I've had this lens for a while now, got it as a part of a kit with my Z5. While the plastic mount is disheartening, the performance is surprisingly sharp. You do not expect this level of performance from a small, plastic lens like this.
This is a lovely tiny lens! The only things I dn't like about it is its price and the plastic mount combo! Great performance for a kit lens indeed! Now I would like to see how the sony 28-60 performance is on that brutal chart! Oh and I can't wait to see the review of the new Nikkor Z 24-120 f4, that's the most exciting one to me just along with the 14-30 f4.
Great review, Chris. I bought this lens with the z5 and despite its limitations, I managed to get some great pics with it in a jazz night club. The z5 is acceptable at iso 6400 so even at 6.3, I got away with fine results.
@@danielbulcsupekh7922 if budget is an absolute constrain then Z system is rather limited. Even $250 used 24-50 has little to brag about value compared to either F mount or other mirrorless systems. 24-70f4 is expensive too.
@@frankluo230 I have used a d7200 for years with several lenses. I wanted an FF upgrade. Considered the d750 too, but after trying out the z5, it was a no brainer. The only reason that could have bent me over to the d750 is if I had FF f-mount lenses, but I don't. I rather start building from the new lineup.
@@danielbulcsupekh7922 nothing wrong with your approach. I just pointed out Nikon currently lacks the real entry level budget kit zoom. 24-50 too dark too limiting zoom range for $400 new. 24-70f4 optically superb but $1000 too expensive. They need a Canon 24-105stm type of lens for $400 to attract more users. Or do a 24-85f4-5.6 for $400 at least. You can still produce great results no doubt, it doesn't change the fact current offerings are limiting and not budget friendly
One should consider that these cheaper Nikkors are order of magnitude better build quality than older plastic lenses like the 50mm 1.8D. And people get too hung up on metal mount. There is no reason to use that on lenses this light. A plastic mount also offers a level of sealing since plastic surfaces are hydrophobic. As opposed to metal surfaces that are hydrophilic and will literally suck water in unless there is a rubber seal. Compare the 40mm f2 Z lens with the older 50mm 1.8G. The Z lens has internal focus and sealing on the front and the control ring is sealed. The bayonet is hydrophobic plastic. It will be a lot better sealed than the older 50mm and has much better build quality despite the 50 having a metal bayonet and a rear seal (it has to, or it would suck in water). The 50 does not have internal focus meaning it’s both more fragile and less sealed. The point is that build quality is a lot more than just looking at the material of the mount. I find a lot of reviewers do this “it’s a plastic mount” implying that it has low build quality but not making the effort to actually understand the sum of all the design considerations. Nikon better than anyone else takes all these things into consideration I think.
In my testing this lens for the price it's OK, although you can get a used 24-70 f/4 for a little more. But if you buy this as a kit, the lens is quite good given the price of about $300 with a body. I think that the lens is best suited for 35-50mm as seen here, and not so much wide-open. But then again, this depends on what you're shooting. If you're shooting foliage from a distance, the corner sharpness may not be a huge issue, probably only when you are really shooting things with defined patterns or lines. Where I could see this lens being useful is as a general walkaround lens when you don't want to take something like a 24-200, which might be better for travel, or the 24-70. This lens may also be useful on the APS-C bodies as some of tie vignetting will probably go away even wide open, but then there is the limitations of the crop. I'd say FOR THE PRICE it's acceptably sharp, but I wouldn't buy this lens separately for $400. I would only buy this lens with a camera body because it is then a bout $100 cheaper (if of course you need a body). But honestly if someone was shooting with a Z7 body, it would be a toss up whether I'd recommend this for get the DX 16-50 and run it in crop mode if you want a small compact lens (the 16-50 for what it is, is actually quite surprisingly good and decently sharp and if you can live with the 19MP image on a Z7 body, might be a better option for a low-cost lens). People should also remember that high-res bodies will show the worst in lenses. The sharpness issues may not be as visible on the lower-res bodies and/or bodies with an AA filter as they will tend to hide some of the sharpness problems in the corners. Also shooting these on APS-C cameras will yield different results, so doing this on a Z7 to show it's strengths and weaknesses is a good idea because it shows us the worst of the lens.
