I literally typed "dpreview nikon 14-24mm" in the youtube search bar 2-3 days ago and was bummed when I realized you guys hadn't reviewed it yet. And here we are :)
My comment earlier disappeared. However, great video. I love this lens. One thing I learned from Hudson Henry, is that the hood that takes the filters can be used on all three z 2.8s, I use it also on the z70-200. So I use the Kase 112mm magnetic filters and CPL … high quality, great price, and I can use on three lenses. Worth a mention. The only thing I’d wish is that the information on the lens display should be fed through to the Evf. Confirming the focal length in the Evf would be really useful….since it’s captured electronically anyway….
That's actually really good to hear. I LOOOOOVVVVEEE it when a camera manufacturer makes a set of lenses that all take the same filter size so you only have to buy one set of all of them. Especially when you're putting down money for a 112mm filter. Sweet Jesus...
I also own that lens. From what I can tell, the main selling point of the 14-24 2.8 is the faster aperture, the OLED info display, and the drop-in filter holder. In my opinion, the 14-30 4.0 is as sharp and consistent as anybody needs it to be. With the size, weight and cost advantage, it's a no-brainer for me which one to have.
I also considered the Z 14-24 f2.8, but fell back on the 14-30 f4. The differences in IQ are minimal, and it's much cheaper. Extra reach to 30mm and easier filter solutions are nice bonuses.
I also only own the 14-30. But I recently tried the 14-24 from a friend and it does have quite a bit more cornersharpness and less distortion. But for me it’s also not worth the extra cost
Upgraded from the Nikon 14-30 to the 14-24 but just because the 14-24mm f2.8S is lighter and just as expensive as a 14-30mm f4/ 20mm f1.8 combo. But honestly if you do not need anything faster than f4.0 (as for landscape).. don't bother with the 14-24mm f2.8.
I was watching this in the toilet... And I lost it when the noct was used as a unit of measurement!! Hahaha. My wife thought I was losing my mind already.
I have the original F-mount 14 to 24, and it's still great for stills, however, I often switch to video and the older F-Mount lenses with the adapter do a lot of hunting and racking in a very noisy way that ruins your video audio if your microphone is mounted to your rig. I'm looking at this lens since there are Black Friday discounts on it. $2,199.99 which is still not cheap, but saves me a couple of hundred. Nice review and you've helped me make my decision on this lens. :)
As a real estate photographer I have THREE 14-24 f2.8's. I have two of the classic F series, and one of the new S series. Let me tell you all one thing FOR SURE. The new lens outperforms the old one 10-1. The S series lens has crisp clean images and has nowhere near the flare problems the classic 14-24 F had. It's a godsend for my business in managing unwanted flare for bright sun infiltrating indoor photos.
I'm glad we got a little Chris-and-Jordan comedy this time starting at about 3:43 (although it did spoil the gag I had been working on about "Nikon" being pronounced "No Fun" at DPRTV.) Also, the Doomsday Oracle thanks you for the shout-out...
Not a Z mount user, but I thought the bokeh of this lens was quite attractive. Soap bubble bokeh really is a polarizing subject...just like the cost of that polarizing filter, eh? I'll show myself out.
The difference between 14mm and 16mm (of the typical 16-35mm lens) seems insignificant but with ultra wide lenses is huge and corresponds to larger angle of view difference than 24mm to 35mm. Nikon wants to differentiate and preferred a different focal length range which may be appealing to more photographers. What I like most from the 14-24mm lens is the use of filter even with adapter. Sony offers the full frame 12-24mm f/2.8 lens which extends the classic trinity of f/2.8 full frame zoom lenses but it has a very bulbous front element which prohibits any use of filters.
Thanks Chris! I have been looking to get a wide angle zoom to add to my Z6II. I will add this, I ave the 24-70 but not the 2.8 prime, but I do have the 70-200 2.8 prime
How so? The Nikon variants are the most expensive of the big three companies, and the Canon 70-200 is significantly more compact. How do the Z lenses win any prizes? I mean, they're good. Best ever though? Hardly.
