I currently use a 16-35 VR F-mount. Things I like about it:
- Normal filter threads
- Internal zoom
- VR
I would like a 2.8 for any astro work but it's low on the priority list. Size/weight doesn't matter.
Distortion control is one area I think the 16-35 shows its age and where I'd want a true upgrade - it's particularly noticeable when I'm doing real estate work. Something a little wider would be nice but not a must.
The 16-35 has served me well for easily a decade or longer, it's been around the world with me in some truely grueling environments. Truthfully it probably has some serious grit in it because the AF gets stuck unless I loosen it manually! So it's time to get replaced.
So given all of the above, what lenses would you point me towards? I'm ok with 3rd party, and for now price isn't a consideration.
If you want a prime and lightweight setup, consider the Viltrox AF 14mm f/4 Z or the Nikon Z 14‑30mm f/4 S.
For primes without weight or price considerations, consider the Viltrox AF 16mm f/1.8 Z and Nikon Z 20mm f/1.8 S.
If you want the best overall performance and a professional lens for critical work, go with the Nikon Z 14‑24mm f/2.8 S. I would pair it with a NiSi hood and add a 112mm filter.
Tamron 16-30 G2 Z is also very competent but starts at 16mm.
Outstanding wrote:
Tamron 16-30 G2 Z is also very competent but starts at 16mm.
I wouldn't rec the Tamron when much better options exist (if your budget allows for it). Realistically, it's only decent until about 24mm and is very much a low-budget option. Definitely one of the most disappointing Z lenses I've tried.
Given the recent release of the 24-70mm f2.8 II and 70-200mm f2.8 II it seems likely we’ll get a new UWA zoom soon. Whether that’s a 14-24mm f2.8 II or a 16-35mm f2.8..
Appreciate the responses, thank you! It's helped me narrow some things down a bit.
I should have added some info regarding the potential filter system.
Currently I have some 77mm ND and circular polarizer filters, along with a Lee system with adapter rings that are able to hold 4*6 Lee/Singh Ray graduated filters I have.
It seems like there is a specific 14-24S system that can somehow take these filters I have. I remember the F-mount 14-24 needed some monstrous filters that I have ZERO interest looking into.
What filter systems are available for the 14-24S, and what have your experience been?
Given your appreciation of the 16-35mm F-mount, I agree with Ripolini that you should look at the 14-30 f/4 S. It’s the natural successor you’ve loved nearly to pieces.
My own tastes differ—the 16-35’s corners were too smeary for me from about 16-18mm. Online test images from the 14-30 again look bad to me in the corners at the wider settings, but apparently seem fine to lots of other photographers.
OTOH, I loved the 14-24 f/2.8 F lens, and find the 14-24mm f/2.8 S lens even better. (You posted your response as I was writing this. I used those “monstrous filters” with the old lens, and didn’t find them so bad. Haven’t purchased any filters for the current lens.)
For astro, I quite like the Sigma Art 14mm f/1.4 in a Sony mount, adapted to Nikon Z with a Photodiox adapter. The newer version of the Megadap adapter is said to be even better. (Early reports of corner smearing with this lens on Nikon Z were apparently due to issues with the first version of the Megadap adapter. I can attest to these problems, and various issues with the Viltrox adapter I tried.)
I shoot this Sigma wide open for astro, and appreciate the four times as much light it lets in compared with the f/2.8 zoom.
fjablo wrote:
Given the recent release of the 24-70mm f2.8 II and 70-200mm f2.8 II it seems likely we’ll get a new UWA zoom soon. Whether that’s a 14-24mm f2.8 II or a 16-35mm f2.8..
Z 14-24 S already feels next gen. 2470 and 70200 were heavy and big for their class. I hope Nikon addresses the gaps in UWA lineup and releases 14mm and 16mm primes before updating their zoom 14-24.
RoamingScott wrote:
I wouldn't rec the Tamron when much better options exist (if your budget allows for it). Realistically, it's only decent until about 24mm and is very much a low-budget option. Definitely one of the most disappointing Z lenses I've tried.
And I would say basically the opposite. My Tamron 16-30mm shows very good to excellent sharpness throughout the zoom range, and I have been extremely pleased with it. I'm still convinced you had a bum copy of the lens. The Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 is a better lens, of course, though it's also a lot more expensive and has the much larger filters. The 14-24 is the best UWA I've ever owned, but I couldn't justify keeping it.
