Looking for:
One moment, please |
capture nx2 product key – Fnw
- CNX Released | Nikon Capture NX Users Group | Flickr
And there are plenty of 3rd party filters out there at a reasonable cost. Would it be better for a reviewer - whose job is to be critical - to not mention shortcomings that may be deal-breakers for a few people?
If these things don't bother you personally it's your job as a consumer of the review to ignore them as irrelevancies. Reviewers should be critical of things that actually matter and relate to what the lens was designed for. This reviewer didn't do that. Instead he was critical about things that the lens wasn't desgined with in mind. All of those criticisms would be as trivial and stupid as this reviewer's criticisms of the mm. Who are you to judge what matters to all other photographers?
Even if they didn't it should still be mentioned, as long as the product is fairly compared with its peers. It's a reviewer's job to describe the characteristics of a product without prejudice and let the reader decide whether the description is of a product that suits their own needs. The only thing I tend to agree with is the point about filters, and given the findings of other reviews regarding edge sharpness it does sound like the softness this reviewer found is mostly limited to relatively close subjects, and if that is the case then they should have spotted that and mentioned it.
Too aggressive and busy bokeh. Nice lens in many other regards. Could have had better edge sharpness at lager apertures, but not important for all.
Posting a review during Mercury Retrograde be like auto-correct changes your Gold to Silver. Internet will always disagree anyway, no matter planets or Moon phase. Looks like a gold for landscape and bronze for portraiture so a silver overall sounds about right. Heck I use my teles as much as the UWA for landscapes tbh, these strict use case labels are pretty useless.
So many sore Nikon fan boys in the comments. If the Z is good for your Nikon Z cameras and the way you shoot then buy it and be happy. But its a fact when comparring with other brands wide angle zooms that there are lighter, more appealing IQ for certain scenarious, wider angle, less costly lenses available.
Track79 - They have already been listed in your previous thread further down, but I can copy paste some examples. Tamron is the lightest F2. Sony GM is the widest F2. Track79 - its up to you if questionable bokeh meats your criteria, but wider lens range doesn't. If you are happy with this lens then thats great.
A review however is better to cover broader use of the lens. Comparing the Sigma to the Nikon, they say that "differences in optical performance become minimal and both lenses are mostly neck-and-neck". Comparing the Sigma to the Sony, they conclude that the Sigma is "optically comparable to and in the FF-corner even sharper than the Sony FE mm f2.
Given those two statements, the logical conclusion is that the Nikon and Sony are also optically comparable, with the Nikon maybe having an edge in the FF corner. Shame because the Z9 looks great. Quality wise you are getting things wrong.
The best Sony are only barely as good as the corresponding Z lenses and in most cases the Nikon is ahead. There may be a few sore Nikon users here focusing on the review's negatives rather than the overall praise the lens got, but there aren't really many lighter UWA options at all, at least not if you want an f2.
In fact there's only a single f2. All other f2. I don't think bokeh and rendering are a strength of any UWA so I'm curious what lighter UWA zoom you think is more pleasing for certain uses If I really cared about that when shooting this wide I'd grab a prime, but even then there's no guarantees.
The Z is pretty darn light for this class of lens, if anything I think the biggest misstep in the review is not the Con list it is what it is, and the award thing is meaningless imo but that they kinda minimized the weight difference between this and the Sigma f2. Photography you've got me wondering if I'm in a parallel universe, with the exception of the , canon L lenses are superb, sony primes are the best full frame lenses you could wish for, im only moving out of the system as I cant stand the cameras, all my GFX optics are stellar, I worry I could cut my eyes peeping the files the images are so sharp, and whole I think nikon cameras are a delight, the primes seem to have been designed by a five years, old, long, bulky, primative, compare their fast 50 against the 50 gm prime, is it some kind if joke offering by nikon?
I detest folding lenses like the f4, really horrible to use. Heh, so many of these things are so subjective, I like that several of Sony's primes are significantly smaller and often faster AF'ing without optical compromise beyond maybe some focus breathing They're the smallest f4 zooms of their kind out there, there's some value in that. The G looks great but it's overkill for me and it misses out on filters, so despite the bevy of UWA options on Sony I can see why some would still favor Nikon's or Canon's.
Impulses that's a valid opinion, but having just left GM primes and looking at nikons lens offerings I can't buy in their system which is really sad, and I've rows of motordriven F2 cameras, F3 F4 F5, FM2T D2x looking at me from the old days on my office shelves.. Raindrop I can see the s is superb, but where are the 1. Anything near seems ugly and from a previous generation. Why are all the primes so physically long? Haven't they the design ability or do they just not care?
None of its made in Japan now. All off-putting on someone eyeing the Z9. At this time only Sony has many 1. Of course as time passes things will even out. Besides the Z 50 1. Yeah you can get a tiny 50 1. The 50 1. I said least compromises. Good thing is the buyer has the choice and freedom to pick whatever is of value the most. They must have reviewed a different lens from the ones raved about here in the forums on DPR. I'm sure there'll be a revised review.
Do me a favor! CN too glib by half. Plus the DPR "sharpness disease" strikes again. It's a fine lens and an obvious choice for a Z mount owner.
However I can say with absolute confidence my Sigma f2. But if I owned a Z mount their lens would probably be a sound choice. I don't use filters so that isn't a argue point for me anyway. But for sharpness corner to corner, lack of distortion, no CA and superb bokeh it's hard to argue in favor of the Nikon. But heck they had to come up with something for their Z folks.
Not only does it instantly and accurately focus even with eye detection it is known that Sigma nailed the algorithm on the R5 for focus but it has displayed no bad habits whatsoever. A rarity for a 3rd party lens indeed. It sends Canon's own RF lens packing as well having worked with one. Sometimes there are rare exceptions to every rule. In this case this is one of them. The other is Sigma's f1. It's right there with the absurdly expensive RF85mm f1. I understand your sentiment believe me.
I was a Nikonian from till with many of their pro bodies and lenses. I left Canon after the 1D when Nikon stepped ahead of them.
But alas it went the other direction with the advent of the R5. I get paid for some of my work so I decided to make the investment of 4 of their top RF glass and haven't regretted it.
