I love the Nikon Z 20mm 1.8 lens, especially for it's beautiful bokeh and sharpness wide open. I keep using it for a mix of landscape and people (environmental) photography.
Nikons 20mm f1.8 G lens for DSLR's is pretty impressive so it doesnt surprise me that the newer Z version would be near perfect. I'm happy to continue using my DSLR version with the FTZ adapter 😊
I prefer the old 1.8G for landscape work actually, it has a much better sunstar, sharpness is the same beyond F4 which doesn’t matter for landscape work anyway, since you have to have everything sharp with apertures from F8-16.
My favorite 20mm lens is actually a 21mm lens. The Voigtlander 21mm f/4 Color-Skopar in Leica M mount. I like it because it is incredibly tiny in size. It may not be quite as sharp as the lenses listed in this video but it is sharp enough, fits Leica M and L mount, and can be adapted to any mirrorless cameras available today.
I have the Z 20 f1.8, had the F 20 f1.8G, and have shot with both the previous Sony 20 f1.8 and the newest Sony 20 f1.8. The Z 20 f1.8 is simply out of this world, and just head and shoulders above everything else at its focal length. It is also pretty easily the best FF astro lens, ultra wide or wide, zoom or prime, on the market. Astonishingly good for astro. The newer Sony 20 f1.8 is also a great lens and very competent at astro. A bit of an anomaly, actually, for Sony.
The closest I have is the Voigtlander 21mm f/3.5, and I'm also finding that I really like this focal length. Light, sharp, great sunstars, low flare...it's great.
Interesting. In the Sony FE 20mm 1.8G vs Nikon Z 20mm 1.8s battle Cameralabs found exactly the opposite: the Sony has better corners and by f2.8 it outresolve the 42MP Sony A7R II sensor. It is proven by full resolution images as well that can be downloaded from the site. Anyway the Sony sample tested by Cameralabs seems to be one of the sharpest lenses: in their standard landscape shot at f2.8 you can see every point of the scene with mindblowing resolution. Not every sample is the same.
Interesting that I saw other youtubers ranking the sony g above the two sigma offerings sharpness wise. I assume there are not only differences in copy variation but also at which focal distances you compare those lenses....
After watching so many different reviews on lenses that are not tested in a very controlled way (ie the picture that the take is always different) the only review that I trust is from Christopher I have literally given up on all other unless its specific to sports photography.
One of the reasons I shoot with Nikon is the lenses, some of the bodies are a bit outdated with AF and such, but the S lenses are top notch. I only shoot S glass now. I have the 20mm and it is super sharp.
A bit premature Chris as Samyang have a brand new 20mm f1.8 on the way, in the guise of their up coming V-AF 20mm T1.9 video lens. It will be a brand new lens design as Samyang have never made a 20mm lens before, and like the rest of the V-AF range it will be fully weather sealed and weigh only 280g. I suspect Samyang may release an non videocentric version too, which will probably be about 50g lighter, only time will tell. But given how good Samyangs stellar little 24mm f1.8 is, it might nudge the Nikon off the top spot, but again, only time will tell.
I never liked wide angle look, unitl I picked up RF 16mm 2.8, I dont know why I did to be honest. But from the first day, I absolutely loved the look this lens produces and because it is so tiny and lightweight, I take it everywhere and use it surprisingly often. Two years ago I would never belive that some day I will love to shoot wide angle
I’m also pulling a trigger on this lens. Most of my lenses are vintage and cost under $100. it’s pretty hard to find a decent wide angle vintage lens in this price range.
My widest one for my APS-C camera is the 11-16mm Tokina f/2.8 which I mainly use indoors but I do take it out every now and again. I tend to get really good results at the wide angle of my Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 lens as well.
24mm! Any wider angle leads to a dominance of perspective, and an effect I would call a loss of creative initiative. The photographer no longer responds to and interprets landscapes. Instead the lend itself becomes the subject! Most visible is this effect in calendars. I sense a mindset similar to certain movie directors who substitute the plot with special effects...
Not an unambiguous statement, because a lot depends on what exactly you shoot, especially when you need to convey the space around you. For example, the interior, or objects that are around you, and not in the plane of the field of vision. For the most part, the widest angle I like is the 35/1.2 lens, and with less enthusiasm I use the 28/1.4, which is noticeably better than the 24/1.4, but sometimes even the 17/4 TSE helps a lot.
@@olesbadio1496 Yes, I nailed it a bit to that aspect of dramatic angles! I agree, every lens has a role to play! I work in a big library were we get the calendars for the region. In these calendars it is 90% shot with 19 to 15mm! Here the photographers really let the wide angle "do the job"! Also, when your eyes have got attuned to this perspective, you can't "unsee" it😉 And I might or might not have photographed with a 17 mm quit a lot in the 90s, when those focal lengths were much more sensational than today, until I had enough...😉
Another aspect of great importance is the fact that many photographers get too excited about ultra-wide angles, in cases where it is simply not justified. So I bought myself a Pentax 67 fisheye in the eighties and was very happy until I found myself shooting with this lens mostly not because I needed it, but because I had it. Although he later developed a theory for himself, the wider the angle, the more effective it looks on a larger format. Namely, 120 millimeters on 8x10 inches looks better than 75 millimeters on 4x5 inches. But at the same time, 75 millimeters on a 4x5 inch format looks better than 55 millimeters on an average 6x7 centimeter format. Based on this, the widest angle on 24x36 looks about as comfortable at a focal length of 35 millimeters as 55 millimeters on an average format of 6x7.Perhaps this is just my subjective perception, but at focal lengths starting from about 85 millimeters, I did not notice such a striking regularity. That is, 300 millimeters for 4x5 inches looks more beautiful, but 165 millimeters for the medium format 6x7 is quite sufficient.
