I’ve just returned from a month in Norway and Iceland where I took this lens as a “last minute decision” for my 2nd body (in a Nikon Z system) for Aurora chasing. It took the place of my older and much heavier/larger Sigma f-mount 14mm f/1.8 with FTZ. The Sony’s size, weight, aperture and adapter slimness were much better travel solutions. Alas, I was disappointed to learn first- hand of its corner performance on stars on the z7ii and z8. I hadn’t had clear night skies at home to test extensively before traveling, other than on general landscapes where it performed well. Silly to travel without extensive testing, but it was a risk I took, that in this instance didn’t pay off. At least I had the 14-24 f/2.8 as my primary lens. I was especially disappointed as I can’t imagine Nikon constructing anything similar in a prime and it is such a great size. Thanks for the review, and confirming that’s my pace of mind that I didn’t just have a poor copy of the lens.
Man, that’s frustrating. Wish I could have published this review a month earlier! Although having the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 is an excellent alternative. I’m sure you got some great photos with that lens.
bg5931
March 17, 2024 8:47 am
So, the obvious question after the foreshadowing re the Sigma 14/1.4 on Nikon is whether Sigma (and Tamron) actually compensate for these off-axis aberrations by modifying their optical designs ever so slightly for different systems, or whether they just live with the fact that their lenses are better when used on some systems than on others. The fact that they offer(ed?) a mount conversion service for some lenses would suggest the latter.
I do not want to send Spencer down a rabbit hole, but hopefully, at some point there will be Z-mount versions of some of these lenses available that can be compared with adapted copies of the same lens manufactured for different mounts.
I would assume that they mostly do not adjust for different sensors, and rather tailor it to one particular system. I’d be interested in testing the same third-party lens on 3-4 systems to see which one it’s the most tailored to. Though the amount of work to test this on every third-party lens would be prohibitively high.
Given that this probably most strongly affects fast wides, testing it on one of these would already be very insightful. I do not think that testing all third-party lenses on all systems would be required for this “proof of principle” to be useful.
Richard Paul Handler
March 16, 2024 1:10 pm
Spencer, maybe compare with the Laowa 15 Zero-D.
At 15mm instead of 14mm, and f/2.0 instead of 1.8, there is the Laowa 15 Zero-D. I’ve had this lens for many years in its original 7 aperture blade E mount version (with all other mounts it has 5 blades.) The Laowa has advantages: direct mechanical focus with reproducible infinity point, extreme close focus (<6"), 72mm filters. The Laowa t-stop is also 2.0 so it might transmit as much light as does the more complex f1.8 Sony.
Vs. the Sony, it costs a grand less, weighs only 50g more. It's not weather sealed, but I don't shoot astro in rain.
I'm sure the wide open coma is greater than that of the Sony, however in my Milky Way and aurora photos I need to come up close and pixel peep in the extreme corners to find it.
It gives me spectacular high center resolution wildflower close ups while showing the surroundings.
MF is an advantageous feature for both astro and close ups. For astro and for flower close ups I prefer precise reproducible mechanic MF than AF with focus by wire.
For landscapes in which I wish a long shutter, I just drop on a magnetic ND, and I can add a magnetic CPL, standard 72mm, same as on several other lenses in my arsenal.
It does sound like a nice lens and I may review it at some point. That said, for now I’m prioritizing name-brand lenses from Nikon, Canon, and Sony, as well as third-party autofocus lenses mainly from Tamron and Sigma. I can review about one lens per week at the moment and have a lot to get through!
bjorn
March 16, 2024 12:05 pm
Very nice review again Spencer, There are quite some things to consider when shopping lenses for astro. Yes Milky Way / astro shooting, it’s about sagital coma, astigmatism! , field curvature, chromatic aberrations , but also vignetting, if too heavy you’ll end up with noisy corners after the software corrections,. Some spherical aberration wide open cmbined with low coma like the Samyang 24 f1.4 and 35mm f1.4 is not that bad. The clear stars would be larger and the constellations will be better recognizable. But quality control was an issue with those lenses and they tend to loose their centering after a few months of use (except the 135mm f2) A lightweight lens helps when you’re hiking into a remote dark mountain site, imho
Another interesting cheap option is the Viltrox 16mm f1.8 a -bit less good on coma from what I have seen- quality control?
Absolutely, coma is just part of the equation. Designing a good Milky Way lens is no easy task, and Sony did a great job balancing the various factors here. I’d like to try the Samyang lenses you mention, too.
Jeff
March 16, 2024 10:52 am
I am scratching my head on the coma performance when adapted to the Nikon. Coma is a lens issue, not a sensor issue.
Now I might be wrong, but I am going to want to see a strong technical argument before I am convinced.
I think it is more likely that Sony cameras are running an algorithm correcting the coma, which of course would not get corrected on the Nikon.
It might also mean that the Sigma is a better performer coma-wise.