Excellent video. No commercial content and you got the high points without making it too long. I was debating whether to get my Z5 body only out with this lens for $90 more. (Used prices) I decided to get it. As you say, it will be a great travel lens, being as light and compact as it is. To have something fast, I also bought a used 40/2.
I saw this lens for 250 € brand new in a store last winter. I really regret not having bought it. It's much more expensive now ... Perfect for allround landscape!
This thing can be found for only $250 at some places here in Asia nowadays - even if you bought it separately. Because it's the worst Z mount lens. All of its shortcomings would be forgivable if the official retail price was lower. $250 is fair, but not $400. The issue is the pricing / value, and not so much about image quality.
The 16-50DXVR is sharp enough, has 3 stops of VR (drag the shutter handheld,) and a more useful range. If 24mm (36mm eq) is wide enough for your scenes, then the 24-50 is going to have slightly better overall quality. There are physical/optical benefits to a larger front lens opening.
I sold my 24-70f4 for the 24-200. The 24-200 is a bit longer like my an inch or less. It is more versatile, i find the 24-70mm kind of boring for a walk around lens. I would say the 24-70 f4 is a tad sharper at 70mm. But he Nikon 24-200 was sharper than the Tamron 35-150mm f/2.8-4 (f-mount). I was seriously wanting the tamron with bigger apeture, but the extra 50mm and sharper 24-200 won out. The smaller apeture of the 24-200, you would need to drive the iso up in darker spaces for sure. But I shoot mostly f1.4 primes, but this is my walkaround lens. The 24-50 is interestign because it is small, but at that price i would have to wait for a sale.
If you're on the fence choosing get the 24-70F4S used open-box for under $450 US. The 24-50 if compactness is important to you. It is better than the two compact primes which need to be stopped down, and aren't readily available yet. The 24-50 is also $250 used open-box.
Christopher, I'm glad to see Nikon stuff appearing on the Channel. It would be nice to see the F mount 16-35 F4. That's if you will be doing F mount stuff. It's on my Christmas list but I don't see it my stocking yet.
So many people buy this lens as a kit lens with the Z5 and then trade up when a little more ambitious. I was able to pick up one from as new MPB for about £130 rather than £450 new. It's so compact - perfect for a little street photography and travel.
Used prices seem to be less than half of what you'd pay for a new one. At that price (saw one for GBP184 in like-new condition), it's almost like a "why not try it" option.
These are mostly sold with camera bodies and only add about $300 to the body price. I could not see buying this separately at all for any reason. If one has a Z7 for example, and they want a small lens, they would probably be better off buying the 16-50 DX lens and dealing with a 19MP image over this lens.
@@HR-wd6cw Respectfully, I don’t agree with that. I’d rather have full resolution images with a stop better noise performance, and sacrifice zoom range. You can always crop the image from this lens at 50mm down to DX, so that it gets you the same reach as that 16-50.
@@starbase218 The 16-50DXVR has VR, keeps up with the 24-50, and is surprisingly good. I have and use both. The VR is useful for dragging the shutter, panning, shivering hands, or shooting on a moving platform like a train or boat.
Which one of these will be the fun good looking camera to shoot everyday life and also some art require tele?: D Lux 8 (24-75mm) S9 (18-40mm) Zf (28-400mm) WXF1 camcorder (25-600mm) RX10 IV (24-600mm) If it's not pocketable, why not just get a bigger camera with nore range if you going to hang that camera on your neck anyway, so a phone and a Zf 28-400 better?
When I had this lens, I too found it was brilliantly sharp for a cheaper zoom, and so I brought it everywhere with me. But I soon regretted the limited zoom range, specially for a lens with such a dark maximum aperture. Nowadays I'd spend a little more for the 24-70mm f/4 which is just about as sharp but is far more flexible.
