Very helpful comparison! I already have the 14-30mm mainly for landscape and nature and some architecture. But my choice for a faster wide angle will be the 24/1.8, because it generates a more natural look with much less distortion - important for people photography.
Thanks for an interesting video. I disagree with the common notion that a 20mm lens will have "more distortion" than a 24 or 28 or 35 (etc), and is therefore less suitable for photography involving people. Your only side by side "portrait" picture comparison falls into that trap. In reality, there is no more *distortion* in a 20mm than in an equally corrected 24mm, but there is a sizeable difference in perspective, which is in fact what we want when we go wider. When it comes to people, that has a visible impact at short distances. In other words, do not get closer to your subjects with a 20mm lens than you'd do with a 24mm if you want to keep the proportions between nose and ears the same. No head and shoulders with a 20mm! But if you keep the same distance, you can shoot away. The subject will fill less of the frame, but the features will look the same. Or crop in post till your subject's face fills the same percentage of the frame: with a 45MP sensor, your 20mm can become a 24, a 28 or a 35 while providing enough final resolution for whatever application. You cannot always go the other way round, depending on your ability to step back. So, "distortion" is NOT what is at stake here: it is all bout distance to subject and perspective. For that reason, I've decided to complement my 14-30 with a 20mm that allows me lower light indoor work and differential focus with an angle of view wide enough to operate in very small quarters (or still get great vistas outdoors), including with people in the frame.
This was brilliant. A comparison that also shows the difference in perspective and how it works for portraits. The takeaway for me is that if I get any of these it will be the 24. It is simply a nice versatile focal length, wide but with less distortion.
Great comparison thank you. Both the 24 and 20 are very sharp lenses. I initially bought the 20mm because I wanted to try something wider. I’m now selling it to I buy the 24/1.8S. The 24 is just a more versatile focal length than 20mm. A zoom is a completely different kind of lens with a very different workflow.
I bought the 24mm because of a good offer. I dont regret, but it is true that with the Z6 mk1, eye/face detection is weaker than in other lenses i own. This and the extra longitudinal chrom. aberrations is the only two weak points of the 24mm.
Thanks for this, I have noticed the sharpness edge of the 20mm even on a 1080P screen with RUclips compression and that says something. That said, I'm only interested in the 20mm because I like shooting my wide photos in that focal range. 24mm is not as wide as I need, but based on this review, if it were, I would have not hesitated to buy it instead of the 20 because the difference is marginal.
@@russandloz mostly vast landscapes with details I want to include at the left and right side of the frame with a large subjects in the middle (like desert dunes with scattered elements around them) or for the purposes of showcasing scale (object relevant to the surroundings or vice versa). I even use an adapted Sony GM 14mm 1.8 when I need extreme wide angles.
It seems like it's fair to say that if you have the 14-24 f/2.8, you wouldn't have a need for the 20mm f/1.8. Though I was impressed at the subject separation in the cafe shot, I had to remind myself that it was an f/1.8 vs f/4 of the 14-30. I would like to believe that the depth of field of the 14-24 f/2.8 would lean slightly more to the 20mm f/1.8 visually (I hope).
@@russandloz Thanks for the response! The lower aperture would be for the times I am doing interior low-light photography and for when I do shots that are similar to what you did in the cafe.
They are both too big and expensive in my opinion (as is the 35mm 1.8). I was very disappointed that the 28mm turn out to only be f2.8 instead of f2 but will still probably end up getting it as it's the current best option for a tiny walkaround lens. A review would be appreciated here! I'm still looking for that fast, compact prime to fully replace the miracle which is my Sony RX1 (35mm f2). I agree that the 14-30 is superb though!
At 3:44 you have put the lighting device very close to the 14-30, but no such thing with the 20mm. This is ruining the comparison, isn't it? If you instead had put the light close to the 20mm, and not done the same on the 14-30 image, then the conclusion from that comparison would be the other way around. At 6:35 the light has changed, and the 14-30 again has better lighting conditions. If you look at the areas where the 20mm has sufficient light, you will see that it is actually sharper, not softer.
The 20 S has a deserved reputation for sharpness and clean rendering. Given all the 24-x zoom options, the 20 is more useful as well. Nice test. Personally I wouldn't buy the 24 S; it's not sharp enough for a prime, and I don't like the magenta fringing/CA.
Which one would you choose for wedding portraits? For that wide angle style with the environment included. Is f4 enough? I think it terms of bokeh then is there a huge difference between f4 and f2.8? But ofcourse the light let in at 1.8 is a huge difference...