@@romanpul I live in Europe and where I live, Nikon lenses are always more expensive than their Canon counterparts, both DSLR and mirrorless. With DSLRs I don't care, because the best Nikon bodies there are so good they're worth the more expensive ecosystem. In the mirrorless space Canon has the much better bodies...
@@youknowwho9247 the collapsing 70-200mm rf would be a dealbreaker for me (and for the 2,3 pros I've had the honor to speak to). I hate extending zooms
Get the Kase Wolverine magnetic filters...put on that huge hood and ditch the cap...just leave your magnetic filter cap on and you are good to go. It is a great setup.
First of all, great video, as always! The price of that polarizer sure was impressive but I guess that's what it comes down to when you play in that league.
I didn't even know they made 112mm filters. Getting 80+ sized filters for my older lenses was an expensive pain. I can't imagine a screw on filter that huge...
Already the 14-30 f4 is already super sharp, then it comes to no surprise this 14-24 f2.8 tick all the boxes. I'm only grumpy on the price of those optional 112mm ND filters. They are expensive! Even without filters, this lens is simply amazing. Open wide, the edges are sharp, which is something you don't that in the past for wide angle lens. Biggest difference when compared to it's F mount sister is when you shoot astro, then you understand why this lens is expensive as it is. For all Z owners, this lens is a must have on your list. Start saving....
I find the bokeh to be similar in the 24-70 f4 (the only Z lens I own so far)... some backgrounds just look busy because they kinda have a double outline in the oof areas. It's annoying.
Hi Chris good start to the vid outside a Massage place. 😂 or maybe Jordan did not notice that. Interesting lens your praise it must be good. Keep up the fun for us all 👍👍
I chose the Venus Optic Laowa 15mm f / 4.0 Wide Angle Macro 1: 1 for my Nikon Z7, a lens with horizontal shift. It's a marvel for less than $ 500. I just regret not also having the vertical shift. As for this magnificent zoom, I remain skeptical because a doubled stabilization would have allowed hand-held night photos with a time of 1 second. In addition, the absence of the shift limits creativity, especially for press or fashion portraits.
I am not a fan of the holy trinity lenses, I think the use case for anyone who isn't a professional event photographer is not very compelling, My hobby holy trinity would be the 14-30 f4, the 35mm f1.8 and the 105mm f2.8 Macro. which would have me covered for my interests and save £4K and 2 Noct. a 400 mm + tele zoom would be nice though for just about anything I would ever want to photograph. Nice review, you are right about Nikon's lens lineup it's compelling if a bit ugly and a bit big beer can inspired.
Sooo that's great that we've got an updated Holy Trio. However, I think we don't gain that much comparing to how much we must spend to replace our Trio with a mirrorless one. One of the loudest points shouted by Nikon in switching to the Z mount was the diameter of the new mount; I would be more than happy to see e.g. full frame zoom lenses with the aperture of f/2.4 😊
The Sigma 18-35mm 1.8 did the same motion blur like bokeh at the in-focus out-of-focus transitions. It looked absolutely horrendous. Sold mine when I got a Z6 II. Haven't missed that heavy piece of can't-even-focus-properly a single time. Sure its image quality is great in some uses but when it can't even focus accurately using the viewfinder that sharpness doesn't really count... IMHO. And why would I miss it since it's for crop anyway.... and the 24-70 f/4 is astounding!
I heard these new z-mount pro lenses have plastic bodies is that correct? Also, does that lens gel slot at the front of the lens increase the chance of getting dust on the sensor?
An entertaining and informative video. Good to watch even though my only Nikon gear is a pair of binoculars. But I wonder, are DP Review videos geared partly for beings from outer space. Pounds, yes. Kilos, yes. But Nocts? This sounds like e measurement used by an alien species. I'm thinking they only appear (and so only do their measurements) at night and that Nocts is shorthand for nocturnal specifications.
