikon Z body, and if the image quality is on par with what you would get on a Sony body.
Additionally, the weight differennce between a Z 24-120 and the Sony 20-70/4 is around 140 g, and then you have to add something like the $250 Megadap ETZ21 Pro+ adapter, so there really isn't any weight savings there.
Have you tried the Nikon Z 14-30/4?
Personally I really like the 24-120/4. Sure, it is a tad bigger and heavier, but once you have a camera body + lens you need a small bag, then it doesn't matter much. ...Show more →
Reason I'm talking about 20-70 is wide end - I need 20mm for travel.
I already have an adapter, Viltrox, so would use that one.
RoamingScott wrote:
I travel with the Zf and 24-120 all the time. Heavy? Not a chance.
Scotty, I know you are a hardcore photographer here and weight of 24-120/4 is nothing for you
But yeah, I keep looking into that lens more often, if I ever buy one, its gonna buy your fault :P
I already have 58G and when initially I was mouning about it on Zf - size and weight, now I think I won't sell it, really like how it renders...
No, had it, hated retracting moment, sold it.
But it was great lens, IQ was amazing, but on trips having constantly need to retract it before taking photos drove me NUUUUTS
Immortal wrote:
That's not true at all. There was a problem with first version of megadap adapter(to thin), corners were a bit mushy(worse than on Sony cameras). That got fixed with the second one and it also works great with Viltrox adapter.
As for distortion the only difference is you dont get the built in corrections on Nikons bodies with Sony lenses but that 's really no issue if you're using any software with profiles(like LR etc...) so you can apply them in post.
I'm using G 20/F1.8 and it's great, same with GM 24/F1.4. Both work work very well with my Z6III and Z8.
Also like people above said already - for all in one combo - Nikkor z 24-120/F4 is amazing. ...Show more →
Really? Oh, thats good new, if I ever gong to go for 20mm prime, I can get that 20G then.
phinix wrote:
Scotty, I know you are a hardcore photographer here and weight of 24-120/4 is nothing for you
But yeah, I keep looking into that lens more often, if I ever buy one, its gonna buy your fault :P
I already have 58G and when initially I was mouning about it on Zf - size and weight, now I think I won't sell it, really like how it renders...
The 24-120 is worth every dollar of its asking price. My favorite standard zoom I’ve ever used.
It’s not a big problem to carry for travel. I went through Italy with a Zf, the 14-24/2.8, 24-120/4 and 40/2 and it was great.
Now I might bring my Z50 II kit (with 12-28 and 18-140) because it’s also quite good (though obviously not as good) and even lighter and smaller, though. Depends on whether the purpose of the trip is photography.
When I travel with a Nikon Z, the 24-120 is glued to the camera 90% of the time, and I carry around a 14-30 just in case. I absolutely thank the heavens for the 70-120 range. I do not miss the 120-200 range... or I often think I can crop for those rare instances I need more.
When I travel with a Sony, the 20-70 is glued on the camera frequently. It's a brilliant lens, but I carry around a 70-200 f4, just in case.
phinix wrote:
Reason I'm talking about 20-70 is wide end - I need 20mm for travel.
I already have an adapter, Viltrox, so would use that one.
So that adapter is 52 grams, so your weight diff is less than 90 grams. If you want/prefer 20mm, then there isn't much choice. Unless you want to get Z 14-30/4, which could be tempting as well.
I have Tamron 20-40mm f2.8 adapted on my Zf, but I wish I could have a bit longer end, 20-70 would be ideal.
I think I will have to stayw ith 20-40mm and get Nikon 24-200mm, which will cover any needs for long end.
RoamingScott wrote:
So much handwringing for what usually winds up being a super niche 4mm.
For me its very important - I had 24mm in the past and almost always wanted wider view, especially indoors when ravelling as I could not back myself up.
During my recent trips I have to say that 20mm was sometimes too narrow, 10% of my photos would benefit from wider than 20mm. So yeah, 24mm is definitely too narrow for at least 50% of my photos and I don't want to swap lens that often, I did in the past and it was pain in the ass, cause most of the times I had to swap for few photos, then go back to other lens. I'm too old for this shit
phinix wrote:
For me its very important - I had 24mm in the past and almost always wanted wider view, especially indoors when ravelling as I could not back myself up.
During my recent trips I have to say that 20mm was sometimes too narrow, 10% of my photos would benefit from wider than 20mm. So yeah, 24mm is definitely too narrow for at least 50% of my photos and I don't want to swap lens that often, I did in the past and it was pain in the ass, cause most of the times I had to swap for few photos, then go back to other lens. I'm too old for this shit ...Show more →
Funny thing, Sony G 20/F1.8 in reality is more like 19.3 mm(after corrections), it's not much of a difference in terms of raw numbers but when i put it side by side with N20/F1.8 the difference is easy to spot.
phinix wrote:
There is 24-120/4, but for me, putting this on Zf would be too heavy for travel.
Something like 20-70mm/4 would be nice, so this is a reason why I'm asking - anyone tried that Sony lens on Nikon camera?
I heard Sony 20/1.8 has huge distortion on Z, so this 20-70mm may be the same...
The 20-70mm works OK on the Nikon bodies, with a couple/few (possibly deal-breaking) caveats:
• As others have pointed out, its considerable distortion at the wide end is not corrected in the camera. Framing with the viewfinder is no longer WYSIWYG. JPEGs are out. You have to shoot raw and correct in post.
• For reasons I don't fully understand, the lens yields a wider field of view when shot on a Sony; even after corrections (possibly related to cover glass differences?)
• The lens is slightly less sharp at the borders when shot on the Nikon. Not significant, and probably invisible on a 24mpx body like the Zf.
I've attached some test shots I made when I was in the midst of switching to Nikon that show what I mean.
PS - I decided I wasn't happy with the uncorrected viewfinder, so I ended up selling the 20-70mm and going with the 24-120mm. It is a stellar lens, but I really miss the 20mm option.
Uncorrected/Nikon - THIS IS WHAT YOU'LL SEE IN THE VIEWFINDER & JPEGs
NIKON Z6_3FE 20-70mm F4 G lens20mmf/4.01/80s100 ISO0.0 EV
Uncorrected/Sony - you normally wouldn't ever see this
ILCE-7RM5FE 20-70mm F4 G lens20mmf/4.01/60s100 ISO0.0 EV
Corrected on Nikon
NIKON Z6_3FE 20-70mm F4 G lens20mmf/4.01/80s100 ISO0.0 EV
Corrected on Sony - NOTICE SLIGHTLY WIDER FIELD
ILCE-7RM5FE 20-70mm F4 G lens20mmf/4.01/60s100 ISO0.0 EV
Nice description and great pictures to illustrate the potential issues.
The slight difference in FOV is interesting. I wonder if the Nikon Z adapter could be just a hair too long which would result in a slightly smaller FOV? If it was off too much though infinity focus would be affected.
Another thought, I know Nikon trims some pixels on the edge that are only used for Bayer de-mosaic. I would think Sony is similar could that be a difference?
MikeEvangelist wrote:
The 20-70mm works fine on the Nikon bodies, with a couple/few (possibly deal-breaking) caveats:
• For reasons I don't fully understand, the lens yields a wider field of view when shot on a Sony; even after corrections (possibly related to cover glass differences?)