The 20mm lens is too wide for taking people as it warps them. The 24 is better but I prefer something like a 35 1.8 ideally. Yes there is a big difference from 1.8 to 2.8 to 4 in terms of background seperation
Personally I find the 24 and 35 optically weak among the S primes to my eye. The 20 is pretty good, though, esp as a video lens. There is an echo in the audio bc you leave both channels open at all times -- this could be removed by only keeping channels open when that speaker is speaking. #smallpotatoes
Interesting, can you pick out why they are weaker? Yes, the levels were too high on the mics so bled into each other at the start, well spotted. Oh well lol
@@russandloz just based on consumer enthusiasm, # of people using, anecdotal from camera shop employees, and not really seeing any images from these lenses that impressed me despite looking. I'm sure they are great, just failed to grab me like some of the other primes - 50 1.8s may be the best 50 1.8 on the maket. Full stop. 20 is big but dual motor is really nice and works well for video, 105 and 24-120 have crazy minimum focus distance and IQ etc
@@northofbrandon I have found exactly the same. I actually own the 20mm 1.8, 50mm 1.8, and the 24-120mm 4.0 because I found them to be superior in optical quality and/or focusing speed, distance, and accuracy. I also own the 40mm 2.0 for a light walk around lens. I either adapt everything else, or use my Canon kit. I do prefer the Nikon mirrorless lenses that I own over the Canon lenses though. Glad I'm not the only person to feel this way about those primes. Sometimes I think I'm just imagining these things 😅.
@@WOLFTICKVIDEOS dang great minds! I have the exact same set of lenses as well as the 105 2.8s which is fantastic Do you like the 40 'pancake'? I'm tempted How good is the 24-120 though?! I've never had a 5x zoom before and gosh dang if that isn't fun and useful. Do you like the zoom stickyness? Took me a bit relative to the 24-70 f4s, but I'm really digging it now
I totally agree with Z 35 to be optically weaker than other S primes (except of 24 mm, I haven't shot with it yet). 20, 50 (both versions), 85 and 105 are much more pleasing.
Good discussion What about 24-120 F4 if we are not pixel peeping? I currently own 20mm, 24-70 and 100 but keep feeling for video work specially in day light a single more affordable 24-120 would have sufficed I can always use my tried and tested legs to cover that 20mm range ? Also what lens did you use to record the video it would be nice to have your equipment links in the description.
Sorry, but for me, this comparison missed the area that interests me and the reasons I might or might not be interested in either of the prime lenses you are talking about. I already have the Z 14-30 f/4 and a Z 50 f 1.8. I enjoy photographing cityscapes at night - wide open. The Z 50 is great but I want a wider point of view. The Z 14-30 is a really great lens but f/4 is too limiting. I want to see how the Z 20 and Z 24 stack up when shooting in cities/towns under night light conditions, so, for me, this video has proven nothing.
The 24 would be a more natural focal length, but the 20 mm is the one I'd recommend, since if you stabilize the camera of footage will be losing that extra wide frame anyways.
@@WhoIsSerafin it certainly had a different colour tone which could make it difficult to tell. Either way it’s so far cropped in, in real use it would be much different?
You guys have one of the best, if not the best channel for us Nikon shooters.
Wow thanks, we enjoy it and glad its helpful
Very helpful comparison! I already have the 14-30mm mainly for landscape and nature and some architecture. But my choice for a faster wide angle will be the 24/1.8, because it generates a more natural look with much less distortion - important for people photography.
Yes that was our assessment too, as I use my 20 mostly for wide establishing shots, it suits my needs. 🙂
Thanks for an interesting video. I disagree with the common notion that a 20mm lens will have "more distortion" than a 24 or 28 or 35 (etc), and is therefore less suitable for photography involving people. Your only side by side "portrait" picture comparison falls into that trap. In reality, there is no more *distortion* in a 20mm than in an equally corrected 24mm, but there is a sizeable difference in perspective, which is in fact what we want when we go wider.
When it comes to people, that has a visible impact at short distances. In other words, do not get closer to your subjects with a 20mm lens than you'd do with a 24mm if you want to keep the proportions between nose and ears the same. No head and shoulders with a 20mm! But if you keep the same distance, you can shoot away. The subject will fill less of the frame, but the features will look the same. Or crop in post till your subject's face fills the same percentage of the frame: with a 45MP sensor, your 20mm can become a 24, a 28 or a 35 while providing enough final resolution for whatever application. You cannot always go the other way round, depending on your ability to step back.
So, "distortion" is NOT what is at stake here: it is all bout distance to subject and perspective.