Right, it seems by far the darkest 50mm you can get today. Well, for landscape shooters, who shoot mostly between f/8 and f/16 that wouldn't matter. But those landscape shooters probably need a tripod in first place and then the size and weight advantage of this lens becomes insignificant. If you are shooting without a tripod and maybe more as all around travel purpose then the slow aperture becomes somewhat limiting. So, on one hand I like this lens for its compactness, but yeah, it requires high compromise on zoom and brightness.
Although not a Nikon shooter, I have a Minolta AF 24-50 f4 lens and this is probably my favourite lens for landscapes and general walkabout on my Sony A99. I don't miss the 70mm, as I found out that only a couple of paces forward are enough to produce the same result. I am rather surprised though that Nikon paired this rather cheap looking slow lens with a full frame camera.
the focal length i used the thee most is 35mm. I been to friend house and the 35 is more useful than the narrower 50mm. you can do portrait with 35mm also. Grant i wouldn't mine 50mm.
It improves the quality throughout the range of the zoom while maintaining a more compact size while on the move, in your pocket, or in your bag. You get used to it quickly, and on the 24-70F4S it is worth the trouble.
@@musicdefinesgravity The 28f2.8 or 40f2 is only good stopped down 1-2 stops and weaker under 5' focusing. It occasionally has more CA and artifacts. The compacts to have more "character" and better out of focus rendering. I'm get to get both used/refurbished in a year. ;)
its a joke what the did with Z lenses ! probably a marketing trick to come out with the high f stops and later start to offer new models with better ones ! Otherwise I don't know the reason we are now at 1.4 and this is 6 ???
Is it really worth it to use a high quality full frame camera with an unspectacular lens like this? Like, can’t you just buy a new flagship phone with a decent camera and call it a day?
I've used them side-by-side, the 24-50 is MUCH better than any flagship phone. However, there certainly are instances where the smartphone is more convenient and good enough.
I've had this lens for a while now, got it as a part of a kit with my Z5. While the plastic mount is disheartening, the performance is surprisingly sharp. You do not expect this level of performance from a small, plastic lens like this.
This is a lovely tiny lens! The only things I dn't like about it is its price and the plastic mount combo! Great performance for a kit lens indeed! Now I would like to see how the sony 28-60 performance is on that brutal chart! Oh and I can't wait to see the review of the new Nikkor Z 24-120 f4, that's the most exciting one to me just along with the 14-30 f4.
Great review, Chris. I bought this lens with the z5 and despite its limitations, I managed to get some great pics with it in a jazz night club. The z5 is acceptable at iso 6400 so even at 6.3, I got away with fine results.
Why not the new 28f2.8 instead in a night club.
@@frankluo230 sure, if you give me a few hundred bucks
@@danielbulcsupekh7922 if budget is an absolute constrain then Z system is rather limited. Even $250 used 24-50 has little to brag about value compared to either F mount or other mirrorless systems. 24-70f4 is expensive too.
@@frankluo230 I have used a d7200 for years with several lenses. I wanted an FF upgrade. Considered the d750 too, but after trying out the z5, it was a no brainer. The only reason that could have bent me over to the d750 is if I had FF f-mount lenses, but I don't. I rather start building from the new lineup.
@@danielbulcsupekh7922 nothing wrong with your approach. I just pointed out Nikon currently lacks the real entry level budget kit zoom. 24-50 too dark too limiting zoom range for $400 new. 24-70f4 optically superb but $1000 too expensive. They need a Canon 24-105stm type of lens for $400 to attract more users. Or do a 24-85f4-5.6 for $400 at least. You can still produce great results no doubt, it doesn't change the fact current offerings are limiting and not budget friendly
One should consider that these cheaper Nikkors are order of magnitude better build quality than older plastic lenses like the 50mm 1.8D. And people get too hung up on metal mount. There is no reason to use that on lenses this light. A plastic mount also offers a level of sealing since plastic surfaces are hydrophobic. As opposed to metal surfaces that are hydrophilic and will literally suck water in unless there is a rubber seal.