Thank you for the video. Great job as always. I know that this lens is smaller than its predecessor, but these lenses are big compared to their APS-C peers. I had thought that the promise of mirrorless and the Z mount was faster and smaller lenses.
@@JasonFiske And those lenses were...manual with no AF motors in them and no electronics. You are more then welcome to use them, and ride a horse to work. Did you type this on your typing machine too ?
@@JasonFiske that's a good point. I'm no lens expert, but I think there was probably some over promised marketing about how small they can make mirror less z mount glass. In reality we'll probably see a modest decrease in size, which will probably be counteracted by companies moving to F2 instead of F2.8 for their professional zooms.
Nikon, Canon, Nikon, Canon, Nikon, Canon, Nikon, Canon, Nikon, Canon, Nikon, Canon, Nikon, Canon, Nikon, Canon. Realizing that I think Chris and Jordan are among the best RUclips presenters, it's a shame DPReview is captive to it's own success..... Now if it's not Nikon or Canon (and once in awhile Panasonic) you won't see it here.
Out of their last 10 videos. 1 was Nikon, 1 was Canon, 1 was Sony, 1 was Sigma, 1 was Tamron, 1 was Zeiss, the rest were multiple camera videos. When people have a bias they only see what they want to see?
Granted I would love to own this lens but a little bit of extra weight in my camera bag with the 15-30 g2 doesn’t make me want to upgrade As being a z7 user with the trinity of lenses from tamron And I’ve rented the equivalent for the f mount and they didn’t hold up to the tamron versions for the work I do in sharpness I love how it handles the sun but a little weight and one feature doesn’t make me want to get rid of my trinity for the z mount versions
They didn't cover it as much, but Nikon has placed a lot of emphasis on Focus Breathing with the new Z mount lenses. Compared to Canon or Sony, Nikon's new lenses are leagues ahead in that regard. The other big competitors look as if you're moving the zoom ring when focusing.
4:15 You don't mention it, but focusing at 14mm has a VERY strange distortion effect, visible from the red painted tree stump all the way to the left edge of the frame (ofcourse also on the right side, but left is easier to spot here). To me that distortion seems even worse than regular focus breathing!
Nice lens but too expansive, the only reason it makes sense right now is that the Sigma 14-24 isn't available natively, otherwise it would be a no brainer
No mention of vignetting - The vignetting for astrophotography is a problem and Lightroom doesn’t correct it very well. In other software correcting vignetting adds a lot of noise in the corners and become clearly distinct from the rest of the image even after adding noise removal.
@@sopheven The statement "other software" is a real statement. Nikon and adobe and "other software" should fix the vignetting. Also "NO mention of vignetting" so I mentioned.
I would like to know what makes these lenses better in Chris’ opinion than the Canon lineup? The Canon lenses all have IS, realistic filter sizes, and the RF 70-200 is a work of art when it comes to size/weight/performance.
I love the Canon 70-200 but optically the Nikon does have an edge. Their 24-70 2.8 is good but not great. They do make an excellent 15-35. I also have a new found love for the 28-70 f2. But Nikon I feel has a slight edge overall in the optical performance they've achieved with their trio. In the end it doesn't matter. Both companies now have a solid trio of pro zooms.
Great review, great looking lens, too bad it will only get half of the views of a Sony or Canon lens video simply because its Nikon and RUclips hates Nikon for some reason....
Common guys, you can do far better in reviewing and highlighting the strength of this lens. Otherwise, you could just do a 15 seconds video to say "It's excellent ... go get one!".
Was considering this lens after seeing every review of the 14-30 f4 pans that one. The last "Holy Trinity" NIKKORs jammed yesterday so I'm not sold on any more of their very expensive overpriced "pro" lenses. WOW, 12 month warranty and 200 bucks off in Canada. Like Apple, "pro" is just a marketing term to severely jack the price. I guess that's why Nikon are where they have gotten themselves into now.
