Spencer I am a fan of your YouTube videos and PL articles.. I see that you guys have Nikon z 105 in your hands.. while publishing review for the lens could you also please compare it with laowa z 100mm micro.. is it really worth to spend extra 500 dollars and get Nikon 105 instead laowa??
Thanks, Awy! The Laowa 100mm is one of the lenses we’ll be comparing head to head against the Z 105mm. Aside from image quality, which we will talk about more soon, keep in mind that the Nikon has autofocus, auto aperture control, and full EXIF data. The Laowa in turn has a higher maximum magnification of 2x. I would base my decision on those factors more than image quality, which is in the same ballpark (the Laowa has surprisingly good image quality).
Would love to see a comparison of the 105 macro to the Tokina 100mm macro if at all possible :)
Anonymous :)
June 27, 2021 10:36 pm
Hey Spencer, Thanks for the article! Unrelated to this particular article but, I want to try out macro photography and I’m looking for a suitable lens….I feel the Sigma 105mm f/2.8 might be good. I have also checked out the Nikkor 105mm f/2.8. Both are great but the Nikon one is kinda pricey. (considering that I’m trying out Macro for the first time) What’s your opinion? I’m pretty confused and would REALLY appreciate some guidance from you. P.S. I saw that article about some guy falsely accusing you of faking that beautiful photo. Just wanna say: don’t get all worked up by haters like him; anyone who follows you and PL will never doubt your honesty :)
I too looking to get into macro world .. my dilemma is between laowa 100mm and Nikon z 105… Laowa gets you 2:1 and at macro distances autofocus is of no use I feel..
The Laowa is optically very good, one just needs to be happy with not getting EXIF data of aperture. And if you want to dive into focus stacking – as feature on board of most of the newer Nikon FX bodies – you’d be better off with an AF lens as the Laowa is fully manual and you would have to get a macro slider from Edelkrone, MIOPS or Novoflex to name a few.
Sarfaraz Hussein
June 27, 2021 10:21 am
Thank you so much for this review Spencer. I just wanted to express my gratitude to you and all the other contributors here on Photography Life.
I shoot with a Nikon d7200 with an AF-S NIKKOR 12-24mm f/4 DX lens that I purchased many years ago. I realize your article is about the newest Z lenses, but I’m wondering how much optical quality difference there is between the Niko Z 14-24mm f/2.8 S lens and the older ultra-wide I described? Thank you for your excellent articles, Spencer, much appreciated.
Thanks, Tom! There are enough differences in their base specifications and usages that I don’t know how well I can compare them, unfortunately. The end result is that the new 14-24mm f/2.8 will let you go substantially wider, capture much more light, and have better optics (especially flare and corner sharpness). I can’t quantify how much sharper it is for your needs, but the two lenses are in different ballparks.
Andy
June 27, 2021 3:20 am
Very nice review and lens.
“has a mostly plastic exterior, it’s high-quality plastic, and the lens mount is still metal.”
Well, would have been scandalous to have a plastic mount on a 2300$ professional lens :)
Yes! Thankfully Nikon didn’t go *that* lightweight.
Lance B
June 26, 2021 6:42 pm
Another excellent review, Spencer.
Having owned almost all of the Nikon ultra wide zooms in F mount and Z mount and a number of primes in both as well, all I can say is the 14-24 f2.8S is as excellent as you have said in your review. As soon as you start looking at the image results, you really don’t need to do a comparison or read a review to know that this lens is superior to all those Nikon F mount ultra-wides. However, I guess it is always good to know that your own thoughts and results agree with reputable reviewers like Photography Life.
I never really liked using the 14-24 f2.8G as it had quite major flare issues and that big bulbous front element was a pain to deal with. Even the Tamron 15-30 f2.8, which I believe was better than the 14-24 f2.8G was also a pain but at least it had less flare issues. Both were very heavy and cumbersome to use.