But I get it, the stuff is big bucks now. That kind of hyperbole undermines your credibility. I'm NOT exaggerating. Just try one and you'll be singing my praises instead of tearing me down. I wouldn't joke like so many others apparently about this. ProDude Wrong, wrong and very wrong. Every credible test has shown the Z to have no peers.
The fact that they did not shoot it against any of the competitors goes to show that this test is suspect at best and the laziest review I have seen in quite some time.
Not good for portraits, filters are expensive. In fact at least the conclusion from Chris is correct, where he states that the Nikon Z trinity is better than Canons offerings that includes the Z The Sigma is a good lens, but is no match for the Z when compared side by side.
On Cameralabs you can compare corner sharpness of the Nikon Z 2. When focused at infinity the Nikon is significantly sharper in the corners, and is half the weight. The MTF curves confirm this performance delta. Also Christopher Frost confirms that the mirrorless Sigma lens is just as good as Nikon lens. Considering the price differences, mirrorless Sigma does run rings around the Nikon.
But the guy "ProDude" is confusing the two Sigma lenses above. If one doesn't use filters often, Sigma is a better choice. But if one constantly use filters, Nikon is apparently the better one. If anything, overall they're quite similar in price. Just depends on which particular lens you want. It's not as if one brand is going to save you tons more money. The sigma mirrorless version is one of the greatest price v performance lenses in photography.
The close-up test was even more favorable for the sigma at 24mm image edge but again was back and forth. Hobbyist landscape shooters should seriously consider adapting the Sigma DN version and saving some coin.
Just be aware that weather sealing may be compromised. I am always amused when people, with no practical experience with any given product, speak with confidence about said product. You don't own Nikon. You don't own this lens. Haven't even tried it in a store. Yet you can assure us your choice in lens runs rings the Nikon. Except it can't take filters, work on a Z, has more focus breathing, and as an owner of the lens, I can assure you it's plenty sharp.
Nikon had a 2. The F mount is a legend. And this surpasses it in every way. Camera Labs compared the Sigma to the Nikon. Their conclusion was that "differences in optical performance become minimal and both lenses are mostly neck-and-neck". The Sigma did have slightly better bokeh while the Nikon's coatings gave it an edge when shooting against harsh light. You can make some arguments about uncompromised optical designs, software corrections and yadda yadda with a prime or other FLs, but the mirrorless flange distance for UWAs is just a massive advantage and it's proven itself pretty clearly across a variety of options now.
Other than saving yourself the cost of a new lens, there's 0 reason to adapt a DSLR UWA zoom on mirrorless save for maybe the Canon , and that would still be about cost and available options more than optics. This lens has one major downside - it's really expensive.
Otherwise it's excellent, at least for what I do landscapes, so yeah, I don't worry about its allegedly substandard portrait abilities. Also "sharpness dropping off dramatically a third-way towards the edge" is not something I would have associated with this lens. Yes, it is true that with the exception of third-party and legacy mount lenses, the fast ultra-wide zoom arena is populated by rather expensive options. I use it for architecture stopped down and for wedding journalism style photos.
It's great as a people lens and not one dimensional as the review suggests. I didn't choose this lens for bokeh. Quite frankly, who chooses 14mm for bokeh? I have other lenses for that. This lens is to get everything, dramatically, in the frame. It's a beauty lens. Incredibly enough that was supposedly a mistake… their harsh comments were supposed to be directed against the 35mm f1.
Which is nearly as undeserved. But I have to agree. It really does feel like there is willingness to take momentum away from Nikon. Shines at 2. Where was that? They literally called it a new generation of optics.
I think I found some evidence of what you're alluding to link below , my original guess was right that it was a DPRTV comment It seems pretty unfair to hold ALL the editors in judgement over the mistake of one years ago, specially when the lens in question was actually praised over and over.
That DPRTV list must've not stuck with me as much as the other articles I do remember reading, might be time for some to let it go. The website linked hasn't tested the Canon RF mm 2. This reads more like a Nikon Enthusiasts site than a real review site.
None of the reviews I've read show the actual non software corrected vignetting levels as well, which is important since a software boost of brightness in certain areas of the image would normally produce higher noise levels in those areas in low light high ISO situations. No mention whatsoever of the Z F4 - which in reality is its biggest rival given that the F2.
Check some real world comparisons fe. The bokeh on the samples looks also quite good. And please show me a 14mm UWA that doesn't show "nervous" bokeh at transition zone. The 2. In fact it's hard to fault the F4 versions that Nikon have produced. The replies to the review here are pretty much unanimous in the opinion that the review was a dud not the lens , maybe they should get someone who knows how to use an ultrawide next time? Reading all the comments was joyful confirmation of my initial perception of this article having been written with a scripted agenda As a nightscape photographer, I have to flat-out disagree with the "findings" of wide-open sharpness falling off so quickly.
In the linked sample image, it seems very clear to me that the test image has fallen to one of the classic blunders: DOF is much deeper dead-center than it is off-center, and if you set focus for somewhere around the rule-of-thirds area instead, you consistently get much better results across the entire field.
Also, flat-out, that relatively close-up test image is not as useful for wide-open sharpness testing, period. Because while a portrait or journalistic photographer can simply move their focus point off-center and get very sharp results, a nightscape photographer is, of course, focusing at infinity. And in my extensive testing, the plane of focus is quite flat, and the off-center and even extreme corner sharpness is quite impressive.
I'll say this very plainly: when focused on stars at a rule-of-thirds point, you can expect nearly pin-point perfect stars across the entire image, with minimal coma or loss of overall sharpness in the extreme corners. I honestly believe this lens is incredible, even among the incredible Sigma mm 2.
But it's WAY better than that one test sample. I agree with your assessment. The Z 14—24 is a lens that rewards more careful use, something that is common with ultrawide glass. Shooting with a fast ultrawide lens in the same manner as one would a cell phone, then basing a large part of a review on the results, is disappointing for a site like DPR that should know better and has the resources to do better.
I've learned not to take DPR's sharpness assessments too seriously. The evidence of their own gallery shots is often enough to disprove what they say in the review. I am always interested in the DP reviews, but don't fully agree with the review. I know that samples can sometimes vary, but as far as my eyes can tell without pixel peeping sharpness across the range wide open is near perfect. But I would imagine this could be subjective, but it is the best lens I have ever used for weight and performance.
