We’ve spent the last two weeks updating our older Nikon Z lens reviews to bring them up to current standards. Now that we’ve finally tested the vast majority of Nikon Z lenses, it made sense to revisit some reviews that had fallen substantially out of date. Although not all the edits have gone live yet, I’m rolling them out over the next week, so I wanted to explain the influx of old lens reviews you may see on the homepage of Photography Life.
The five lens reviews that I just put back on the homepage were the first lenses that we reviewed for the Z System, and a lot has changed since then. All five of these reviews needed to be fully rewritten in order to be relevant in today’s context. We’ve updated all outdated references and added full comparisons against more recent lenses, among many other changes, and I’m happy to say that the reviews are now totally up to date.
You may notice that we updated some of the star ratings, too – generally, down rather than up. Nikon is a victim of their own success here. Lens quality has improved at a staggering rate in just five years, and some of Nikon’s earlier Z lenses now look a little weaker by comparison. Although we could rate every halfway decent lens 4.7/5 star or something like that, I believe it’s more useful to continue raising our standards in tandem with lens companies raising theirs. The updated star ratings will eventually apply to every lens review on Photography Life, so please bear with us in the meantime.
We’ve written 30 Nikon Z lens reviews, so updating all of them is not a small project, but thankfully the newer lens reviews don’t need as many changes. I’ll only put a review back on the homepage if it was fully rewritten, which can also give you a chance to revisit some of our older work over the next week or two. Even if they don’t go on the homepage, I’ll post another announcement article as soon as the remaining Nikon Z reviews are up to date.
Finally, as for Nikon F Mount reviews, that will take longer considering how many there are, and how much the photography world has changed in the 15+ years since Nasim started Photography Life. It is on our list to update those reviews, too, but it won’t happen overnight. If only there were more hours in a day…
Let me know if you have any questions!
As there are lots of discussions going on about how comparable sharpness tests of different generations are, it might be a good idea to have a clarifying statement about this in you updated reviews. E.g. sometime ag o I got a kind and very interesting reply from you, Spencer, about the comparibility of test results for the AF-S 180-400 f4 TC and the Z 180-600. Though it’s always difficult to get Imatest results comparable – not talking about independent reviewing institutions but within you domain, but across technologically different systems like Nikon DLSRs versus Nikon Z cameras and F-mount versus Z-mount lenses versus adadpted F-mount glas on a Z camera – I might be worthwhile losing a few words about this comparability of technical review results.
I wouldn’t mind writing a little blurb about it in each article, although it may get repetitive, because all of our reviews are cross-compatible! It took some effort to get Nikon/Canon/Sony to be fully comparable, but they are. Same with Nikon F versus Nikon Z.
The only ones that aren’t comparable are the APS-C tests (which are only comparable within camera brand to other APS-C tests) and a handful of old Nikon F lens reviews, which have different looking charts.
All you folks are getting a real treat with these updated reviews! With Spencer’s thoroughness in analysis of lenses, I do believe the Nikon Z lens review collection is the most comprehensive review collection of Nikon’s products, and I say this as someone who has used the reviews to buy equipment long before I ever joined this site!
Thanks, Jason! We’re just a few lenses away from having all the Z glass tested, comparable, and up-to-date.
Ive read on the review of the Sony 16-35 GM review, that you would review the GM II. Still waiting. When are you guys planning on taking on Sony? I would really need them, as I am about to purchase my next wide angle.
We review one lens per week, and the order of the next reviews is voted on by our Gold Members. I get mountains of review requests each month, so this process allows me to prioritize the most popular requests.
According to these votes, the next Sony lenses to be reviewed will be the FE 35mm f/1.8 and the Sigma 14mm f/1.4 Art.
I realize you’re all working hard and I absolutely love your reviews/website. It’s one of the best places for gear reviews, period! I’ll always be a fan of the website and I’ve been visiting the site since 2013 or so! I do wonder though why some gear is ignored or never reviewed. Sometimes I’ve also noticed full reviews being promised and they never come. One example for instance was the Nikon D5, and TC-14 III… there was a first look type article with a promise to do a full review. Yet the full reviews never came. Then there are certain omissions like the Nikon D5 and D6, Nikon 120-300mm f/2.8E FL, etc.!
