Another thing I neglected to mention is the Viltrox 16mm F1.8 is better in low light situations due to its faster aperture. If you’re budget’s tight and you’re traveling, hiking, vlogging and need a light weight set up - grab the 20mm F2.8. For astro, low light, landscape or architecture I think the 16mm F1.8 is pretty amazing.
Hello Adrian, I purchased the 20mm when it first came out, in part due to your first review on it. It is a lens that cost very little and takes no space or weight in your camera bag. I have used it several times with my Z7 and I am very happy with it. It is a great companion to the 24-70 F4S when you need a little wider view. Great comparison, thank you.
Thank you so much for watching my friend. They are both great lenses for specific types of photography / videography. Hope you have a fantastic weekend cheers 🙏
Hello Adrian: I purchased the 20 mm here in the USA for $158 and another 20 mm as a gift for a friend. Since my purchases and your making of this video, at B & H Photo and other retailers, it seems that Viltrox has raised the price of the 20 mm by $18 per, bringing the new price to $176 US. I very much enjoyed this video and your comparison and as a result and also having watched other reviews plan to buy the Viltrox 16 mm f1.8 as well.
Certainly will be getting one of them before we head to Iceland in October. Great comparison mate, leaning towards the 16mm but the size of the 20 is so appealing!!!👌👌👍👍
Thanks for watching Scott. Iceland in October = northern lights! No doubt I would definitely have the 16mm F1.8 on the end of my camera 100%.. You'll want as wide as you can go and as fast as you can go. Cheers mate 🙏
I bought it because I had the 13mm 1.4 on Fuji. This is an excellent lens, and it was selling for 460.00 on Amazon and B&H. With Amazon cash, I got it for 466.00 tax included. Excellent video, Adrian, and the reviews on the Laowa 10mm 0 Distortion I still dream about buying that lens too.....overkill, probably right.
Hello Adrian love the comparison of these two lens. Personally I would prefer the 16mm with the 1.8 for that price. As you know I am a canon shooter but every time you do a review of all the options for Nikon makes me feel like making a switch . 😳 Thank you my friend for sharing this with us keep up the great work. Hope you have a wonderful week ahead. 📸🙏🏼
Hi Adrian, a great video, buddy! For me the use case is the main criterion for a lens. In general, I think they are both good. And cheap So if one would be unsure, buying both would be an option 😊 Enjoy your weekend, Christian
I have a few lens in the 20mm range for full frame and APSC camera bodies so I added the 16 mm because the few 16mm focal range lens are f4 zoom lens, the only prime lens is the 15mm manual focus Voightlander f4.5, a compact design but not very fast, on the Nikon ZF and Z6 MKII, the 16mm f1.8 is not a big lens, I tested it yesterday when I got one from B&H Photo, I live in the Mid Hudson Valley of NYS ,ordered it Friday morning and it was at my house the next day, thanks B&H. I Tested it on my ZF taking a few pics of Sunflowers that my wife picked at a local farm, the lens is sharp with nice colors and the close focus abilities are great.
I own 16mm on my Z5. Stunningly awesome lens for just 500$(with promo code). I just hope Viltrox makes more of such lenses on Z system, 135mm is my wish.
I've been a loyal and satisfied Nikon shooter for stills since starting my professional career in 2010. But when I started shooting video, Nikon didn't have the offerings for my needs and I have been using Fujifilm cameras for all video work for the past six years. Now that Nikon has upped their video game I want to streamline everything with just Nikon. I shoot lots of real estate listing videos using a gimbal, and although I'd prefer the 16mm focal length the size and weight of the Viltrox 16mm lens on my Nikon bodies doesn't seem like a good idea. So I'll be trying out the Viltrox 20mm f2.8 on my next real estate video shoot. Ideally it works well, but if not I might still be looking for something a little smaller, wider, and lighter. Wondering if the Voigtlander 15/4.5 would be a good choice over the fairly bulky Viltrox 16mm. I had the Nikon Z 14-30, but it was too distorted.
@@adrianalfordphotography Thanks for the affirmation, Adrian. I'm really liking the 16mm for stills, but maybe in a while. Still in pain from the outlay for the Z8 and 24-120 f4 lens!
Thanks for the comparison. I have been toying at the idea of a wide angle prime. What would be your opinion if you already had the 14-30 f/4. Would you go on and get the 16mm or hold at the 14-30. Z8:body also.
I have the 14-30mm F4S. Absolutely I would go for the 16mm F1.8 as well. The 16mm is much better in low light and for astro. I wished I had this 16mm F1.8 when I was in Iceland photographing the northern lights, it would have been perfect. The other thing is too you can use the 16mm prime for landscapes as well. I have a video coming out on my channel soon showing that.