What good is a 24mm lense if you like photographing aircraft , ships offshore .why did you not even attempt at such subject matters ??? Will it capture a Deer a farmer's field length away , Same with a Bird of prey ?? Walking about a City centre .. aye for close captures .. far afield not a chance
I literally typed "dpreview nikon 14-24mm" in the youtube search bar 2-3 days ago and was bummed when I realized you guys hadn't reviewed it yet.
And here we are :)
A thousand years later, Noct beats both imperial and metric systems and becomes the universal weight measurement unit.
🤣🤣🤣 I kid you not, I was thinking something along the same vein…
I mean the development of the Noct paid off just based on it getting mentioned on every review
I'm clueless about that, and I don't want to even bother looking it up! lol
Maybe!!
Pretty much all I got from the video, jk but really what is the point?
My comment earlier disappeared. However, great video. I love this lens. One thing I learned from Hudson Henry, is that the hood that takes the filters can be used on all three z 2.8s, I use it also on the z70-200. So I use the Kase 112mm magnetic filters and CPL … high quality, great price, and I can use on three lenses. Worth a mention.
The only thing I’d wish is that the information on the lens display should be fed through to the Evf. Confirming the focal length in the Evf would be really useful….since it’s captured electronically anyway….
That's actually really good to hear. I LOOOOOVVVVEEE it when a camera manufacturer makes a set of lenses that all take the same filter size so you only have to buy one set of all of them.
Especially when you're putting down money for a 112mm filter. Sweet Jesus...
thanks for the amazing tip about the lens hood! This is an extremly useful feature
Wow, great info !!!
You may use that hood on 14-30s as well
Nikon kicking it out of the Park with these new Z mount lenses. Cant wait to see the Z9.
Z9 IS HERE!!!!!!!!
Yes! More Nikon lens reviews pls!
Try focusing on ants or birds or a bride walking down the hall. Your doomed.
@@letsfindout6587 he's doomed because he wants to see more lens reviews?
Feel like more emphasis should have been put on the video side. The breathing compared to the Sony and Canon counterparts is night and day
Nikon kickin butt again. Stellar bodies. Stellar lenses. Nikon is waking up big time.
I love the inclusivity of all measurement systems... Imperial, Metric, and Noct :D
So, when they do not say what camera the episode was recorded with, does that mean they use a secret new model?
No, it just means I forgot. This was shot on the Panasonic S1H.
@@thatjordandrake can't wait for the GH6..
oh! you killed all the drama... :)
Missing a small note on the 14-30 f/4 and how this lens compares. I for one am holding on to my 14-30 because of the convenience of 82mm filters.
I also own that lens. From what I can tell, the main selling point of the 14-24 2.8 is the faster aperture, the OLED info display, and the drop-in filter holder. In my opinion, the 14-30 4.0 is as sharp and consistent as anybody needs it to be. With the size, weight and cost advantage, it's a no-brainer for me which one to have.
I also considered the Z 14-24 f2.8, but fell back on the 14-30 f4. The differences in IQ are minimal, and it's much cheaper. Extra reach to 30mm and easier filter solutions are nice bonuses.
For me the 14-30 is enough. And it allows me to save some weight, which is good, because lockdown made me gain some weight. ;)
I also only own the 14-30. But I recently tried the 14-24 from a friend and it does have quite a bit more cornersharpness and less distortion. But for me it’s also not worth the extra cost
Upgraded from the Nikon 14-30 to the 14-24 but just because the 14-24mm f2.8S is lighter and just as expensive as a 14-30mm f4/ 20mm f1.8 combo.
But honestly if you do not need anything faster than f4.0 (as for landscape).. don't bother with the 14-24mm f2.8.
I was watching this in the toilet... And I lost it when the noct was used as a unit of measurement!! Hahaha. My wife thought I was losing my mind already.