So I do understand his point, because I’ve come back on here a bunch of times in hopes you’d publish a promised review. Or I’ve noticed certain gear does not ever get reviewed, despite similar cameras and lenses which have always been reviewed in the past. Not reviewing two flagship Nikon camera’s in a row was a bit of a let down for me. Yet thankfully I found other reviews for those and it’s not the end of the world. Again you guy’s do an amazing job and I love the site and I’ve read so many great reviews over the years. So thank you all for your hard work and we get it, you can’t review everything. Thank you for all the amazing article, news and gear reviews that you have published though!
Yeah, sometimes we do miss a product or have to change our plans. We’ve never been a big operation, just a few photographers, but it still hurts any time that I can’t fulfill a planned review. Still, leave a comment any time if there’s a review that we talked about but never published. Especially if it’s a lens, there’s a good chance we can get to it down the line.
Go Gold, get a vote, support this site!!
Please kindly consider review of the 18-35 F3.5-4.5 lens on a modern high resolution sensor, like Z7, Z8 or Z9, and compare to Z 14-30 for example.
If it can help and if I refer well to the same lens you’re talking about, it has been tested by DXOMark website with D850, which has sensibly the same sensor as both iterations of the Z7.
Though I agree any test review here is way better than just DXOMark (;) BTW, thanks again Spencer and the team :D ) there shouldn’t be any difference in the results then :
www.dxomark.com/Lense…0—__1177
How would it be to do like a dual star rating and the old star rating as like an when tested first and the other one which you now introduced as the new value as the one in current standards?
That’s a nice idea! I think for the Z lenses, it’s not necessary, because they’re all relatively new and should just be measured on the same standard. But when I go back and update the F Mount lenses, I like the thought of mentioning the previous star rating to show the past and present contexts.
I’m delighted!
Thank you very much, it’s great work!
Can I ask for an update test for Nikkor 300 PF?
and second question:
Can you count on a repeat test of nikkor 800 PF?
It didn’t perform well in resolution tests, even compared to cheap zoom lenses.
Long-term, my intent is to test at least two copies of every lens in the lab, although it will take some time. That said, the 800mm f/6.3 PF definitely performed better than a cheap zoom. Its peak was 2861, 2557, 2443 LW/PH in the center, midframes, and corners respectively. That’s nice and sharp across the frame – many lenses never get anywhere close to that, especially in the corners.
The downsides are that the 800mm f/5.6E FL is sharper – not a big surprise – and the lens’s peak sharpness occurs at f/8 rather than f/6.3 (that could just be my copy, but I’m not alone in finding that). I still intend to test a second copy one day, but I would be surprised to see much of a difference with what we measured in the lab with the first one.
That said, I’m not convinced that John Sherman’s copy of the 800mm that he used for the field test (and field comparison with the 800mm f/5.6E FL) was a good one. But the lab sample that I used did not seem to have any issues.
Spencer, thanks for the answer!
When I was talking about a comparison with a cheap zoom, I had in mind the Nikkor 24-200 Z, which at its weakest focal length of 200mm achieved a better result in the center – than 800 PF in the center (at the same F6.3 aperture).
This is very surprising. It is also strange that the 600 PF + TC 1.4 achieves a better result on the edge of the frame,than the bare 800 PF.
If you plan to test 800 PF again, I will be very grateful!
Sounds good, it’s on the list.
I definitely agree the 800mm f/5.6E FL is by far or at least by a very noticeable amount, sharper than the 800pf. Plus the prices on used copies of the 800FL are now in line what the 800pf costs with taxes and whatever accessories or teleconverter’s cost. Think lens coats, replacement feet and what not. Most used copies of the 800FL are in excellent to mint condition and have a matching TC-1.25x TC and the build quality is also noticeably better. So if you’re planning to use the lens on a tripod and you don’t usually need to hike far…get the 800FL. You won’t be disappointed, you’ll be blown away. I don’t care what super-tele you’ve owned or used, because I’ve used or owned them all over the years and the 800FL is the sharpest, best IQ lens ever, period. Even my beloved 500mm f/4E FL is not quite as sharp as the 800FL, and I know for a fact my 500FL is quite a bit sharper and better IQ wise to the 800pf. Now I had an 800pf for about two weeks and ended up selling to a friend for about what I’d paid. Although it’s a lightweight lens and it’s reasonably fast autofocus wise, it’s not good AF wise as the FL super-tale’s, nor is it as accurate. So unless you need an 800mm that is lightweight either due to your age, strength or maybe you hike far…you should really consider the 800FL used.