That’s a fair guess, but I don’t think it’s the case. You’ll see next week, but a similar issue occurs on the Sigma 14mm f/1.4 Art when adapting it to Nikon Z. I highly doubt that Sony is building in any software corrections on a Sigma lens. I’ve also never heard of any manufacturer doing coma-related corrections in RAW files in the first place.
Apart from this lens, we’ve very consistently seen lower sharpness in general (particularly in the extreme corners) when adapting mirrorless lenses across brands – this is true when analyzing the RAW files. It isn’t a new phenomenon and has been observed for years when trying to adapt Leica lenses across mirrorless brands, especially wide-angles. They just work best on their native sensors.
Someone better versed in sensor design than I am may have a better answer for why this is, rather than simply saying “sensor stack differences.” But it’s a pretty persistent issue that I strongly don’t believe is software related.
(You’re right that organizing it under the “coma” header is not accurate, but I included it there because it’s so relevant to nighttime photography in this case. I think it is essential to compare it against the other crops in that section in order to get a sense of the issue.)
I am surprised that so many people seem to be completely unaware of this problem (not only here, but also e.g. on DPReview).
I guess software correction would be possible in principle by some sort of deconvolution process, but such an algorithm would most likely require far more computing power than a camera can offer.
Jeff, the corner aberration that occurs with this Sony lens mounted on the Nikon Z isn’t coma. If it was then it would reduce quickly on stopping down, which it doesn’t.
As a general observation of lens test results: coma is quite easy to reduce during lens design, especially when using aspherical elements; therefore, the “bird wings” observed may not be coma per se, but could well be (partially at least) caused by oblique spherical aberration.
No, lenses measure the same on a native DSLR and on a Nikon Z camera via the FTZ adapter. We tested this extensively with the Nikon D850 and Nikon Z7 and never saw significant difference in Imatest numbers when the same lens was used on both cameras.
Actually, there is no such issue with adapting DSLR lenses to mirrorless in general. We have tested both Nikon and Canon DSLR lenses on Nikon, Canon, and Sony mirrorless cameras and did not notice a loss in corner sharpness with any combination. It seems to be strictly when testing mirrorless lenses across brands. I believe it involves the angle at which the light is hitting the sensor, which is much steeper on most mirrorless lenses (especially wide-angles) due to the shorter flange distance.
“I believe it involves the angle at which the light is hitting the sensor, which is much steeper on most mirrorless lenses (especially wide-angles) due to the shorter flange distance.”
Theoretically. But this Sony 14mm lens serves as an excellent counter example. If this lens was symmetrical — having the same focal length in both object space and image space — then its corner natural vignetting could never drop below 3.5 stops (cosine to the fourth power illumination falloff). But it drops to 1.44 stops therefore its exit pupil is much further away from the sensor than 14mm: it’s a retrofocus lens with a pupil magnification ≫ 1.
Regarding the effect of sensor stack thickness, I recommend these excellent articles:
The Glass in the Path: Sensor Stacks and Adapted Lenses By Roger Cicala (2014‑06‑06) LensRentals
Sensor Stack Thickness: When Does It Matter? By Roger Cicala (2014‑06‑09) Lensrentals
Sensor Stack Thickness Part III: The Summary By Roger Cicala (2014‑07‑06) Lensrentals
I think you are right in saying that what we colloquially call “coma” is often not coma, but I believe that what we complain about is mostly astigmatism (maybe with a bit of coma mixed in), not spherical aberration. See e.g. here:
I’ve read so many times over the years that what we colloquially call coma is mainly caused by astigmatism that I used to believe it. However, astigmatism, field curvature, and axial colour are all directly proportional to aperture diameter 𝑨, whereas coma and elliptical coma are proportional to 𝑨², and spherical and oblique spherical aberrations are proportional to 𝑨³.
Therefore, aberrations that reduce quickly as the lens is stopped down — such as our colloquial coma — cannot be caused by astigmatism or field curvature.
Note that spherical aberration is quite different from the oblique spherical aberration I mentioned above, which is subdivided into sagittal oblique spherical aberration and tangential oblique spherical aberration.
QUOTE Just so you are aware, a lot of knowledgeable people call most edge and corner blurs ‘coma’ even though they are often combinations of coma, astigmatism, and most commonly oblique spherical aberration. Unless you know a lot of optical theory and examine the blur of points of light at various distances and apertures, you can’t tell exactly which aberrations are causing this so-called ‘coma’. Why does it matter? Because stopping down improves that ‘coma’ by varying degrees depending upon what it actually is. END of QUOTE
To me it looks like an alignment issue introduced by the adapter. The optical axis of the lens is not perpendicular to the sensor slightly. Of course this is just a guess.
It’s a good guess, but if that were the case, I would have expected significant improvement upon stopping down, which we don’t see. I think different sensor stack properties is the most likely explanation.