I have the original F-mount 14 to 24, and it's still great for stills, however, I often switch to video and the older F-Mount lenses with the adapter do a lot of hunting and racking in a very noisy way that ruins your video audio if your microphone is mounted to your rig. I'm looking at this lens since there are Black Friday discounts on it. $2,199.99 which is still not cheap, but saves me a couple of hundred. Nice review and you've helped me make my decision on this lens. :)
As a real estate photographer I have THREE 14-24 f2.8's. I have two of the classic F series, and one of the new S series. Let me tell you all one thing FOR SURE. The new lens outperforms the old one 10-1. The S series lens has crisp clean images and has nowhere near the flare problems the classic 14-24 F had. It's a godsend for my business in managing unwanted flare for bright sun infiltrating indoor photos.
I'm glad we got a little Chris-and-Jordan comedy this time starting at about 3:43 (although it did spoil the gag I had been working on about "Nikon" being pronounced "No Fun" at DPRTV.) Also, the Doomsday Oracle thanks you for the shout-out...
I would like the 70-200 f4 for the trio of f4 lenses for z mount please Chris have a word in the right ears……..
Yes please. Im also waiting for it.
Not a Z mount user, but I thought the bokeh of this lens was quite attractive. Soap bubble bokeh really is a polarizing subject...just like the cost of that polarizing filter, eh?
I'll show myself out.
You guys are the best camera reviewers out there!!
The difference between 14mm and 16mm (of the typical 16-35mm lens) seems insignificant but with ultra wide lenses is huge and corresponds to larger angle of view difference than 24mm to 35mm.
Nikon wants to differentiate and preferred a different focal length range which may be appealing to more photographers.
What I like most from the 14-24mm lens is the use of filter even with adapter.
Sony offers the full frame 12-24mm f/2.8 lens which extends the classic trinity of f/2.8 full frame zoom lenses but it has a very bulbous front element which prohibits any use of filters.
sony allows gel filters but its cumbersome to use.
That slot in the back for gel filters? Why has no one else mentioned that? That's an amazing little feature!
Thanks Chris! I have been looking to get a wide angle zoom to add to my Z6II. I will add this, I ave the 24-70 but not the 2.8 prime, but I do have the 70-200 2.8 prime
I own this lens and IT IS AWESOME!!
Agreed!
So Z mount has the best trinity ever.
How so? The Nikon variants are the most expensive of the big three companies, and the Canon 70-200 is significantly more compact. How do the Z lenses win any prizes? I mean, they're good. Best ever though? Hardly.
@@youknowwho9247 Best usually means best IQ, functionality, etc.
It does not mean: lightest, cheapest,…
@@youknowwho9247 That strongly depends on where you live. In europe the Z trinity is significantly cheaper than the RF trinity
@@romanpul I live in Europe and where I live, Nikon lenses are always more expensive than their Canon counterparts, both DSLR and mirrorless. With DSLRs I don't care, because the best Nikon bodies there are so good they're worth the more expensive ecosystem. In the mirrorless space Canon has the much better bodies...
@@youknowwho9247 the collapsing 70-200mm rf would be a dealbreaker for me (and for the 2,3 pros I've had the honor to speak to). I hate extending zooms
Thanks for another great review. Would have been nice to hear a few words on how the 14-30 compares to the 14-24 though?
6:17 are these switched up? The 2.8 looks better
Get the Kase Wolverine magnetic filters...put on that huge hood and ditch the cap...just leave your magnetic filter cap on and you are good to go. It is a great setup.
So are you guys testing a new camera??? Great work as always!
Any plans to review the new Z-mount macro lenses?
Whats about vignetting? Coma?
First of all, great video, as always!
The price of that polarizer sure was impressive but I guess that's what it comes down to when you play in that league.
I didn't even know they made 112mm filters. Getting 80+ sized filters for my older lenses was an expensive pain. I can't imagine a screw on filter that huge...
@@DustinBKerensky97 you can get 112 filters from other brands for a fraction of that price. Nikon is crazy charging that much.
@@livejames9374 yeah still a good 112mm filter will probably set you back a few hundred bucks and double or triple what the more common sizes cost.