Also very strange to critique it for being able to take screw in filters. Next we will see DPR critiquing water for being wet or fire for being hot. If you're looking at the sample image they linked, sharpness across the range wide-open is NOT perfect, at all. However, I believe that to be because of a little-known aspect of how DOF behaves on ultra-wide lenses.
That is, dead-center focus is simply not the best way to test an ultra-wide optical formula for off-center sharpness at relatively close range. Really I never would have guessed a dedicated UWA doesn't excel at something it wasn't designed for. Nothing else in it's class even offers the option of front filter threads - that should be a "pro". Seems like DPR was just making up cons for the sake of it. Not every lens or camera body is great or the best.
I find DPR more credible when not everything gets a perfect review. Still enjoy DPR as a resource but mostly for that found in it's forums. I pay little heed to their percentages or conclusions. Mike T! Seeing DPR readers fight over a Gold or Silver award, as if they were a bunch of 8-year olds, is pretty funny.
Having said that, to be quite honest, I bet Sony made the more popular, trendy decision. This is partly sarcasm, BTW! Either way, here's the thing: With Nikon Z, you can "just" put an E-mount lens on an adapter.
The AF might not be excellent for a journalist, but for a nightscape or landscape photographer, it's fine. Sony will have more and more options, though, from Tamron, Sigma, and Roki-Yang, before any third-parties arrive to Z.
Me as well I actually like them all! Too many amazing choices now. Available on Z, E, and RF mounts. Just seems weird. However, the central sharpness is good enough that it does make a fantastic alternative for anyone who likes filters and is either shooting stopped down, or just not inspecting their corners too closely.
The wild card with the DSLR version always has been field curvature. If you don't run afoul of that, then great, so yay astro but watch yourself close up. I'm assuming this one has much less of it, but the review doesn't seem to mention this explicitly despite hinting at it.
I still don't find this a hugely useful FL. I'd prefer a of more conventional size that reaches long enough to be able to skip a if need be and can share filters with other related products -- in this case, I suppose 82mm seeing as that's what's on the f2. And because wide-angle is like a drug, the Venus Laowa 12mm F2. I also remember people who changed to Nikon because of the original I did extensive testing for my own review.
No thanks. Nikon created something truly innovative and stellar. Close-up field curvature seems quite severe, and maybe bokeh isn't what this lens is optimized for, but other than that, it is an impressive optical accomplishment, and a flagship beast at a price tag far under the competition.
No it doesnt. This Nikon matches the Sony at all comparable focal lengths, which counts as "shining" considering its price and compactness.
I see xx, xx, and xx lenses as entirely different choices with their own sets of trade-offs and advantages. I'd maybe lump xx in with xx and xx in with xx So is it a sharpness issue wide open or field curvature?
There are ways to combat field curvature. I was thinking about adding this lens after the RF disappointed. That and I had to go through three copies to get decent sharpness on all four corners. For the price, I expected more. I heard same thing about 3 copies and de-centring on from one landscape photographer in Germany :. So far all my Z lenses where great strait out of the box: though I don't know about Z 2. If you're focusing close-up, you can expect field curvature, but if your subject isn't a brick wall, you can still get impressive sharpness by simply focusing correctly on your subject, wherever it is in the frame.
If you're doing nightscape photography, you can expect far LESS field curvature than the linked example image, when focused correctly. There's no report yet on natural non software corrected levels of vignetting yet.
Mirrorless cameras make some optical problems easier to solve, but introduce others, such as higher levels of vignetting. Sample variation occurs with all brands. LensRentals Blog discusses this extensively. My first mm f2. My second copy was good. I've owned both Nikon and Canon systems for years I always test every lens I've bought for both systems, and have had to return some with issues from both manufacturers.
Your mileage may vary The larger mounts that nikon and canon are currently using allow for more optical design options, and make certain challenges easier.
That's all. It doesn't mean that everything is better "just because". These are new mounts, so I'm sure the best is yet to come. Currently, sony's e mount is now the most limited mount - doesn't mean they can't do good lenses, they can, but is more difficult and they will not have as many options for it.
Wide lenses are often used in weddings where people are in a small room setting , getting make up for example, certainly a number of set ups in event photography.
This is 2. Reviewer is right to call it out if they didn't it for sure would be in the comments. GonOS No. I have no such examples but its not comparative review. Check out the video review and the YT review of Christopher Frost, they pick out same issues, However come across far for appreciative glowing even of the overall performance.
And if you are just a little bit aware about optical and lens tech, such "problems" aren't even on the table of question as you are aware it is a dumb desire. But nowadays, we have loud experts of final result that have zero knowledge how the technology manage to get that result, but the same genius reviewers have super overly confident feelings how it could be better with zero knowledge to design it, but a never ending capacity to whine about the non achievement of their crazy whishes by tech manufacturer.
Funniest part is that when Nikon release a lens with OOF and creamy result in target, the same reviewers whine that lens does present other caveats It is really well known optic is absolutly not a balance problem at all. Why isn't anyone mentioning that you can buy a dedicated filter holder for this lens from NiSi and a couple of other manufacturers now that allows the use of standard mm filters? This negates any dicussions on big new filters, just use the ones you own.
This is an enormous plus for this lens. Boss, help me — what I need to do? Only Nikkor! What is that? Only Nikkor S. What is Nikkor S? We have no Nikkor cameras nowhere. How we can test it? Just give him the highest mark we can, it sounds like a great product. And text will be written by random numbers generator. Maximum is Silver. Man, I always hear people complain about Sony fanboys, but lately it's been the Nikon crowd that is all riled up.
Yes, they put filter SIZE as a negative, but they also put filters in the positive. No, the bokeh isn't perfect, and they showed sample images to back it up. And honestly you think review sites should test multiple copies for every review? Do you realize how much time that would take? And where would they procure all these lenses from? Copy variation is inherently part of ownership of a lens, if some lenses are less sharp than others, that's still good to know for a prospective customer.
And no, the Z7 II did not deserve a gold award. Good ergonomics and ISO 64 iq is not enough for gold. DPR has rated Nikon's products highly with gold in the past. Stop acting like there is bias just cause your product didn't "win" gold. Agreed, the critique of the critique is of a low standard, and more worthy of cult followers than even Brand fanboys.