This is a great compilation of wide lenses. Thank you! Currently I am in love with the Voigtländer Color Skopar 21mm F4 (Leica M-Mount). Ok, it is not the sharpest and brightest lense, so a little bit of topic. But if you want to test, I will send it over to your place.
After watching so many different reviews on lenses that are not tested in a very controlled way (ie the picture that the take is always different) the only review that I trust is from Christopher I have literally given up on all other unless its specific to sports photography.
20mm is an ideal lens for lots of wide field astro work. Nikon has lots of coma for that so it's eliminated automatically. For edge to edge work at or near infinity, Sigma 1.4 DG DN is best in my experience. Also best for bokeh at close range (but more aberrations at close range).
@@bobamarmstrong good lenses but I chose Sigma 20mm. It corrects coma better and is faster. I lose weather seal because of adapter use but it's ok for me.
The sigma is very good with coma performance but I would not totally discount Z 20mm for astro. You do have to stop it down to 2.8 to get rid of the coma (it cleans up surprisingly fast as you stop down) but that is fast enough for astro and it is very light in comparison to the sigma. As you say though if you are looking for absolute wide open astro performance as the main criteria the sigma is better...I just found the weight an issue when I'm hiking with a star tracker etc as well.
@@richardmurray1858 I agree weight is always a potential dealbreaker for astrotracker. I don't use one and just use software to stack multiple shots so weight was never an issue for me. Stopping down is alao very good for corners where you get weird color shifts sometimes due to vignetting. My sweetspot is f1.8 to f2 on the Sigma. Decent coma, decent vignetting. CA also better than wide open
Thank you, nice to see how the Nikon Z glass rated with you. I'll be replacing my D700 soon with a full frame Z platform. In doing so I'll get some new full frame z glass to replace my 30 year old MF or AF lenses where I have weak links.
This doesn't surprise me coming from Sigma. Their 40mm 1.4 is starting to be really noticed by Astrophotographers for Milky Way Panoramas or Landscapes. People are impressed.
I love my old Canon 20mm/F28 lens EF mount! Terrible Picture quality, but this lens has character! I really love it with my Canon RP (+ Adapter) ... ❤❤❤🤗🤗🤗😄😄😄
Thanks Chris for another top notch review. I have a question for you which, I hope you don't mind, is not related to this Vlog. You mentioned on post once that your favourite slr camera was the Canon 300V. I have managed to purchase a brand new one for £100. However, the pop-up flash seems very hair-triggered and will pop up at the slightest touch. Did you experience this and if so is it easy to cure.
in my opinion, i think the sigma 18-35mm 1.8 would be a good wide lens for a crop censor. or a 16-35mm 2.8, compatible to a crop sensor or full frame. you can go wide and do landscape or portrait if you max out to 35mm.
I miss the former. Used a lot with my D5300. Now I switched to Z6 II and bought the Z 20 1.8. Would have loved if Nikon had something like that 18- 35.
i use a 12 years old tokina 16-28 2.8 zoom and it good enough for me. i bought it new when it first appeared on the market and never looked back. by the way, you've never tested it.
from my own experience, it's softer in the corners and coma up to f2.5 (astro) , still it has a nice balance between micro-contrast and aberration control and give good sunstars.
But it is the equivalent of a 40mm f2.8 in full frame, so it doesn't compare to anything on this list, but an MFT Lens of around 10mm would, except for the aperture of course.
how would you compare on this list the Panasonic 18mm 1.8? is it any close ? i understand its not the same focal length but as a buyer its actually pretty close :P
how does the 15-30 F2.8 Tamron do in this comparison, a little below the list but by how much ? in your review you didn't cover much of its 20mm focal range , I did purchase a copy of it based on your review and I have not been disappointed.
I seriously considered that lens, but thought I would always want something wider (it actually being about 15.5mm) or a little longer. I buy prime lenses for absolute qualtiy and zooms for versatility.
Before watching the Video, im going to make a prediction: The Sigma 20mm f1.4 Art will be in here... if not i will throw this 1kg lump of sharp glass at you......................... to test! :D (still kept the EF version for my RF lineup, its just so damn special! Really sharp across the board (in respects to the curved FOV technically)) and i love the bokeh for closeup nature stuff... one of the most fun lenses beside a macro to take along into the forest
For edge to edge sharpness, how much better is the Z version than its F mount predecessor? I have a 45 Mp D850 (but no Z mount camera and no intention of getting one … I jumped camp)
I'm sticking with my D850 too. I don't worry about lenses I can't use with my camera, but that's just me. Of course there are stand-outs, but most of the time, that lens that "destroys the competition" is only marginally better anyway.
Mostly the advantage would be small, but with fast wide angle lenses it's quite big. The D850 is a marvellous camera with image quality and I will get one one day for my telephoto lenses, but for wide angle only the tamron 35mm f1.4 stands up win wide angle territory.
I would like 2 things. A more scientific review, since this seems based on....what we don't know. And also a review of wider APS-C lenses, around 11mm (effectively 16mm equiv).