@@KiinaSu Haida 112mm nd filter i bought was ~$170. Expensive but well under whatever Nikon is charging, $800+.
Already the 14-30 f4 is already super sharp, then it comes to no surprise this 14-24 f2.8 tick all the boxes. I'm only grumpy on the price of those optional 112mm ND filters. They are expensive! Even without filters, this lens is simply amazing. Open wide, the edges are sharp, which is something you don't that in the past for wide angle lens. Biggest difference when compared to it's F mount sister is when you shoot astro, then you understand why this lens is expensive as it is. For all Z owners, this lens is a must have on your list. Start saving....
@4:42, Cutting to black only happened because he wouldn't stop talking about how awesome Chris is. Magnanimous fellow that Chris Niccolls!
I find the bokeh to be similar in the 24-70 f4 (the only Z lens I own so far)... some backgrounds just look busy because they kinda have a double outline in the oof areas. It's annoying.
bokeh performance is not prioritised in wide-angle zoom lens. A 50/85mm lens should serve you better.
Great video, as always. Seems like Nikon hasn't given up just yet.
Chris, what bag are you using, please?
Just bought it and will use it for star photography. Seems like a great piece of glass.
Hi Chris good start to the vid outside a Massage place. 😂 or maybe Jordan did not notice that. Interesting lens your praise it must be good. Keep up the fun for us all 👍👍
I chose the Venus Optic Laowa 15mm f / 4.0 Wide Angle Macro 1: 1 for my Nikon Z7, a lens with horizontal shift. It's a marvel for less than $ 500. I just regret not also having the vertical shift. As for this magnificent zoom, I remain skeptical because a doubled stabilization would have allowed hand-held night photos with a time of 1 second. In addition, the absence of the shift limits creativity, especially for press or fashion portraits.
My holy trinity trio is Z 14-24/f2.8 S, Z 24-120mm /F4S, and Z 100-400 /4.5-5.6 S
I am not a fan of the holy trinity lenses, I think the use case for anyone who isn't a professional event photographer is not very compelling, My hobby holy trinity would be the 14-30 f4, the 35mm f1.8 and the 105mm f2.8 Macro. which would have me covered for my interests and save £4K and 2 Noct. a 400 mm + tele zoom would be nice though for just about anything I would ever want to photograph. Nice review, you are right about Nikon's lens lineup it's compelling if a bit ugly and a bit big beer can inspired.
3:45 - Thank you for not editing that out Jordan 😄
Love mine! Worth every penny.
What is the best wide angle zoom lens for APS-C?
Sooo that's great that we've got an updated Holy Trio. However, I think we don't gain that much comparing to how much we must spend to replace our Trio with a mirrorless one. One of the loudest points shouted by Nikon in switching to the Z mount was the diameter of the new mount; I would be more than happy to see e.g. full frame zoom lenses with the aperture of f/2.4 😊
This lens is a beast....
you guys are great fun
i really hope nikon stays in the game! if i wasnt aldready deep into the fuji system i would strongly consider them!
You have noticed few companies are making accessories for their Z product now haven't you? Scares me.
With all these references to the heft of a Nikkor Noct has The Dynamic Duo of camera gear ever reviewed one?
Compare with sony’s 12-24 gm
Nikon took forever to get trinity, do they still have customers. We’re in Sept 2021.
You guys are awesome.
Still waiting to switch to Nikon mirrorless but not until Tamron and Sigma start making lenses for the Z system camera's.
The Sigma 18-35mm 1.8 did the same motion blur like bokeh at the in-focus out-of-focus transitions. It looked absolutely horrendous. Sold mine when I got a Z6 II. Haven't missed that heavy piece of can't-even-focus-properly a single time. Sure its image quality is great in some uses but when it can't even focus accurately using the viewfinder that sharpness doesn't really count... IMHO. And why would I miss it since it's for crop anyway.... and the 24-70 f/4 is astounding!