Reviewer said what they found and backed it up with evidence. I have to say that I am impressed. I didn't think someone would use this review to write more criticism of Nikon Z's AF I guess that the arrival of the Z9 must generate a lot of stress in some people If you see the other top comments, some people were talking about DPR's supposed bias against Nikon, saying the Z7 II deserved gold along with this lens.
That is why I bring it up, so you should be more impressed that people used the lens review to write even more defense of the Z7 II, despite most people saying it's a great camera but people want to indefinitely freak out about one or two negative YouTube videos and act like the whole world is trashing Nikon. That you mention the Z9 only shows that you too look forward to improved AF from what Nikon currently offers. And no, I'm not stressed about it.
Actually I am excited about it since I am hoping to change systems soon and Nikon is in my top two picks. This has nothing to do with fanboyism. I just think it's weird to blame this lens for the existence of physics. The fact of the matter is that the only valid criticisms for the Z mm are the resolution drop off towards the edges, and the price hike although most of its competitors are very similar in price.
The rest is greedy nitpicking at best, unreasonable wishful thinking at worst. It reeks of a lack of realism and professionalism. It wasn't one fool I picked, it was many fools who upvoted the comment to the most popular tab, so go after them, not me. I was only responding to a conversation they already started, much like you did when you decided to bring up the Z9 to my comment :.
It makes no sense. Lucky it even got a silver award! I tried it for bird photography and the subjects were so small in the frame I could barely see them. Also took a photo the moon at 14mm and it was tiny!
And what about those cheeky Nikon engineers providing that special lens hood for filters. I much preferred the old design where you couldn't fit them so spent less money. Also, I put it at 14mm and stood 12" away from my model to do a portrait, and her nose was like 17" long! PS the sample images were obviously taken with a cell phone. I swear to God this site isn't even trying anymore. But then again, nobody is. Y'all use for bokeh and portraits I personally use the mm 5.
Gotta love that beautiful distortion, which woman doesn't love a nose that appears to be three times it's actual size. Terrible review. One of the worst I've seen. No comparison photos to the other lenses. Just vague assertions. Learn about its design, performance and how it handles the bamboo wall of doom in this episode of DPReview TV. Chris and Jordan just reviewed the Nikkor Z mm F2. Check out this gallery to see full resolution sample images from their review.
This year, despite the disruption, plenty of amazing cameras, lenses, accessories and other products came through our doors. Now, as the year winds down, we're highlighting some of our standout products of the year. Check out the winners of the DPReview Awards! Nikon's mirrorless lens roadmap just moved two steps further forward with the launch of the new mm F2. Read on to learn more about these two premium Z-mount lenses. Sony has just released a trio of impressively small, light, ultrawide lenses for APS-C.
These lenses are designed for vloggers, so Chris decided to film himself and find out how they perform. Holy moly, this thing is tiny! We take the adorable Sigma mm F2. Here's what's new and what we think so far We've been able to spend some quality time with Fujifilm's APS-C flagship, and we have plenty of opinions!
How do you make weird lens even weirder? Put a periscope on it! We check out the new Laowa Periprobe 24mm F14 2X and explore some of the creative things you can do with such a bizarre lens. What's the best camera for shooting landscapes?
High resolution, weather-sealed bodies and wide dynamic range are all important. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for shooting landscapes, and recommended the best.
If you're looking for the perfect drone for yourself, or to gift someone special, we've gone through all of the options and selected our favorites.
These capable cameras should be solid and well-built, have both speed and focus for capturing fast action and offer professional-level image quality. Although a lot of people only upload images to Instagram from their smartphones, the app is much more than just a mobile photography platform.
In this guide we've chosen a selection of cameras that make it easy to shoot compelling lifestyle images, ideal for sharing on social media.
Adobe is teasing another of its impressive, AI-powered Neural Filters. The new filter, Photo Restoration, can repair old and damaged images in a single click. The lens is fully manual and offers a 16mm full-frame equivalent focal length. It features a physical aperture dial, a minimum focusing distance of 25cm 9.
This makes DJI the fifth entity to join the L-mount alliance, joining Leica, Leitz Cine, Panasonic and Sigma as partners in the mission to create 'one unified lens mount standard. Do you want to shape and create content for the largest audience of photography and video enthusiasts in the world? Go behind the scenes to see what it takes to shoot some of the most valuable race cars in the world.
Although Adobe says it will eventually make the web-based version of Photoshop free for all to use, the beta testing is currently limited to Canada we're quite sure Chris and Jordan had nothing to do with this, but you never know.
Adobe has released a major update to its Lightroom ecosystem that includes video editing capabilities, new preset functionality and much more. Capture One 22 But what's do these modes achieve? We to look at how data is captured, how it's stored and what benefits you should expect from bit capture.
In addition to the new stills and video capture modes for the a1, Sony has also released a minor firmware update for its a7S III full-frame mirrorless camera.
Have you ever come across a 'Pro Mist' or 'Cinebloom' filter and wondered what they do, or why you might want them?
This little guide will help you get started on your mist filter journey. For the first time, and aided by the Hubble Space Telescope, researchers have measured the mass of an isolated black hole through the Milky Way Galaxy. While none of these are deal-breaking issues, here are some the annoying camera quirks that really get under Chris and Jordan's skin. This could be one of Leica's most expensive limited-edition kits if they do end up retailing for the prices they're expected to fetch.
Who wouldn't want a camera that looks like R2-D2 from Star Wars? James DeFehr developed Pyro , a film developer that promises extremely fine grain, high contrast, expanded tonal control and long shelf life. It looks like a promising developer for black and white film enthusiasts.
Leica loves a good special edition camera and lens. The annual Comedy Pet Awards photo competition has released a collection of the best images submitted so far, showing off the funny side of all kinds of animals.
We go hands-on with the new XF mm F5. To make streaming and controlling your video streams easier and more accessible, Atomos has released the Zato Connect streaming monitor. You can control video feeds, add effects, and even record backup footage for 'as-live' streaming with the device. Technology component experts Techinsights has posted a detailed analysis to its website confirming Nikon is using a Sony Semiconductor image sensor inside its flagship Z9 mirrorless camera.
