Jman13
Online
Upload & Sell: On
|
 Re: Nikon Z Images Thread | |
akul wrote:
Jman13 wrote:
akul wrote:
Jman13 wrote:
Z8 with Z 20mm f/1.8 S:
Beautiful shots. How do you like the 20/1.8S. I am considering 20/1.8 S or Voigtlander 21/1.4 for the 20 - 21 range. Both are about the same weight ( one is AF other is MF but that is a non issue for me ) . 20/1..8S seems a bit longer, but native as opposed to adapt E or VM which is not ideal. Use will be landscape, including environmental portraiture, but do not foresee astro. Any insights will be very helpful..
Luka
I was really pleased with it until last night to be honest. Stopped down it's quite sharp, and it has a lovely rendering. Wide open it's pretty darn sharp too for the most part, but shooting stars with it last night revealed that my copy seems to have a tilted plane of focus that is apparent at infinity, such that when focused in the center and right side, stars were sharp to the corners even wide open, but the left third of the frame was actually out of focus (stars became little circles...not coma). Focusing on that side puts my right side out of focus. For regular landscape work, it doesn't matter because it gets very sharp across the frame when stopped down, but I'm frustrated now because otherwise I like the lens a lot. I think I'm going to swap from my 14-30 and 20/1.8 and just get the 14-24/2.8.
Thank you for sharing your experience with it. That sounds frustrating. It sounds like you are done trying to replace 20 for another copy ? It is painful, and frustrating so I can relate. 14-28/2.8 for sure is a great lens, but I am getting spoiled with smaller / lighter good performing lens, so I probably won't go that way. 100-400 and 50/1.2 will be the two heavy lens I will keep in Z setup. In terms of 20's handling, it seems pretty long, was it ever get in the way in terms of putting in your pack, etc ? Weight balance is probably good and may feel better than the 21/1.4 hunk of metal.
Luka
I purchased my 20mm f/1.8 used, so it's not really easy to try another copy. I've also owned it for about 45 days. Overall, even with this fault, the lens has generally been very good, as even shooting wide open in a lot of other situations indoors, I never really noticed anything off, so it's not horrible or anything...just doesn't make this copy great for astrophotography, unfortunately. I'll likely trade it in to the same place I bought it from when my 180-600 comes in.
Size wise, it's not a problem. The lens is fairly light weight despite the length, so it handles great. The only down side is that the lens hood for it is rather huge, so that's the limiting factor in bags, but the hood is only like 2mm wider than the 14-30 hood, so it's not a giant deal.
I did pick up the 14-24/2.8 today. It's really not that big of a lens. it's roughly the same size and weight as the 24-120, so it handles pretty well. It's only like 200g heavier than the 14-30. Optically, it's stellar - first blush it appears to pretty much obliterate my 14-30, which was a pretty decent lens in its own right. At 14mm and f/2.8, there's a bit of field curvature up close, so the edges curve away from the focus plane a bit. If you focus at the edges, the center is still pretty sharp, but the edges and even corners become very sharp right from f/2.8. Stopped down a stop or two, and that field curvature is irrelevant, and it's sharp corner to corner.
EDIT: I did some more testing, and yes, there is some field curvature at 14mm. However, it's a complete non-issue if you know about it. If you focus in the center, the camera seems to focus at the closest point that is in focus....so the edges go out of focus on flat field subjects. However, if you focus at the edges (or outer 20%), the center still falls completely within the depth of field at f/2.8, but it brings the corners into focus too...so even on flat field subjects, the lens is sharp corner to corner, even wide open. I went out shooting after work, and this lens is SERIOUSLY impressive.
|