The 14-24 f2.8S by contrast, is a joy to use, no flare, no bulbous front element making the camera very front heavy and needing more specialized and large filter systems. I rarely took the 14-24 f2.8G out with me as it was so big and heavy and only went into my bag for those special times I knew I would use it. The 14-24 f2.8S is generally always in my bag as it is relatively small, very light and the results are as spectacular as your review makes out.
Happy you’re enjoying it so much! I’ve used both the 14-24mm f/2.8 F-mount and Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8 lenses in the past, and as much as I liked them, they didn’t see as much use as my 20mm f/1.8 because of their weight.
Joachim
June 26, 2021 4:06 pm
Nice review, as always, Spencer. Admittedly I’m only reading this Nikon reviews of massively priced Nikon mirrorless lenses to make me more happy :)
After I switched away from high price Z system (with not much advantages) I’m just enjoying photography more than waiting for lenses which don’t come or features of bodies which also stay away. 1 k$ more, 140 grams less than a Sigma 14-24/2.8 DG DN which I’m enjoying longer than this one is available. Together with no flimsy gel filters – Haida makes some really nice ND filters suiting for the Sigma, no color cast and four of them cheaper than one screw-in filter for the Nikkor. Oh, and did you use the display on the lens a lot?
Waldemar, 112 mm filters are simply massive, no matter the price. And the risk to break them on transport or on site is also a tad higher. So, it’s great you found a more affordable supplier.
However, one NiSi ND64 ø 112 mm retails for 175€. I got the Haida backside filter set for 120 €: ND 0.9, 1.2, 1.8, 3.0 in a small, lightweight box. They have some downsides like changing a filter only can be done by unmounting the lens, protect the sensor, change the filter, uncover the sensor and mount the lens again, lots of possibilities to collect dust on the sensor.
But then, I never carried the 150 × 150 mm filters for the F-Nikon with it’s holder with me. At first it takes a lot of space and second, the “Formatt Hi-Tech” Filters in ND4.5 or less do show some hard to correct color cast.
I don’t do long time exposures regularly. But I prefer having a small box with filters with me to carrying a turntable size filter :).
Bernardo Hopp
June 26, 2021 2:44 pm
Hi Spencer Excellent review. I am still trying to decide between the f4 and the f2.8 versión. Could I really tell any difference pared with my z6? Thanks.
The sharpness difference is visible on the 24 megapixel sensors, but it’s less apparent compared to 45 megapixel sensors. I think spending extra on the 14-24mm f/2.8 if your only reason is to gain more sharpness is not worth it on the Z6. If you’ll be using f/2.8, it’s a different story.
PaulB
June 26, 2021 12:25 pm
Thanks for another comprehensive review. Like Steve, I would like sample images of the exact same subject taken with the lenses you are comparing. I would like to see (if one can) the differences in sharpness suggested by the Imatest numbers. Aside from sharpness, compared to the 14 – 30, what does the 14 – 24 provide with the faster lens? I understand why it would matter for astrophotography, but since I don’t do that I wonder if it is a waste, at twice the price, for a landscape photographer. I notice that none of your sample images used f stop larger than 4. I don’t think I ever used my 17-35 f2.8 or my 16-30 f4 wide open. What am I missing? Thanks
I don’t think you’re missing anything. Some astro and event photographers will want the larger aperture, but a lot of (daytime) landscape photographers don’t need it. Hence why I’m keeping my 14-30mm f/4 rather than switching to this one.
The differences in sharpness that we record in the lab are visible in real photos. We’ve demonstrated that from time to time in the past (see our article and video review of the Nikon Z 20mm f/1.8 for a recent example; it has charts and real-world crops that totally match each other). Still, I’ll make a separate post within the next few weeks about what a given number on the test chart looks like in the real world.
Vignetting is very different. And while the sharpness is really great with the 14-30 in general, the corners aren’t fantastic in all cases…..but we’re talking deep in the corners and along the sides to some degree and most noticeable when zooming.
Steve
June 26, 2021 10:28 am
Whenever I see a Z lens review, I would like to see the F lens equivalent shot at the same location on the same camera as a comparison.