Firmware v2. Dubblefilm has announced a new ISO color film. The Cinema film promises distinct colors and tones and a halo effect around bright red lights. Panasonic says the L2 tech tie-up with Leica will not affect the L-mount alliance the two companies share with Sigma. Submit a News Tip! Reading mode: Light Dark. Login Register. Best cameras and lenses. Now reading: Nikon Z mm F2. Nikon Z mm F2.
Nikon Nikkor Z mm F2. Poor Excellent. Of course as time passes things will even out. Besides the Z 50 1. Yeah you can get a tiny 50 1. The 50 1. I said least compromises. Good thing is the buyer has the choice and freedom to pick whatever is of value the most. They must have reviewed a different lens from the ones raved about here in the forums on DPR.
I'm sure there'll be a revised review. Do me a favor! CN too glib by half. Plus the DPR "sharpness disease" strikes again. It's a fine lens and an obvious choice for a Z mount owner. However I can say with absolute confidence my Sigma f2. But if I owned a Z mount their lens would probably be a sound choice.
I don't use filters so that isn't a argue point for me anyway. But for sharpness corner to corner, lack of distortion, no CA and superb bokeh it's hard to argue in favor of the Nikon. But heck they had to come up with something for their Z folks.
Not only does it instantly and accurately focus even with eye detection it is known that Sigma nailed the algorithm on the R5 for focus but it has displayed no bad habits whatsoever. A rarity for a 3rd party lens indeed. It sends Canon's own RF lens packing as well having worked with one.
Sometimes there are rare exceptions to every rule. In this case this is one of them. The other is Sigma's f1. It's right there with the absurdly expensive RF85mm f1.
I understand your sentiment believe me. I was a Nikonian from till with many of their pro bodies and lenses. I left Canon after the 1D when Nikon stepped ahead of them. But alas it went the other direction with the advent of the R5. I get paid for some of my work so I decided to make the investment of 4 of their top RF glass and haven't regretted it. But I get it, the stuff is big bucks now. That kind of hyperbole undermines your credibility. I'm NOT exaggerating. Just try one and you'll be singing my praises instead of tearing me down.
I wouldn't joke like so many others apparently about this. ProDude Wrong, wrong and very wrong. Every credible test has shown the Z to have no peers. The fact that they did not shoot it against any of the competitors goes to show that this test is suspect at best and the laziest review I have seen in quite some time.
Not good for portraits, filters are expensive. In fact at least the conclusion from Chris is correct, where he states that the Nikon Z trinity is better than Canons offerings that includes the Z The Sigma is a good lens, but is no match for the Z when compared side by side. On Cameralabs you can compare corner sharpness of the Nikon Z 2.
When focused at infinity the Nikon is significantly sharper in the corners, and is half the weight. The MTF curves confirm this performance delta. Also Christopher Frost confirms that the mirrorless Sigma lens is just as good as Nikon lens. Considering the price differences, mirrorless Sigma does run rings around the Nikon.
But the guy "ProDude" is confusing the two Sigma lenses above. If one doesn't use filters often, Sigma is a better choice. But if one constantly use filters, Nikon is apparently the better one. If anything, overall they're quite similar in price.
Just depends on which particular lens you want. It's not as if one brand is going to save you tons more money. The sigma mirrorless version is one of the greatest price v performance lenses in photography.
The close-up test was even more favorable for the sigma at 24mm image edge but again was back and forth. Hobbyist landscape shooters should seriously consider adapting the Sigma DN version and saving some coin. Just be aware that weather sealing may be compromised. I am always amused when people, with no practical experience with any given product, speak with confidence about said product.
You don't own Nikon. You don't own this lens. Haven't even tried it in a store. Yet you can assure us your choice in lens runs rings the Nikon. Except it can't take filters, work on a Z, has more focus breathing, and as an owner of the lens, I can assure you it's plenty sharp. Nikon had a 2. The F mount is a legend. And this surpasses it in every way.
Camera Labs compared the Sigma to the Nikon. Their conclusion was that "differences in optical performance become minimal and both lenses are mostly neck-and-neck".
The Sigma did have slightly better bokeh while the Nikon's coatings gave it an edge when shooting against harsh light. You can make some arguments about uncompromised optical designs, software corrections and yadda yadda with a prime or other FLs, but the mirrorless flange distance for UWAs is just a massive advantage and it's proven itself pretty clearly across a variety of options now.
Other than saving yourself the cost of a new lens, there's 0 reason to adapt a DSLR UWA zoom on mirrorless save for maybe the Canon , and that would still be about cost and available options more than optics. This lens has one major downside - it's really expensive. Otherwise it's excellent, at least for what I do landscapes, so yeah, I don't worry about its allegedly substandard portrait abilities.
Also "sharpness dropping off dramatically a third-way towards the edge" is not something I would have associated with this lens. Yes, it is true that with the exception of third-party and legacy mount lenses, the fast ultra-wide zoom arena is populated by rather expensive options.
I use it for architecture stopped down and for wedding journalism style photos. It's great as a people lens and not one dimensional as the review suggests. I didn't choose this lens for bokeh. Quite frankly, who chooses 14mm for bokeh? I have other lenses for that. This lens is to get everything, dramatically, in the frame. It's a beauty lens. Incredibly enough that was supposedly a mistake… their harsh comments were supposed to be directed against the 35mm f1.
Which is nearly as undeserved. But I have to agree. It really does feel like there is willingness to take momentum away from Nikon. Shines at 2. Where was that? They literally called it a new generation of optics. I think I found some evidence of what you're alluding to link below , my original guess was right that it was a DPRTV comment It seems pretty unfair to hold ALL the editors in judgement over the mistake of one years ago, specially when the lens in question was actually praised over and over.
That DPRTV list must've not stuck with me as much as the other articles I do remember reading, might be time for some to let it go.
The website linked hasn't tested the Canon RF mm 2. This reads more like a Nikon Enthusiasts site than a real review site. None of the reviews I've read show the actual non software corrected vignetting levels as well, which is important since a software boost of brightness in certain areas of the image would normally produce higher noise levels in those areas in low light high ISO situations.
No mention whatsoever of the Z F4 - which in reality is its biggest rival given that the F2. Check some real world comparisons fe. The bokeh on the samples looks also quite good. And please show me a 14mm UWA that doesn't show "nervous" bokeh at transition zone. The 2. In fact it's hard to fault the F4 versions that Nikon have produced. The replies to the review here are pretty much unanimous in the opinion that the review was a dud not the lens , maybe they should get someone who knows how to use an ultrawide next time?