I only bought a copy of the 800FL, because I offered a like new copy for only $7,000 in 2018, and I used it for awhile and sold it for a $1,600 profit. However I only sold because it was just a bit too long most of the time for my needs. So I had the 400FL as well and I found myself using the TC-14E III a lot, so I decided to lose some weight and just sell the 400FL and my 200-400mm VRII and get a new 500mm f/4E FL. Wow, was I ever surprised to see how sharp and wonderful the 500FL is, it’s amazingly sharp, the contrast is very high and even when cropping heavily the IQ and details hold up. It’s probably the second or third most sharp super-tele ever made. The only lens I’ve loaned from the pool gear at my news agency has been the 400mm f/2.8 S 1.4x TC and 600mm f/4 S TC lenses. The 600mm f/4S 1.4x TC blew me away, as is always noticed the previous 600mm lenses were not as sharp as the 400mm f/2.8 FL lens or my 500FL. My good friend had a 600FL and we swapped lenses from time to time while out shooting and I was definitely not impressed with the image quality compared to my 500FL and especially with the TC-14E III on their. The 600mm f/4 lenses always take a much bigger hit sharpness and IQ wise with teleconverter’s when compared to the 300mm and 400mm f/2.8’s and the 500FL. So anyways I’ve had a lot of experience using the incredible made in Japan $11,000-$13,000 primes and zooms.
The truth is the 800pf just does not quite compare directly to those other lenses made in Japan, which cost almost double retail. Plus my newspapers NPS/Nikon representative told me they had at least 2,000 copies of the 800pd ready to ship on the day of release. Whereas Nikon only ever made about 3,500 copies of the 500mm f/4E FL. Then there’s the fact that expert knowledge and craftsmanship, plus 30 years of experience making incredible quality super-tele lenses was in Japan. The 800pf although is made in Japan and they were expecting to sell at least 2,000 copies at release due to hype and price. This leads to me believe they maybe some sample variation in some copies.
The only experience I have buying a “pro-grade” lens from Nikon’s Chinese factory was a 105mm f/1.4E lens I bought new when it came out. The copy I received was loaded with internal dust between the front elements. It was not just a fed specks, it’s was across the entire large front element (grouping)! So I decided to try another copy and it was not as sharp as I’d expected from the positive reviews. Long story, I loved my D850 and the Z9 is very well made overall. However they were not quite as well built as the Nikon D5 or D6, which I’ve had a total amount of four D5’s and two D6’s.
I still use my D6’s and or D850 and I sold my Z9. Not over build quality or anything, but mainly the wireless issue with the Z9 vs. the WT-6A along with the D6’s awesome ability. My wireless process is and always has been incredibly fast, 100% reliable for nearly a decade and I have 650ft range. For a photojournalist this is extremely important to me as I’m able to get my images out to my editors within a minute or two or taking. However they are sent from my D6 with a flick up action on the rear touch screen and within 2 seconds my 14bit RAW files are transferred to my phone or iPad/MacBook Pro through ShutterSnitch and then cropped and small adjustments made, then sent through Photo Mechanic or directly to my editors through email or text if they’re able to caption it then for me or not. Unfortunately the D6 and Z9’s built in wireless is not 100% reliable, it’s not as quick, it’s more difficult to setup and SnapBridge is not as reliable either. Plus the range is very short!
Now I realize I’m in a bit of a niche field, but I’ve been using and loving Nikon gear for about 27 years now. Give me the chance to buy a pro-grade lens or flagship camera made in Japan vs, made in China or Thailand and I would very much prefer it be made in Japan. Not because I’m a racist or whatever dumb things certain people say when I’ve made this comment before. No my want for made in Japan Nikon professional grade gear is because in 27 years I’ve never need a repair or replacement, and never had a camera that was recalled. Also I’ve used flagships like the D5 hard, I even dropped one once and it was completely fine, not even a scratch. Plus I’ve put nearly a million shutter actuations on the original shutter on flagships and they were all still kicking when I sold them used. I will end this long comment though by saying I’ve also seen some very good craftsmanship from Apple products made in China and I love and trust them very much. It’s not about race, but I’m an American and China is one of our worst enemies. So given the choice, yes I’d rather pay a bit more and get Nikon gear made in Japan vs. made in China. Made in Thailand doesn’t bother me as much, or at all, I’ve loved my D810, D850, D500 and the Z9 is pretty darn solid and rugged.
Did you just casually drop the 50/1.2 MTF measurements in the updated 50/1.8 review? ;-)
Maybe