Compare the 40mm f2 Z lens with the older 50mm 1.8G. The Z lens has internal focus and sealing on the front and the control ring is sealed. The bayonet is hydrophobic plastic. It will be a lot better sealed than the older 50mm and has much better build quality despite the 50 having a metal bayonet and a rear seal (it has to, or it would suck in water). The 50 does not have internal focus meaning it’s both more fragile and less sealed.
The point is that build quality is a lot more than just looking at the material of the mount. I find a lot of reviewers do this “it’s a plastic mount” implying that it has low build quality but not making the effort to actually understand the sum of all the design considerations. Nikon better than anyone else takes all these things into consideration I think.
I have a 20+ year old plastic mount, all-plastic 28-80mm Nikon lens, which still works great.
Thanks!
Thanks for your support!
In my testing this lens for the price it's OK, although you can get a used 24-70 f/4 for a little more. But if you buy this as a kit, the lens is quite good given the price of about $300 with a body. I think that the lens is best suited for 35-50mm as seen here, and not so much wide-open. But then again, this depends on what you're shooting. If you're shooting foliage from a distance, the corner sharpness may not be a huge issue, probably only when you are really shooting things with defined patterns or lines.
Where I could see this lens being useful is as a general walkaround lens when you don't want to take something like a 24-200, which might be better for travel, or the 24-70. This lens may also be useful on the APS-C bodies as some of tie vignetting will probably go away even wide open, but then there is the limitations of the crop.
I'd say FOR THE PRICE it's acceptably sharp, but I wouldn't buy this lens separately for $400. I would only buy this lens with a camera body because it is then a bout $100 cheaper (if of course you need a body). But honestly if someone was shooting with a Z7 body, it would be a toss up whether I'd recommend this for get the DX 16-50 and run it in crop mode if you want a small compact lens (the 16-50 for what it is, is actually quite surprisingly good and decently sharp and if you can live with the 19MP image on a Z7 body, might be a better option for a low-cost lens).
People should also remember that high-res bodies will show the worst in lenses. The sharpness issues may not be as visible on the lower-res bodies and/or bodies with an AA filter as they will tend to hide some of the sharpness problems in the corners. Also shooting these on APS-C cameras will yield different results, so doing this on a Z7 to show it's strengths and weaknesses is a good idea because it shows us the worst of the lens.
Excellent video. No commercial content and you got the high points without making it too long.
I was debating whether to get my Z5 body only out with this lens for $90 more. (Used prices)
I decided to get it. As you say, it will be a great travel lens, being as light and compact as it is. To have something fast, I also bought a used 40/2.
any preference between this one and the used 40/2? I've been looking at both for the z5 but budget wise will probably only go with one at this point.
I saw this lens for 250 € brand new in a store last winter. I really regret not having bought it. It's much more expensive now ...
Perfect for allround landscape!
You can find loads of them used, practically unused condition too.
@@InterMaus thanks! You are right, just saw one "used" (just tried once) for 200€ :)
Good review. This lens is a gem and can be picked up 2nd hand and unregistered in the UK for £150 or less. Too good to miss at that price.
This thing can be found for only $250 at some places here in Asia nowadays - even if you bought it separately. Because it's the worst Z mount lens. All of its shortcomings would be forgivable if the official retail price was lower. $250 is fair, but not $400. The issue is the pricing / value, and not so much about image quality.
Congratulations for being a fan of this particular author 😉👍🏻
Chris, would you rather take a z5 with this lens or the little dx version on the z50?
The 16-50DXVR is sharp enough, has 3 stops of VR (drag the shutter handheld,) and a more useful range. If 24mm (36mm eq) is wide enough for your scenes, then the 24-50 is going to have slightly better overall quality. There are physical/optical benefits to a larger front lens opening.
Hello Chris, 16-50 DX vs this 24-50. Which would you get and why? Im not too worried about the crop since I have the Z8 and wouldnt mind the less mp.
Here in Germany you can pick one of these for about 150 euro used in mint condition. That would make it a great and cheap walk-around and travel lens.
Now if you can review the 24-200mm then I can finally get the answer on which of the three entry level z lenses I should get.