Reading all the comments was joyful confirmation of my initial perception of this article having been written with a scripted agenda As a nightscape photographer, I have to flat-out disagree with the "findings" of wide-open sharpness falling off so quickly. In the linked sample image, it seems very clear to me that the test image has fallen to one of the classic blunders: DOF is much deeper dead-center than it is off-center, and if you set focus for somewhere around the rule-of-thirds area instead, you consistently get much better results across the entire field.
Also, flat-out, that relatively close-up test image is not as useful for wide-open sharpness testing, period. Because while a portrait or journalistic photographer can simply move their focus point off-center and get very sharp results, a nightscape photographer is, of course, focusing at infinity. And in my extensive testing, the plane of focus is quite flat, and the off-center and even extreme corner sharpness is quite impressive.
I'll say this very plainly: when focused on stars at a rule-of-thirds point, you can expect nearly pin-point perfect stars across the entire image, with minimal coma or loss of overall sharpness in the extreme corners. I honestly believe this lens is incredible, even among the incredible Sigma mm 2. But it's WAY better than that one test sample. I agree with your assessment. The Z 14—24 is a lens that rewards more careful use, something that is common with ultrawide glass.
Shooting with a fast ultrawide lens in the same manner as one would a cell phone, then basing a large part of a review on the results, is disappointing for a site like DPR that should know better and has the resources to do better.
I've learned not to take DPR's sharpness assessments too seriously. The evidence of their own gallery shots is often enough to disprove what they say in the review. I am always interested in the DP reviews, but don't fully agree with the review. I know that samples can sometimes vary, but as far as my eyes can tell without pixel peeping sharpness across the range wide open is near perfect.
But I would imagine this could be subjective, but it is the best lens I have ever used for weight and performance. Also very strange to critique it for being able to take screw in filters. Next we will see DPR critiquing water for being wet or fire for being hot. If you're looking at the sample image they linked, sharpness across the range wide-open is NOT perfect, at all. However, I believe that to be because of a little-known aspect of how DOF behaves on ultra-wide lenses.
That is, dead-center focus is simply not the best way to test an ultra-wide optical formula for off-center sharpness at relatively close range. Really I never would have guessed a dedicated UWA doesn't excel at something it wasn't designed for. Nothing else in it's class even offers the option of front filter threads - that should be a "pro". Seems like DPR was just making up cons for the sake of it. Not every lens or camera body is great or the best.
I find DPR more credible when not everything gets a perfect review. Still enjoy DPR as a resource but mostly for that found in it's forums. I pay little heed to their percentages or conclusions. Mike T! Seeing DPR readers fight over a Gold or Silver award, as if they were a bunch of 8-year olds, is pretty funny.
Having said that, to be quite honest, I bet Sony made the more popular, trendy decision. This is partly sarcasm, BTW! Either way, here's the thing: With Nikon Z, you can "just" put an E-mount lens on an adapter. The AF might not be excellent for a journalist, but for a nightscape or landscape photographer, it's fine. Sony will have more and more options, though, from Tamron, Sigma, and Roki-Yang, before any third-parties arrive to Z.
Me as well I actually like them all! Too many amazing choices now. Available on Z, E, and RF mounts. Just seems weird. However, the central sharpness is good enough that it does make a fantastic alternative for anyone who likes filters and is either shooting stopped down, or just not inspecting their corners too closely. The wild card with the DSLR version always has been field curvature.
If you don't run afoul of that, then great, so yay astro but watch yourself close up. I'm assuming this one has much less of it, but the review doesn't seem to mention this explicitly despite hinting at it. I still don't find this a hugely useful FL. I'd prefer a of more conventional size that reaches long enough to be able to skip a if need be and can share filters with other related products -- in this case, I suppose 82mm seeing as that's what's on the f2.
And because wide-angle is like a drug, the Venus Laowa 12mm F2. I also remember people who changed to Nikon because of the original I did extensive testing for my own review. No thanks. Nikon created something truly innovative and stellar. Close-up field curvature seems quite severe, and maybe bokeh isn't what this lens is optimized for, but other than that, it is an impressive optical accomplishment, and a flagship beast at a price tag far under the competition.
No it doesnt. This Nikon matches the Sony at all comparable focal lengths, which counts as "shining" considering its price and compactness. I see xx, xx, and xx lenses as entirely different choices with their own sets of trade-offs and advantages. I'd maybe lump xx in with xx and xx in with xx So is it a sharpness issue wide open or field curvature? There are ways to combat field curvature. I was thinking about adding this lens after the RF disappointed.
That and I had to go through three copies to get decent sharpness on all four corners. For the price, I expected more. I heard same thing about 3 copies and de-centring on from one landscape photographer in Germany :. So far all my Z lenses where great strait out of the box: though I don't know about Z 2.
If you're focusing close-up, you can expect field curvature, but if your subject isn't a brick wall, you can still get impressive sharpness by simply focusing correctly on your subject, wherever it is in the frame. If you're doing nightscape photography, you can expect far LESS field curvature than the linked example image, when focused correctly.
There's no report yet on natural non software corrected levels of vignetting yet. Mirrorless cameras make some optical problems easier to solve, but introduce others, such as higher levels of vignetting. Sample variation occurs with all brands. LensRentals Blog discusses this extensively. My first mm f2. My second copy was good.
I've owned both Nikon and Canon systems for years I always test every lens I've bought for both systems, and have had to return some with issues from both manufacturers. Your mileage may vary The larger mounts that nikon and canon are currently using allow for more optical design options, and make certain challenges easier.
That's all. It doesn't mean that everything is better "just because". These are new mounts, so I'm sure the best is yet to come. Currently, sony's e mount is now the most limited mount - doesn't mean they can't do good lenses, they can, but is more difficult and they will not have as many options for it.
Wide lenses are often used in weddings where people are in a small room setting , getting make up for example, certainly a number of set ups in event photography.
This is 2. Reviewer is right to call it out if they didn't it for sure would be in the comments. GonOS No. I have no such examples but its not comparative review. Check out the video review and the YT review of Christopher Frost, they pick out same issues, However come across far for appreciative glowing even of the overall performance.