In prime land I do heartily recommend the Viltrox 16mm f/1.8, which is an outstanding lens, and will give you 14-24mm quality in general, though only at a single focal length.
I have the 14-24 and use the Kase hood and their 112mm magnetic filters. The hood bayonets on and doesn’t require any adapters for the filters. It will also work on some other lenses that will accept the hood including the 14-30. I use a step ring for 77mm filter thread lenses like the 24-120.
Chris S. wrote:
Given your appreciation of the 16-35mm F-mount, I agree with Ripolini that you should look at the 14-30 f/4 S. It’s the natural successor you’ve loved nearly to pieces.
My own tastes differ—the 16-35’s corners were too smeary for me from about 16-18mm. Online test images from the 14-30 again look bad to me in the corners at the wider settings, but apparently seem fine to lots of other photographers.
OTOH, I loved the 14-24 f/2.8 F lens, and find the 14-24mm f/2.8 S lens even better. (You posted your response as I was writing this. I used those “monstrous filters” with the old lens, and didn’t find them so bad. Haven’t purchased any filters for the current lens.)
For astro, I quite like the Sigma Art 14mm f/1.4 in a Sony mount, adapted to Nikon Z with a Photodiox adapter. The newer version of the Megadap adapter is said to be even better. (Early reports of corner smearing with this lens on Nikon Z were apparently due to issues with the first version of the Megadap adapter. I can attest to these problems, and various issues with the Viltrox adapter I tried.)
I shoot this Sigma wide open for astro, and appreciate the four times as much light it lets in compared with the f/2.8 zoom.
I would agree with you here regarding poor corner performance of the 16-35, so if the 14-24S really improves on that, it's a compelling case for this lens. I'll have to investigate the filter systems offered.
The extra 6 mm on the 14-30/4 offers some nice flexibility that I'll have the mull over.
The 14-30 relies on some pretty heavy-handed distortion correction if that’s a concern for you at all.
m.sommers00 wrote:
I would agree with you here regarding poor corner performance of the 16-35, so if the 14-24S really improves on that, it's a compelling case for this lens. I'll have to investigate the filter systems offered.
The extra 6 mm on the 14-30/4 offers some nice flexibility that I'll have the mull over.
The 14-30 destroys the F-mount 16-35, although the distortion correction involved prevents it from quite reaching the 14-24 Z. There are also some slight quirks with field curvature that can weaken the corners and outer field at 14mm if you are not careful with what you are focusing on; the plane of focus goes farther away from the photographer into the mid periphery at the 14mm end before pulling back just a touch in the farthest corners.
The 14-24/2.8 is closer to being flat field if I understand correctly though I've not used it.
Coma is amazingly well corrected on the 14-30, so that, despite the limited aperture, you can squeeze astro photos out of it with multiple exposure techniques like focus stacking.
m.sommers00 wrote:
I would agree with you here regarding poor corner performance of the 16-35, so if the 14-24S really improves on that, it's a compelling case for this lens. I'll have to investigate the filter systems offered.
The extra 6 mm on the 14-30/4 offers some nice flexibility that I'll have the mull over.
You can download two high-res photos I took of the “calidarium” at the Villa dei Quintili, located along the Via Appia Antica in Rome, from the links below.
The photos were taken with my Nikon 14-30/4 S.
The vertical image was taken at 15 mm, f/8, with the focus set on the second boulder in the foreground. The image has been corrected for distortion and, to some extent, for perspective distortion as well; therefore, the field of view is closer to that of a 16mm lens than a 15mm.
The top of the building is less sharp, but keep in mind that the facade of the calidarium is far behind the focus point and that the top of the building is also the farthest part...
The horizontal image was taken at 19.5mm, f/8, with the focus set on the center.
This video did a great comparison of the 14-24S and 14-30, especially at apertures I often use for real estate (f/11) and even smaller aperture a fair amount for landscape depending on the situation.
I think either of these are going to be a step-up of performance compared to my 16-35.
This video was also help a bit, but something seems up with his 14-24 shots at the beginning.
And the exact filter system I was hoping to see demo'd.. Really leaning towards the 14-24. Cheers!