I heard these new z-mount pro lenses have plastic bodies is that correct? Also, does that lens gel slot at the front of the lens increase the chance of getting dust on the sensor?
There are a couple of options for sensor clip-on filters for Z cameras and they are very affordable.
This is uploaded while I'm sitting on the toilet, just letting the world know
How did the toileting go?
@@thrallingFRglory paid for the toilet might as well use it. Worked as intended.
Lol, same here. I guess we are toilet buddies. Wait, that didn’t sound right when I read that back.
at 112mm might as well go matte box
An entertaining and informative video. Good to watch even though my only Nikon gear is a pair of binoculars. But I wonder, are DP Review videos geared partly for beings from outer space. Pounds, yes. Kilos, yes. But Nocts? This sounds like e measurement used by an alien species. I'm thinking they only appear (and so only do their measurements) at night and that Nocts is shorthand for nocturnal specifications.
Thank you for the video. Great job as always. I know that this lens is smaller than its predecessor, but these lenses are big compared to their APS-C peers. I had thought that the promise of mirrorless and the Z mount was faster and smaller lenses.
For faster lenses you'll need a physically larger front element, that's a physics limitation.
@@nerdgeekdc That may be true, but I’m old enough to remember when F2.8 lenses had 77mm filter threads. This lens has a 110mm thread.
@@JasonFiske And those lenses were...manual with no AF motors in them and no electronics. You are more then welcome to use them, and ride a horse to work. Did you type this on your typing machine too ?
@@elvirredzepovic6898 dude, chill
@@JasonFiske that's a good point. I'm no lens expert, but I think there was probably some over promised marketing about how small they can make mirror less z mount glass. In reality we'll probably see a modest decrease in size, which will probably be counteracted by companies moving to F2 instead of F2.8 for their professional zooms.
Do you know if information from lens' window (1:34) will displays also on camera's body (EVF & LCD)?
awesome bro love it
♥
Nikon, Canon, Nikon, Canon, Nikon, Canon, Nikon, Canon, Nikon, Canon, Nikon, Canon, Nikon, Canon, Nikon, Canon. Realizing that I think Chris and Jordan are among the best RUclips presenters, it's a shame DPReview is captive to it's own success..... Now if it's not Nikon or Canon (and once in awhile Panasonic) you won't see it here.
Out of their last 10 videos. 1 was Nikon, 1 was Canon, 1 was Sony, 1 was Sigma, 1 was Tamron, 1 was Zeiss, the rest were multiple camera videos.
When people have a bias they only see what they want to see?
@@DustinBKerensky97 You're obviously watching a different stream...
Granted I would love to own this lens but a little bit of extra weight in my camera bag with the 15-30 g2 doesn’t make me want to upgrade
As being a z7 user with the trinity of lenses from tamron
And I’ve rented the equivalent for the f mount and they didn’t hold up to the tamron versions for the work I do in sharpness I love how it handles the sun but a little weight and one feature doesn’t make me want to get rid of my trinity for the z mount versions
But is Chris gonna talk about his Wotancraft bag? 🤔
Yup, this weekend!
@@thatjordandrake heck yeah! I want to know if y'all's has/had an odor like mind did for the first few months.
Now the Noct has been accepted as the universal term for measurement of weight it is time we got something to replace measurements of length.
Can anyone comment on sharpness versus 14-30 f/4s? I rarely shoot below f5 while shooting that wide, but would upgrade if significantly sharper.
did I hear a 45mp sensor?
How does it compare to the Sony 12-24/2.8?
I like adding length and weight to my package!
Nikon Z Trinity better than Canon RF Trinity? Huh. So better than the Sony trio too?
They didn't cover it as much, but Nikon has placed a lot of emphasis on Focus Breathing with the new Z mount lenses. Compared to Canon or Sony, Nikon's new lenses are leagues ahead in that regard. The other big competitors look as if you're moving the zoom ring when focusing.
Mmm, what a lens. ;)
680-880 dollar for 1 filter …. damn !