So rather than just a sample shot, take a shot with the Z 14-24/2.8 on a tripod, switch to the F 14-24/2.8 (with the adapter obviously) and take the same shot at the exact same settings. Then we could compare if it is worth swapping to the Z lens. I doubt the improvements would even be noticeable…
But Nikon doesn’t seem very interested in the ML market … they don’t even have one pro model yet …
If you don’t think pros use the Z6/Z7/Z6II/Z7II, I can’t help you. I don’t think anyone needs an action body to shoot a 14-24 f/2.8.
The 14-24 f/2.8 F-mount is known for flare. This lens is hard to create flare. You can immediately spot the difference. You can also see a difference in the corners, but that depends a lot more on equalizing field curvature, focus, etc.
Pros can and do use any camera … I didn’t say anything about the photographers I said they didn’t have a pro model yet – if you don’t know what a pro model is I can’t help you. I also didn’t say anything about using an action body with a 14-24/2.8. Maybe you just like to state the obvious?
Steve, there are clear differences between the two lenses side-by-side, not least of all being flare performance. If you’re talking about sharpness, it depends how large you’re printing and what aperture you’re using. At f/11 or f/16, I doubt you’d see any differences. At f/2.8 and a large print, absolutely.
Whether you consider the Z7 II to be a pro camera or not, saying that Nikon doesn’t seem interested in the mirrorless market is just not true. That’s practically all they’ve been releasing for the last three years…
Thanks Spencer that is good info – I do like to see comparison shots though …
Yes they are releasing ML products but they are still playing catch-up. I would expect in 3 years they could have something like the Z9 available already…
I’m with you on that. Sony has had the A9 (and up) for years. Canon has had the R5 for a while now. Hopefully the Z9 comes out soon and matches or beats those in performance.
In response to your comment and one other request, I’ll be posting an article before long showing how the Imatest numbers translate to real-world images with different camera resolutions. Hopefully that will make it easier to visualize the differences.
Spencer I am a fan of your YouTube videos and PL articles.. I see that you guys have Nikon z 105 in your hands.. while publishing review for the lens could you also please compare it with laowa z 100mm micro.. is it really worth to spend extra 500 dollars and get Nikon 105 instead laowa??
Thanks, Awy! The Laowa 100mm is one of the lenses we’ll be comparing head to head against the Z 105mm. Aside from image quality, which we will talk about more soon, keep in mind that the Nikon has autofocus, auto aperture control, and full EXIF data. The Laowa in turn has a higher maximum magnification of 2x. I would base my decision on those factors more than image quality, which is in the same ballpark (the Laowa has surprisingly good image quality).
Would love to see a comparison of the 105 macro to the Tokina 100mm macro if at all possible :)
Hey Spencer, Thanks for the article! Unrelated to this particular article but, I want to try out macro photography and I’m looking for a suitable lens….I feel the Sigma 105mm f/2.8 might be good. I have also checked out the Nikkor 105mm f/2.8. Both are great but the Nikon one is kinda pricey. (considering that I’m trying out Macro for the first time) What’s your opinion? I’m pretty confused and would REALLY appreciate some guidance from you.
P.S. I saw that article about some guy falsely accusing you of faking that beautiful photo. Just wanna say: don’t get all worked up by haters like him; anyone who follows you and PL will never doubt your honesty :)
See The Best Macro Lenses for Nikon by Spencer Cox:
photographylife.com/the-b…-for-nikon
I too looking to get into macro world .. my dilemma is between laowa 100mm and Nikon z 105… Laowa gets you 2:1 and at macro distances autofocus is of no use I feel..
The Laowa is optically very good, one just needs to be happy with not getting EXIF data of aperture. And if you want to dive into focus stacking – as feature on board of most of the newer Nikon FX bodies – you’d be better off with an AF lens as the Laowa is fully manual and you would have to get a macro slider from Edelkrone, MIOPS or Novoflex to name a few.
Thank you so much for this review Spencer. I just wanted to express my gratitude to you and all the other contributors here on Photography Life.