I sold my 24-70f4 for the 24-200. The 24-200 is a bit longer like my an inch or less. It is more versatile, i find the 24-70mm kind of boring for a walk around lens. I would say the 24-70 f4 is a tad sharper at 70mm. But he Nikon 24-200 was sharper than the Tamron 35-150mm f/2.8-4 (f-mount). I was seriously wanting the tamron with bigger apeture, but the extra 50mm and sharper 24-200 won out. The smaller apeture of the 24-200, you would need to drive the iso up in darker spaces for sure. But I shoot mostly f1.4 primes, but this is my walkaround lens. The 24-50 is interestign because it is small, but at that price i would have to wait for a sale.
If you're on the fence choosing get the 24-70F4S used open-box for under $450 US. The 24-50 if compactness is important to you. It is better than the two compact primes which need to be stopped down, and aren't readily available yet. The 24-50 is also $250 used open-box.
Man, this seems like a good reason to get a Nikon Z5. This would be a nice walk around landscape lens.
Excellent video 😊!
Christopher, I'm glad to see Nikon stuff appearing on the Channel. It would be nice to see the F mount 16-35 F4. That's if you will be doing F mount stuff. It's on my Christmas list but I don't see it my stocking yet.
wow really excellent lense for this size!
So many people buy this lens as a kit lens with the Z5 and then trade up when a little more ambitious. I was able to pick up one from as new MPB for about £130 rather than £450 new. It's so compact - perfect for a little street photography and travel.
Optically great for a kit lens. With the large Z mount I really have high hope for Nikon.
tnx for review, what would you recomend for z5 landscape this or 24-70s
Used prices seem to be less than half of what you'd pay for a new one. At that price (saw one for GBP184 in like-new condition), it's almost like a "why not try it" option.
These are mostly sold with camera bodies and only add about $300 to the body price. I could not see buying this separately at all for any reason. If one has a Z7 for example, and they want a small lens, they would probably be better off buying the 16-50 DX lens and dealing with a 19MP image over this lens.
@@HR-wd6cw Respectfully, I don’t agree with that. I’d rather have full resolution images with a stop better noise performance, and sacrifice zoom range.
You can always crop the image from this lens at 50mm down to DX, so that it gets you the same reach as that 16-50.
@@starbase218 The 16-50DXVR has VR, keeps up with the 24-50, and is surprisingly good. I have and use both. The VR is useful for dragging the shutter, panning, shivering hands, or shooting on a moving platform like a train or boat.
@@skyrunr To each his own, but all FX Z bodies have IBIS anyway.
The zoom range is very small but you could almost see this as a 24mm f4 prime for landscapes etc
My thinking exactly. Between this, the 40mm f2 and Viltrox 85 1.8 I think I would be very happy for a wide-to-portait kit on a small footprint.
@@JennyDarukat definitely . That would probably be my go to set up for most things.
Looking forward the review of TTArtisan FF 50mm f0. 95....
Was I too busy commenting to see how the lens performed with fringing, or was that covered? Thanks for the review.
i bought mine used for less than 200€, still love it and prefer plastic mounts.
Which one of these will be the fun good looking camera to shoot everyday life and also some art require tele?:
D Lux 8 (24-75mm)
S9 (18-40mm)
Zf (28-400mm)
WXF1 camcorder (25-600mm)
RX10 IV (24-600mm)
If it's not pocketable, why not just get a bigger camera with nore range if you going to hang that camera on your neck anyway, so a phone and a Zf 28-400 better?
Please review Nikons newer 28mm f2.8 on apsc.
Excellent video! Thank you! D.
When I had this lens, I too found it was brilliantly sharp for a cheaper zoom, and so I brought it everywhere with me. But I soon regretted the limited zoom range, specially for a lens with such a dark maximum aperture. Nowadays I'd spend a little more for the 24-70mm f/4 which is just about as sharp but is far more flexible.
Right, it seems by far the darkest 50mm you can get today. Well, for landscape shooters, who shoot mostly between f/8 and f/16 that wouldn't matter. But those landscape shooters probably need a tripod in first place and then the size and weight advantage of this lens becomes insignificant. If you are shooting without a tripod and maybe more as all around travel purpose then the slow aperture becomes somewhat limiting. So, on one hand I like this lens for its compactness, but yeah, it requires high compromise on zoom and brightness.
