traveling with the 14-24, 24-120 and 50S, all on a Z body, be it the Z6II or the Z8, they are all quite bulky but the 14-24 is the one seeing less use and I often debate if worth carrying around for the weight it adds so was thinking to get a wide prime in the future, I own the 20G f1.8 which I was using on D8x0 bodies but along with the FTZ it is not much of a weight saver, is there anything reasonably priced and sized in the range from 14 to 20 millimetre to leave the 14-24 home?
On a side note, I know it was a bit distorted but the 16-35 was a much nicer range...
Lots of great options. I'll second the question about the 14-30...
I recently picked up the Viltrox 20mm Air and I'm blown away by it, esp for the price. The 14 is supposed to be even better.
The 14mm is a remarkable lens. I have both the CV 15mm and the Viltrox 14mm.
Better picture quality, 170g vs 300g, MFD 0.13m vs 0.3m - a highly addictive lens. AF too.
A truly great travel option, even leaving aside the great and highly distinctive image quality.
Check out the thread in the Sony forum:
Also the Tamron 16-30/2.8 is a very nice lens. But for something small and inexpensive the Viltrox 14 is hard to beat. It has VERY nice image quality, is very small and costs almost nothing.
I'll add another vote for the Viltrox 14mm Air. Is it as good as the Nikon 14-24mm S? No, but almost nothing else is, either... However, the V 14mm is tiny, cheap, and offers very good performance even when ignoring the size and price. It has a bit of wavy distortion that Lightroom's profile doesn't eliminate, which is about the worst thing it has going for it.
I was not as impressed with the Viltrox 20mm 2.8. Its not bad, perhaps even very good, just not as good as the 14mm. Same with the Viltrox 16mm 1.8; not a bad lens, just didn't live up to the hype. If you want a native Z fast ultrawide with AF, it is the only game in town.
I liked the Nikon Z 17-28mm 2.8. It won't wow you like the 14-24mm S, but it definitely has the 16-35mm vibe, just much smaller and lighter. Tamron's 16-30mm is said to be an improvement over the 17-28mm, but I haven't used that one yet. I think the 14-30mm S still beats both, just comes at a higher cost (and some find the need to unlock for use an annoyance).
I love my 14-30/4 S; however Giovanni asked suggestions for a "wide prime... reasonably priced and sized in the range from 14 to 20 millimetre".
Even the 20/1.8G + FTZ is too bulky for him.
I have and like the Viltrox Air 14mm. Also have the Voigtlander 15mm. The Viltrox is lighter, less expensive, and images are very good - the only question is durability. The Voigtlander is much better built, and also reasonably sharp.
ahinesdesign wrote:
I'll add another vote for the Viltrox 14mm Air. Is it as good as the Nikon 14-24mm S? No, but almost nothing else is, either... However, the V 14mm is tiny, cheap, and offers very good performance even when ignoring the size and price. It has a bit of wavy distortion that Lightroom's profile doesn't eliminate, which is about the worst thing it has going for it.
I was not as impressed with the Viltrox 20mm 2.8. Its not bad, perhaps even very good, just not as good as the 14mm. Same with the Viltrox 16mm 1.8; not a bad lens, just didn't live up to the hype. If you want a native Z fast ultrawide with AF, it is the only game in town.
I liked the Nikon Z 17-28mm 2.8. It won't wow you like the 14-24mm S, but it definitely has the 16-35mm vibe, just much smaller and lighter. Tamron's 16-30mm is said to be an improvement over the 17-28mm, but I haven't used that one yet. I think the 14-30mm S still beats both, just comes at a higher cost (and some find the need to unlock for use an annoyance)....Show more →
I wonder if you got a bad copy of the Viltrox 16/1.8, because that lens I find absolutely exceptional. It’s not “compact” which is why I didn’t mention it, but mine is near flawless.
Another vote for the Voigtländer Super Wide heliar 15mm. I have the Z-mount and LTM versions of it, and had the third M version before the Z-was released. As you propably guess, I love the lens
If you want really wide, consider the Laowa 10mm f/2.8 Zero-D FF AF lens. The optics and build are great. The AF works fine. After all, this isn't an action focal length. Uses 77mm filters, too. $799
Another option is to go the an E-mount lens and use an adapter, such as the Megadap ETZ-21 Pro. I do this with my Z50II and mount a Sigma 10-18mm f/2.8 DC DN Contemporary. This particular lens would work in DX Crop mode on a FF Z, but there are plenty of E-mount FF options.
Another nod to the Voigtländer Super Wide heliar 15mm. Use the LTM version on a Z7, as well as the 21 Skopar, 25 Snapshot Skopar and 40 Heliar (all LTM).
I choose this Voigtlander for a number of reasons
- Small and light weight
- Great flair resistance shooting into the sun
- Sharp
- Sunstars
- Aperture ring
- Manual focus for set & shoot operation
- Manual focus to better support hyper focal distance setting.
Basically I don't care about fast or AF in an ultra wide angle.
Sorrymanagement wrote:
If Nikon re-releases the 16-35 2.8, i will put my 14-24 up for sale instantly. I would love to have that extra reach
Nikon never actually made a 16-35/2.8. They made a 17-35/2.8 AF-S with an aperture ring that tended to blow out its focus motor and need to be somewhat stopped down for best results but it was strong for its time; then the landmark 14-24/2.8G with the very bulbous front element; then a 16-35/4G VR that was rather hit or miss; then an 18-35/3.5-4.5G that was quite well regarded.
I agree, I think doing a 16-35/2.8 would be a big seller for them. I think Canon have one that takes 82mm filters.