For that reason, I've decided to complement my 14-30 with a 20mm that allows me lower light indoor work and differential focus with an angle of view wide enough to operate in very small quarters (or still get great vistas outdoors), including with people in the frame.
This was brilliant. A comparison that also shows the difference in perspective and how it works for portraits. The takeaway for me is that if I get any of these it will be the 24. It is simply a nice versatile focal length, wide but with less distortion.
Yes it’s good but depends on what you’re using it for. I actually sold the 20 for the 14-24 2.8 as it’s much wider and gives a whole new perspective
Great comparison thank you. Both the 24 and 20 are very sharp lenses. I initially bought the 20mm because I wanted to try something wider. I’m now selling it to I buy the 24/1.8S. The 24 is just a more versatile focal length than 20mm.
A zoom is a completely different kind of lens with a very different workflow.
I bought the 24mm because of a good offer. I dont regret, but it is true that with the Z6 mk1, eye/face detection is weaker than in other lenses i own. This and the extra longitudinal chrom. aberrations is the only two weak points of the 24mm.
Wow I am amazed at how sharp all of these lenses are even in the corners. Great!
Thanks for this, I have noticed the sharpness edge of the 20mm even on a 1080P screen with RUclips compression and that says something. That said, I'm only interested in the 20mm because I like shooting my wide photos in that focal range. 24mm is not as wide as I need, but based on this review, if it were, I would have not hesitated to buy it instead of the 20 because the difference is marginal.
Thanks. What do you shoot at 20?
@@russandloz mostly vast landscapes with details I want to include at the left and right side of the frame with a large subjects in the middle (like desert dunes with scattered elements around them) or for the purposes of showcasing scale (object relevant to the surroundings or vice versa). I even use an adapted Sony GM 14mm 1.8 when I need extreme wide angles.
It seems like it's fair to say that if you have the 14-24 f/2.8, you wouldn't have a need for the 20mm f/1.8. Though I was impressed at the subject separation in the cafe shot, I had to remind myself that it was an f/1.8 vs f/4 of the 14-30. I would like to believe that the depth of field of the 14-24 f/2.8 would lean slightly more to the 20mm f/1.8 visually (I hope).
Yes in reasonable light, the 14-30 is great, do you need a lower aperture than that with such wide angles?
@@russandloz Thanks for the response! The lower aperture would be for the times I am doing interior low-light photography and for when I do shots that are similar to what you did in the cafe.
@@cavedroid Yeah good point, I love shooting 1.2, 1.4 and 1.8 with other lenses and feel even 2.8 isn't enough for my taste now lol
They are both too big and expensive in my opinion (as is the 35mm 1.8). I was very disappointed that the 28mm turn out to only be f2.8 instead of f2 but will still probably end up getting it as it's the current best option for a tiny walkaround lens. A review would be appreciated here!
I'm still looking for that fast, compact prime to fully replace the miracle which is my Sony RX1 (35mm f2).
I agree that the 14-30 is superb though!
Camera gear has got expensive, as with everything I guess, though makes lens buying more difficult. Why do you prefer smaller lenses?
@@russandloz Smaller isn't always better but for a walkaround prime I'd like it to be as small as possible.
Are you planning to test the 28mm 2.8? ;-)
@@ericcantona3503 We only test gear that we own usually. The 50 1.2 is coming soon! Which ian my small or light
Always thoroughly enjoyed the experience
As much as I like a good 24mm the 20 is my goto for wide field astro.
At 3:44 you have put the lighting device very close to the 14-30, but no such thing with the 20mm. This is ruining the comparison, isn't it? If you instead had put the light close to the 20mm, and not done the same on the 14-30 image, then the conclusion from that comparison would be the other way around.
At 6:35 the light has changed, and the 14-30 again has better lighting conditions. If you look at the areas where the 20mm has sufficient light, you will see that it is actually sharper, not softer.
Very very interesting. Thanks
RS. Canada
Which one will you go for?
The 20 S has a deserved reputation for sharpness and clean rendering. Given all the 24-x zoom options, the 20 is more useful as well. Nice test. Personally I wouldn't buy the 24 S; it's not sharp enough for a prime, and I don't like the magenta fringing/CA.
Yes i'm surprised z glass has those issues. Sometimes I prefer the f mount as they seem to have more character
@@russandloz Yes, the F mount lensrs you like - 105 and 28 - are the more recent E type lenses which are very nice.
@@gbye007 Yes, I have the 105 1.4e and now the 28 1.4e, fast focussing even on the ftz too. My 24-70 and 50 1.4g weren't very good
@@russandloz any chance off a review of the 28mm 1.4e as I don't think nikons making a fast 28mm for the z thanks
@@davebickle4913 great coincidence, I’ve just ordered the 28 1.4!