Kase and NiSi also have filters in that size and they are significantly cheaper
I know right? I can get a whole lens for the cost of that sheet of glass.
@@DustinBKerensky97 Yeah, those prices are ridiculous. I wonder if they make the glas for them from moon sand 😂😂
4:15 You don't mention it, but focusing at 14mm has a VERY strange distortion effect, visible from the red painted tree stump all the way to the left edge of the frame (ofcourse also on the right side, but left is easier to spot here). To me that distortion seems even worse than regular focus breathing!
Nice video but hard to judge. You guys should have compared sample images with the dslr 14-24 and at 24 compared against the Z 24-70.
As a nikon shooter... why 14-24? lol likeeee gimme that 16-35 with 82mm filter thread... pleaseeeeee hahah
woot
Nice lens but too expansive, the only reason it makes sense right now is that the Sigma 14-24 isn't available natively, otherwise it would be a no brainer
My weapon of choice is a pillow case holding a few Nocts.
112mm filter thread, jesus!
0:38 great job resisting that easy broken glass shot, Chris. You're better than that!
4:15 that warping on the left side of the screen is weird but overall seems like an awesome lens
That video was "Better".
No mention of vignetting -
The vignetting for astrophotography is a problem and Lightroom doesn’t correct it very well. In other software correcting vignetting adds a lot of noise in the corners and become clearly distinct from the rest of the image even after adding noise removal.
Use a prime then. The “other software” statement is false.
@@sopheven The statement "other software" is a real statement. Nikon and adobe and "other software" should fix the vignetting. Also "NO mention of vignetting" so I mentioned.
I would like to know what makes these lenses better in Chris’ opinion than the Canon lineup? The Canon lenses all have IS, realistic filter sizes, and the RF 70-200 is a work of art when it comes to size/weight/performance.
They have better IQ
I love the Canon 70-200 but optically the Nikon does have an edge. Their 24-70 2.8 is good but not great. They do make an excellent 15-35. I also have a new found love for the 28-70 f2. But Nikon I feel has a slight edge overall in the optical performance they've achieved with their trio. In the end it doesn't matter. Both companies now have a solid trio of pro zooms.
I don't know much about constructing a lens so my question is: why do the Nikon Z lenses look like they already have a FTZ attached to them?🍻
That black banded portion does look suspicious. Rest assured glass goes all the way to the mount. Very bland design.
we need more jordan, not less!
aww, a normal intro?
$879 seems like a bargain for one camera filter
Great review, great looking lens, too bad it will only get half of the views of a Sony or Canon lens video simply because its Nikon and RUclips hates Nikon for some reason....
$879.... for a filter ... Only if I was a "my life depends on it" landscape photographer
N🧍k ❤️n
Well, that settles that... The Nikon haters can just shut up...
Common guys, you can do far better in reviewing and highlighting the strength of this lens. Otherwise, you could just do a 15 seconds video to say "It's excellent ... go get one!".
$3,000 lens….dang
Tamron is at least as good,... and MUCH cheaper!!
And you have used both riight?
800 dollars on filters = 20mm 1.8g lol
Was considering this lens after seeing every review of the 14-30 f4 pans that one. The last "Holy Trinity" NIKKORs jammed yesterday so I'm not sold on any more of their very expensive overpriced "pro" lenses. WOW, 12 month warranty and 200 bucks off in Canada. Like Apple, "pro" is just a marketing term to severely jack the price. I guess that's why Nikon are where they have gotten themselves into now.
What good is a 24mm lense if you like photographing aircraft , ships offshore .why did you not even attempt at such subject matters ???
Will it capture a Deer a farmer's field length away , Same with a Bird of prey ?? Walking about a City centre .. aye for close captures .. far afield not a chance
Impossible a lens review that’s not calling Nikon garbage exists?
im holding out hope for a Nikon mirrorless camera that competes with Sony and Canon in terms of eye tracking.
i realise nobody asked.