Although not a Nikon shooter, I have a Minolta AF 24-50 f4 lens and this is probably my favourite lens for landscapes and general walkabout on my Sony A99. I don't miss the 70mm, as I found out that only a couple of paces forward are enough to produce the same result. I am rather surprised though that Nikon paired this rather cheap looking slow lens with a full frame camera.
How about the Sony 28-60？how does it compares ？
Please review sony 28-60mm kit lens
Curious this lens shares that retractable style as the Fujifilm 35-70mm GF which gives a similar 28-55mm in full frame terms focal length.
You do such brilliant reviews. could you please do a review of the new Nikon Z 18-140mm?
Wow. Very sharp for a kit lens. Seems like Nikon and Canon are coming out with slower zooms with max aperture f6.3, f7.1 and f8 that are sharp.
Please test Nikon Z 24-200mm
I'd wish for Chris would test the new TTArtisan 23mm F1.4 APS-C manual focus Lens soon for Fuji X-Mount. ;)
Hi Chris,
If you could only afford one of the z mount primes, which one would you choose to start with?
the focal length i used the thee most is 35mm. I been to friend house and the 35 is more useful than the narrower 50mm. you can do portrait with 35mm also. Grant i wouldn't mine 50mm.
@@xophaser Don't forget the 50-S has a much longer minimum focus a well.
Can someone explain the idea behind retractable lenses? Whatever benefit gained in size is lost in annoyance.
What about not collapsing the lens then?
It improves the quality throughout the range of the zoom while maintaining a more compact size while on the move, in your pocket, or in your bag. You get used to it quickly, and on the 24-70F4S it is worth the trouble.
I own this lens on my Nikon Z5, it is okay lens but now wanting to get a new lens
Get the 40mm f2
@@musicdefinesgravity The 28f2.8 or 40f2 is only good stopped down 1-2 stops and weaker under 5' focusing. It occasionally has more CA and artifacts. The compacts to have more "character" and better out of focus rendering. I'm get to get both used/refurbished in a year. ;)
Should be excellent second hand for product photography.
good results but I hate collasping lenses, at least theres no slider switch before you extend it
Now Nikon only needs a Z5 II 100grams lighter with a 3 way tilting screen and we will have a full frame compact system for photography.
Please sony 28-60!
when you say “it’s very cheap lens” it breaks my heart. 1$=12₺ in Turkey, nothing is cheap here :(
Beer is.
@@anthonyroffe5628 Even beer got rather expensive I believe. But indeed the economic situation is not good there, sadly.
@@pizzablender Really? I feel your pain.
its a joke what the did with Z lenses ! probably a marketing trick to come out with the high f stops and later start to offer new models with better ones ! Otherwise I don't know the reason we are now at 1.4 and this is 6 ???
400 for a full plastic lens is unacceptable hard pass on this one.
Is it really worth it to use a high quality full frame camera with an unspectacular lens like this? Like, can’t you just buy a new flagship phone with a decent camera and call it a day?
I've used them side-by-side, the 24-50 is MUCH better than any flagship phone. However, there certainly are instances where the smartphone is more convenient and good enough.
Thank you for the review, brilliant as always.
In general, I find this kind of lenses utterly boring, totally uninspiring for my creative work.
Awesome for compact travel though
Compare this with the new canon 24-50. Nikon absolutely blows the canon out of the water.
- Smoke weed everyday -
King of kit lens 😂
A NIKON review??? You're evolving
He has been doing them for a while now.
I've been making Nikon reviews for about two and a half years :)
@@christopherfrost wow i guess most of the vids i've seen of yours recently have been on old lenses I'm looking to get off ebay 😅
400? no hood? Bahahaha not a chance
horrible f stop Nikon is back to 1990 ?? A joke ?
In other words it's rubbish 😱
Nikons most uninspiring lens
plastic for $400 another joke