Thank you, Sarfaraz! We really appreciate it.
I shoot with a Nikon d7200 with an AF-S NIKKOR 12-24mm f/4 DX lens that I purchased many years ago. I realize your article is about the newest Z lenses, but I’m wondering how much optical quality difference there is between the Niko Z 14-24mm f/2.8 S lens and the older ultra-wide I described? Thank you for your excellent articles, Spencer, much appreciated.
Thanks, Tom! There are enough differences in their base specifications and usages that I don’t know how well I can compare them, unfortunately. The end result is that the new 14-24mm f/2.8 will let you go substantially wider, capture much more light, and have better optics (especially flare and corner sharpness). I can’t quantify how much sharper it is for your needs, but the two lenses are in different ballparks.
Very nice review and lens.
“has a mostly plastic exterior, it’s high-quality plastic, and the lens mount is still metal.”
Well, would have been scandalous to have a plastic mount on a 2300$ professional lens :)
Yes! Thankfully Nikon didn’t go *that* lightweight.
Another excellent review, Spencer.
Having owned almost all of the Nikon ultra wide zooms in F mount and Z mount and a number of primes in both as well, all I can say is the 14-24 f2.8S is as excellent as you have said in your review. As soon as you start looking at the image results, you really don’t need to do a comparison or read a review to know that this lens is superior to all those Nikon F mount ultra-wides. However, I guess it is always good to know that your own thoughts and results agree with reputable reviewers like Photography Life.
I never really liked using the 14-24 f2.8G as it had quite major flare issues and that big bulbous front element was a pain to deal with. Even the Tamron 15-30 f2.8, which I believe was better than the 14-24 f2.8G was also a pain but at least it had less flare issues. Both were very heavy and cumbersome to use.
The 14-24 f2.8S by contrast, is a joy to use, no flare, no bulbous front element making the camera very front heavy and needing more specialized and large filter systems. I rarely took the 14-24 f2.8G out with me as it was so big and heavy and only went into my bag for those special times I knew I would use it. The 14-24 f2.8S is generally always in my bag as it is relatively small, very light and the results are as spectacular as your review makes out.
Happy you’re enjoying it so much! I’ve used both the 14-24mm f/2.8 F-mount and Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8 lenses in the past, and as much as I liked them, they didn’t see as much use as my 20mm f/1.8 because of their weight.
Nice review, as always, Spencer. Admittedly I’m only reading this Nikon reviews of massively priced Nikon mirrorless lenses to make me more happy :)
After I switched away from high price Z system (with not much advantages) I’m just enjoying photography more than waiting for lenses which don’t come or features of bodies which also stay away. 1 k$ more, 140 grams less than a Sigma 14-24/2.8 DG DN which I’m enjoying longer than this one is available. Together with no flimsy gel filters – Haida makes some really nice ND filters suiting for the Sigma, no color cast and four of them cheaper than one screw-in filter for the Nikkor. Oh, and did you use the display on the lens a lot?
Thanks, Joachim. I remember you’ve had a few issues with the Z system over the years. Glad you found a system that you’re happier with!
Joachim, NiSi filters for Z 14-24 are more than 50% cheaper than Nikon ones!
Waldemar, 112 mm filters are simply massive, no matter the price. And the risk to break them on transport or on site is also a tad higher. So, it’s great you found a more affordable supplier.
However, one NiSi ND64 ø 112 mm retails for 175€. I got the Haida backside filter set for 120 €: ND 0.9, 1.2, 1.8, 3.0 in a small, lightweight box. They have some downsides like changing a filter only can be done by unmounting the lens, protect the sensor, change the filter, uncover the sensor and mount the lens again, lots of possibilities to collect dust on the sensor.
But then, I never carried the 150 × 150 mm filters for the F-Nikon with it’s holder with me. At first it takes a lot of space and second, the “Formatt Hi-Tech” Filters in ND4.5 or less do show some hard to correct color cast.