And if you are just a little bit aware about optical and lens tech, such "problems" aren't even on the table of question as you are aware it is a dumb desire. But nowadays, we have loud experts of final result that have zero knowledge how the technology manage to get that result, but the same genius reviewers have super overly confident feelings how it could be better with zero knowledge to design it, but a never ending capacity to whine about the non achievement of their crazy whishes by tech manufacturer.
Funniest part is that when Nikon release a lens with OOF and creamy result in target, the same reviewers whine that lens does present other caveats It is really well known optic is absolutly not a balance problem at all. Why isn't anyone mentioning that you can buy a dedicated filter holder for this lens from NiSi and a couple of other manufacturers now that allows the use of standard mm filters? This negates any dicussions on big new filters, just use the ones you own.
This is an enormous plus for this lens. Boss, help me — what I need to do? Only Nikkor! What is that? Only Nikkor S. What is Nikkor S? We have no Nikkor cameras nowhere. How we can test it? Just give him the highest mark we can, it sounds like a great product.
And text will be written by random numbers generator. Maximum is Silver. Man, I always hear people complain about Sony fanboys, but lately it's been the Nikon crowd that is all riled up.
Yes, they put filter SIZE as a negative, but they also put filters in the positive. No, the bokeh isn't perfect, and they showed sample images to back it up. And honestly you think review sites should test multiple copies for every review? Do you realize how much time that would take?
And where would they procure all these lenses from? Copy variation is inherently part of ownership of a lens, if some lenses are less sharp than others, that's still good to know for a prospective customer. And no, the Z7 II did not deserve a gold award.
Good ergonomics and ISO 64 iq is not enough for gold. DPR has rated Nikon's products highly with gold in the past. Stop acting like there is bias just cause your product didn't "win" gold. Agreed, the critique of the critique is of a low standard, and more worthy of cult followers than even Brand fanboys.
Reviewer said what they found and backed it up with evidence. I have to say that I am impressed. I didn't think someone would use this review to write more criticism of Nikon Z's AF I guess that the arrival of the Z9 must generate a lot of stress in some people If you see the other top comments, some people were talking about DPR's supposed bias against Nikon, saying the Z7 II deserved gold along with this lens.
That is why I bring it up, so you should be more impressed that people used the lens review to write even more defense of the Z7 II, despite most people saying it's a great camera but people want to indefinitely freak out about one or two negative YouTube videos and act like the whole world is trashing Nikon. That you mention the Z9 only shows that you too look forward to improved AF from what Nikon currently offers.
And no, I'm not stressed about it. Actually I am excited about it since I am hoping to change systems soon and Nikon is in my top two picks. This has nothing to do with fanboyism. I just think it's weird to blame this lens for the existence of physics. The fact of the matter is that the only valid criticisms for the Z mm are the resolution drop off towards the edges, and the price hike although most of its competitors are very similar in price.
The rest is greedy nitpicking at best, unreasonable wishful thinking at worst. It reeks of a lack of realism and professionalism. It wasn't one fool I picked, it was many fools who upvoted the comment to the most popular tab, so go after them, not me. I was only responding to a conversation they already started, much like you did when you decided to bring up the Z9 to my comment :.
It makes no sense. Lucky it even got a silver award! I tried it for bird photography and the subjects were so small in the frame I could barely see them. Also took a photo the moon at 14mm and it was tiny! And what about those cheeky Nikon engineers providing that special lens hood for filters. I much preferred the old design where you couldn't fit them so spent less money. Also, I put it at 14mm and stood 12" away from my model to do a portrait, and her nose was like 17" long!
PS the sample images were obviously taken with a cell phone. I swear to God this site isn't even trying anymore. But then again, nobody is. Y'all use for bokeh and portraits I personally use the mm 5. Gotta love that beautiful distortion, which woman doesn't love a nose that appears to be three times it's actual size.
Terrible review. One of the worst I've seen. No comparison photos to the other lenses. Just vague assertions. Learn about its design, performance and how it handles the bamboo wall of doom in this episode of DPReview TV. Chris and Jordan just reviewed the Nikkor Z mm F2. Check out this gallery to see full resolution sample images from their review.
This year, despite the disruption, plenty of amazing cameras, lenses, accessories and other products came through our doors. Now, as the year winds down, we're highlighting some of our standout products of the year.
Check out the winners of the DPReview Awards! Nikon's mirrorless lens roadmap just moved two steps further forward with the launch of the new mm F2. Read on to learn more about these two premium Z-mount lenses. Sony has just released a trio of impressively small, light, ultrawide lenses for APS-C. These lenses are designed for vloggers, so Chris decided to film himself and find out how they perform.
Holy moly, this thing is tiny! We take the adorable Sigma mm F2. Here's what's new and what we think so far We've been able to spend some quality time with Fujifilm's APS-C flagship, and we have plenty of opinions! How do you make weird lens even weirder? Put a periscope on it! We check out the new Laowa Periprobe 24mm F14 2X and explore some of the creative things you can do with such a bizarre lens.
What's the best camera for shooting landscapes? High resolution, weather-sealed bodies and wide dynamic range are all important. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for shooting landscapes, and recommended the best. If you're looking for the perfect drone for yourself, or to gift someone special, we've gone through all of the options and selected our favorites. These capable cameras should be solid and well-built, have both speed and focus for capturing fast action and offer professional-level image quality.
Although a lot of people only upload images to Instagram from their smartphones, the app is much more than just a mobile photography platform. In this guide we've chosen a selection of cameras that make it easy to shoot compelling lifestyle images, ideal for sharing on social media. The lens is fully manual and offers a 16mm full-frame equivalent focal length.
It features a physical aperture dial, a minimum focusing distance of 25cm 9. This makes DJI the fifth entity to join the L-mount alliance, joining Leica, Leitz Cine, Panasonic and Sigma as partners in the mission to create 'one unified lens mount standard.
Do you want to shape and create content for the largest audience of photography and video enthusiasts in the world? Go behind the scenes to see what it takes to shoot some of the most valuable race cars in the world. Although Adobe says it will eventually make the web-based version of Photoshop free for all to use, the beta testing is currently limited to Canada we're quite sure Chris and Jordan had nothing to do with this, but you never know.