Which one would you choose for wedding portraits? For that wide angle style with the environment included. Is f4 enough? I think it terms of bokeh then is there a huge difference between f4 and f2.8? But ofcourse the light let in at 1.8 is a huge difference...
The 20mm lens is too wide for taking people as it warps them. The 24 is better but I prefer something like a 35 1.8 ideally. Yes there is a big difference from 1.8 to 2.8 to 4 in terms of background seperation
Personally I find the 24 and 35 optically weak among the S primes to my eye. The 20 is pretty good, though, esp as a video lens. There is an echo in the audio bc you leave both channels open at all times -- this could be removed by only keeping channels open when that speaker is speaking. #smallpotatoes
Interesting, can you pick out why they are weaker? Yes, the levels were too high on the mics so bled into each other at the start, well spotted. Oh well lol
@@russandloz just based on consumer enthusiasm, # of people using, anecdotal from camera shop employees, and not really seeing any images from these lenses that impressed me despite looking. I'm sure they are great, just failed to grab me like some of the other primes - 50 1.8s may be the best 50 1.8 on the maket. Full stop. 20 is big but dual motor is really nice and works well for video, 105 and 24-120 have crazy minimum focus distance and IQ etc
@@northofbrandon I have found exactly the same. I actually own the 20mm 1.8, 50mm 1.8, and the 24-120mm 4.0 because I found them to be superior in optical quality and/or focusing speed, distance, and accuracy. I also own the 40mm 2.0 for a light walk around lens. I either adapt everything else, or use my Canon kit. I do prefer the Nikon mirrorless lenses that I own over the Canon lenses though. Glad I'm not the only person to feel this way about those primes. Sometimes I think I'm just imagining these things 😅.
@@WOLFTICKVIDEOS dang great minds! I have the exact same set of lenses as well as the 105 2.8s which is fantastic
Do you like the 40 'pancake'? I'm tempted
How good is the 24-120 though?! I've never had a 5x zoom before and gosh dang if that isn't fun and useful. Do you like the zoom stickyness? Took me a bit relative to the 24-70 f4s, but I'm really digging it now
I totally agree with Z 35 to be optically weaker than other S primes (except of 24 mm, I haven't shot with it yet). 20, 50 (both versions), 85 and 105 are much more pleasing.
Good discussion
What about 24-120 F4 if we are not pixel peeping? I currently own 20mm, 24-70 and 100 but keep feeling for video work specially in day light a single more affordable 24-120 would have sufficed I can always use my tried and tested legs to cover that 20mm range ?
Also what lens did you use to record the video it would be nice to have your equipment links in the description.
I think a 24-120 would be a great choice but we haven't got one (yet!) to try it; I think Russ used his 105 f1.4 and probably his 50 1.8 for the video
Sorry, but for me, this comparison missed the area that interests me and the reasons I might or might not be interested in either of the prime lenses you are talking about. I already have the Z 14-30 f/4 and a Z 50 f 1.8. I enjoy photographing cityscapes at night - wide open. The Z 50 is great but I want a wider point of view. The Z 14-30 is a really great lens but f/4 is too limiting. I want to see how the Z 20 and Z 24 stack up when shooting in cities/towns under night light conditions, so, for me, this video has proven nothing.
what do you recommend for travel portrait ?
These are both too wide for portrait really. 35 1.8 or 50 would be great really We have a video on the 24-120 which might surprise you too
24-120mm is the best travel lens
what you use for the video ? thanks
We usually use 50 1.8 s and 105 1.4E. They are nice to use for subject seperation.
@@russandloz thanks even do distance needed must be far for 105 right?
@@shyland20 Yeah it can be for two of us. Though I use that for the close up use
Which one you recommend for wedding videography?
We don't film much but would say 20 for landscape/epic wide or 24 for people
The 24 would be a more natural focal length, but the 20 mm is the one I'd recommend, since if you stabilize the camera of footage will be losing that extra wide frame anyways.
You can never move the wall which
is behind you !
24mm looked sharper to me in every photo or more contrast
24 on which lens?
@@russandloz the 24mm prime
@@WhoIsSerafin it certainly had a different colour tone which could make it difficult to tell. Either way it’s so far cropped in, in real use it would be much different?
Are these lenses so expensive that you can't afford a camera strap? Or has that become uncool? Photographers are such sheep.
I often use my cameras on a harness or tripod so no need for a strap most the time.