I don’t do long time exposures regularly. But I prefer having a small box with filters with me to carrying a turntable size filter :).
Hi Spencer
Excellent review.
I am still trying to decide between the f4 and the f2.8 versión. Could I really tell any difference pared with my z6?
Thanks.
There would be a huge amount of difference at f/2.8 and also at 30mm.
The sharpness difference is visible on the 24 megapixel sensors, but it’s less apparent compared to 45 megapixel sensors. I think spending extra on the 14-24mm f/2.8 if your only reason is to gain more sharpness is not worth it on the Z6. If you’ll be using f/2.8, it’s a different story.
Thanks for another comprehensive review.
Like Steve, I would like sample images of the exact same subject taken with the lenses you are comparing. I would like to see (if one can) the differences in sharpness suggested by the Imatest numbers.
Aside from sharpness, compared to the 14 – 30, what does the 14 – 24 provide with the faster lens? I understand why it would matter for astrophotography, but since I don’t do that I wonder if it is a waste, at twice the price, for a landscape photographer. I notice that none of your sample images used f stop larger than 4. I don’t think I ever used my 17-35 f2.8 or my 16-30 f4 wide open. What am I missing?
Thanks
I don’t think you’re missing anything. Some astro and event photographers will want the larger aperture, but a lot of (daytime) landscape photographers don’t need it. Hence why I’m keeping my 14-30mm f/4 rather than switching to this one.
The differences in sharpness that we record in the lab are visible in real photos. We’ve demonstrated that from time to time in the past (see our article and video review of the Nikon Z 20mm f/1.8 for a recent example; it has charts and real-world crops that totally match each other). Still, I’ll make a separate post within the next few weeks about what a given number on the test chart looks like in the real world.
Vignetting is very different. And while the sharpness is really great with the 14-30 in general, the corners aren’t fantastic in all cases…..but we’re talking deep in the corners and along the sides to some degree and most noticeable when zooming.
Whenever I see a Z lens review, I would like to see the F lens equivalent shot at the same location on the same camera as a comparison.
So rather than just a sample shot, take a shot with the Z 14-24/2.8 on a tripod, switch to the F 14-24/2.8 (with the adapter obviously) and take the same shot at the exact same settings. Then we could compare if it is worth swapping to the Z lens. I doubt the improvements would even be noticeable…
But Nikon doesn’t seem very interested in the ML market … they don’t even have one pro model yet …
If you don’t think pros use the Z6/Z7/Z6II/Z7II, I can’t help you. I don’t think anyone needs an action body to shoot a 14-24 f/2.8.
The 14-24 f/2.8 F-mount is known for flare. This lens is hard to create flare. You can immediately spot the difference. You can also see a difference in the corners, but that depends a lot more on equalizing field curvature, focus, etc.
Pros can and do use any camera … I didn’t say anything about the photographers I said they didn’t have a pro model yet – if you don’t know what a pro model is I can’t help you. I also didn’t say anything about using an action body with a 14-24/2.8. Maybe you just like to state the obvious?
New Z9, PRO, camera is just around the corner!
Steve, there are clear differences between the two lenses side-by-side, not least of all being flare performance. If you’re talking about sharpness, it depends how large you’re printing and what aperture you’re using. At f/11 or f/16, I doubt you’d see any differences. At f/2.8 and a large print, absolutely.
Whether you consider the Z7 II to be a pro camera or not, saying that Nikon doesn’t seem interested in the mirrorless market is just not true. That’s practically all they’ve been releasing for the last three years…
Thanks Spencer that is good info – I do like to see comparison shots though …
Yes they are releasing ML products but they are still playing catch-up. I would expect in 3 years they could have something like the Z9 available already…
I’m with you on that. Sony has had the A9 (and up) for years. Canon has had the R5 for a while now. Hopefully the Z9 comes out soon and matches or beats those in performance.
In response to your comment and one other request, I’ll be posting an article before long showing how the Imatest numbers translate to real-world images with different camera resolutions. Hopefully that will make it easier to visualize the differences.