Adobe has released a major update to its Lightroom ecosystem that includes video editing capabilities, new preset functionality and much more. Capture One 22 But what's do these modes achieve? We to look at how data is captured, how it's stored and what benefits you should expect from bit capture. In addition to the new stills and video capture modes for the a1, Sony has also released a minor firmware update for its a7S III full-frame mirrorless camera. Have you ever come across a 'Pro Mist' or 'Cinebloom' filter and wondered what they do, or why you might want them?
This little guide will help you get started on your mist filter journey. For the first time, and aided by the Hubble Space Telescope, researchers have measured the mass of an isolated black hole through the Milky Way Galaxy. While none of these are deal-breaking issues, here are some the annoying camera quirks that really get under Chris and Jordan's skin. This could be one of Leica's most expensive limited-edition kits if they do end up retailing for the prices they're expected to fetch.
Who wouldn't want a camera that looks like R2-D2 from Star Wars? James DeFehr developed Pyro , a film developer that promises extremely fine grain, high contrast, expanded tonal control and long shelf life. It looks like a promising developer for black and white film enthusiasts. Leica loves a good special edition camera and lens.
The annual Comedy Pet Awards photo competition has released a collection of the best images submitted so far, showing off the funny side of all kinds of animals.
We go hands-on with the new XF mm F5. To make streaming and controlling your video streams easier and more accessible, Atomos has released the Zato Connect streaming monitor. You can control video feeds, add effects, and even record backup footage for 'as-live' streaming with the device. Technology component experts Techinsights has posted a detailed analysis to its website confirming Nikon is using a Sony Semiconductor image sensor inside its flagship Z9 mirrorless camera.
Firmware v2. Dubblefilm has announced a new ISO color film. The Cinema film promises distinct colors and tones and a halo effect around bright red lights. Panasonic says the L2 tech tie-up with Leica will not affect the L-mount alliance the two companies share with Sigma.
Take a closer look at what the 11mm F1. Submit a News Tip! Reading mode: Light Dark. Login Register. Best cameras and lenses. Now reading: Nikon Z mm F2. Nikon Z mm F2. Nikon Nikkor Z mm F2. Poor Excellent. It's sharp wide open at all focal lengths, and any corner softness is dealt with by stopping down a couple of stops.
Autofocus is swift and silent, and aberrations are very well controlled, with only busy bokeh being our primary concern with this lens, optically.
Landscape photographers and videographers who'll utilize the convenient, though large, filter thread for circular polarizer and neutral density filters. Anyone looking for sharp, wide-angle optics. Portrait photographers looking for the smoothest bokeh; bright-edged out-of-focus highlights can lead to busier blurred backgrounds. Tags: review , lens , nikon.
Discuss in the forums See full product details Watch the video review View sample images. We are retrieving offers for your location, please refresh the page to see the prices. View Comments Comments All Terrible Photographer This looks to be a pretty poor sample of this lens.
Also, no coma tests? Jurgen M Lobert This is a prime lens, and likely the new standard, for astro-landscape photographers. Henderson92 Is this a prime lens? SnapHappy32 Off topic. Just checked your instagram account. A-mazing captures. SnapHappy32 Ecka. A bit confused about what you are implying or otherwise trying to communicate?
You on the other hand come across as rude and with a superiority complex. SnapHappy32 And what happens when reviews differ - and one in particular stands out? Maxilopezca Got Z 2. Bigsensorisbest its a collapsing design, I cant stand that unfortunately. Savviest Bigsensorisbest - Life is a series of tradeoffs man. Bigsensorisbest Savviest I put up with a Canon mm collapsing lens on a M6ii because the results are so good but I wish the lens was just bigger and fixed. Bigsensorisbest I coon.
Bigsensorisbest I coon oh good grief you're not understanding, by collapsing I mean a lens where you have to twist it to a given position BEFORE you can use it and the camera will recognise it, then collapse it back to the original position after you have used it. Bigsensorisbest Well they do! Terrible Photographer I agree about not seeing it in the viewfinder. Z-mounter Yes, that gives you food for thought and makes you doubt the unbiased execution of dpreview Pat Carroll Molloy I use the Kase wolverine magnetic fikters.
Savviest I feel like this review harped on things that are trivial when it comes to an ultra wide angle zoom. Savviest Reviewers should be critical of things that actually matter and relate to what the lens was designed for.
Jen Bruntnant Too aggressive and busy bokeh. A Owens Looks like a gold for landscape and bronze for portraiture so a silver overall sounds about right. Ying Yon So many sore Nikon fan boys in the comments. The review is fair. Bigsensorisbest Track. This is most compact and best performing ultra wide zoom lens on the market. Canon is even further behind lenswise are frankly seems to have given up competing.
Impulses There may be a few sore Nikon users here focusing on the review's negatives rather than the overall praise the lens got, but there aren't really many lighter UWA options at all, at least not if you want an f2.
Impulses continued The Z is pretty darn light for this class of lens, if anything I think the biggest misstep in the review is not the Con list it is what it is, and the award thing is meaningless imo but that they kinda minimized the weight difference between this and the Sigma f2. Bigsensorisbest Photography you've got me wondering if I'm in a parallel universe, with the exception of the , canon L lenses are superb, sony primes are the best full frame lenses you could wish for, im only moving out of the system as I cant stand the cameras, all my GFX optics are stellar, I worry I could cut my eyes peeping the files the images are so sharp, and whole I think nikon cameras are a delight, the primes seem to have been designed by a five years, old, long, bulky, primative, compare their fast 50 against the 50 gm prime, is it some kind if joke offering by nikon?
Impulses Heh, so many of these things are so subjective, I like that several of Sony's primes are significantly smaller and often faster AF'ing without optical compromise beyond maybe some focus breathing Bigsensorisbest Impulses that's a valid opinion, but having just left GM primes and looking at nikons lens offerings I can't buy in their system which is really sad, and I've rows of motordriven F2 cameras, F3 F4 F5, FM2T D2x looking at me from the old days on my office shelves..
RaindropDroptop bigsensor Nikon S mount lenses are superb too. Bigsensorisbest Raindrop I can see the s is superb, but where are the 1. RaindropDroptop bigsensor a 85 1.
Ying Yon Big is a compromize. RaindropDroptop yin Clearly big is a compromise. Fred Mueller amateur hour review. Bigsensorisbest Careful you'll get thrown off
Comments
Post a Comment