Ed G
March 16, 2024 10:23 am
I had the Sigma first, like others a 14mm f/1.8 is WOW and before Sony but should have waited. The Sigma has so many coma issues and elongated stars in corners but not the mustache distortion of the old Rokinon 14mm f/2.8, had to use the Sigma at f/4 and above. The Sony is well worth whatever price. It is light and full of features. Have not found any bad things and I do a lot of MW Rainbows. One thing MW photographers may not be aware of is the wider aperture the faster the shutter speed needed just like the more pixels a camera also adds to the faster shutter speed all of which is a good thing for faster shooting of an image and getting just as bright of an image as a f/4 like the APS-C E 10-18mm (15-27mm) f/4 OSS in full frame at 12mm or 14mm a small lens with treads for filters or a screw on filter holder for a blur filter, very old lens but gets the pinpoint stars and no coma’s and still below $1K. I used the 10-18mm on my A7S for 4 years but also the A7III. My lesson to others is to learn panoramas if you want more in a image save $’s in the long run. A pano will get more but of the arc and using a single mm like even a 12mm or now 10mm you only get a straight line MW.
I’m glad you’re enjoying this lens! It’s a great choice for the panoramic Milky Way photos that you describe, since the corners are so good in terms of coma. You won’t have periodic blurry areas in the panorama, even at f/1.8.
Abomb
March 16, 2024 9:00 am
Looks like a fantastic prime in a surprisingly small package. Nikon is sorely missing some wide primes. After devoting time to the tele end, I’m hoping now they focus on wide offerings.
This is in your opinion. In my opinion, lenses with a fixed focal length wider than 20 mm are not needed. And that means Nikon is doing everything right) And yes. I had 14 2.8 but I sold it.
Your opinion doesn’t matter. The opinion of potential customers matters, who will interpret your opinion has condescending. Now if you said, ”In my opinion there is not a profitable market for a 14mm prime lens. Sony must have a reason other than profit to offer this lens.” We would have an interesting discussion.
There is one resource. In it, you can view various statistics on the number of owners of certain lenses. And on it, Nikon has 14-24mm 2.8G. 16-35mm 4G in 84th place among lenses wider than 20 mm in a full frame in only 70th place . 18-35mm on the 154th place. 14mm 2.8D in 163rd place. 16mm 2.8D in 164th place. 15mm 3.5 Ai-s in 222nd place. Result. There are only two zoom lenses with a wide viewing angle in the first hundred. Lenses with a fixed focal length of 20 mm are not particularly needed by Nikon owners) Nikon has already released two zoom lenses with a Z mount. Accordingly, the chance of a lens with a fixed focal length of 20 mm is very low. Nikon’s biggest revenue comes from other glasses. And the general progress in the development of computational photography shows that lenses with a large focal value and a few lenses providing strong development have the greatest potential. But there are problems with blurring, the new Photoshop is able to simulate blurring) Sony has a different market situation and strategy. They made another bet.
I guess I don’t see the point of your post or why you’re so sensitive to someone saying Nikon needs to make some ultra wide primes. If Sony is making them and others including Nikon have made them in the past there must be a market for them.
I would love for a 14mm f/1.8 for Milky Way shots. Specialized use, but that extra light is quite helpful when you can’t push your exposures too long without a tracker.
Wile E
March 16, 2024 8:35 am
Have you tried Sigma 14-24/2.8 and tell how it compares? Thank you
interesting to read that the lens does not function well in the corners on a Z8. Could be the difference in coverglass used in both systems. Seems like a very good lens, but if you do not need f/1.8 the nikon Z14-24mm seems even better overall except for distortion. Like it when the corners can do 2500 lines as the Nikon can even on less megapixel. Would be interesting to see if the Sigma’s have less vignetting and are therefore larger.
Yeah, adapting lenses isn’t usually ideal when critical corner sharpness is desired. That includes most astrophotography. 14mm at f/2.8 (or 20mm at f/1.8) is still quite good for Milky Way photography, but hopefully Nikon releases a 14mm f/1.8 lens of their own, or something similar, before long.
I’ve just returned from a month in Norway and Iceland where I took this lens as a “last minute decision” for my 2nd body (in a Nikon Z system) for Aurora chasing. It took the place of my older and much heavier/larger Sigma f-mount 14mm f/1.8 with FTZ. The Sony’s size, weight, aperture and adapter slimness were much better travel solutions. Alas, I was disappointed to learn first- hand of its corner performance on stars on the z7ii and z8. I hadn’t had clear night skies at home to test extensively before traveling, other than on general landscapes where it performed well. Silly to travel without extensive testing, but it was a risk I took, that in this instance didn’t pay off. At least I had the 14-24 f/2.8 as my primary lens. I was especially disappointed as I can’t imagine Nikon constructing anything similar in a prime and it is such a great size. Thanks for the review, and confirming that’s my pace of mind that I didn’t just have a poor copy of the lens.
Man, that’s frustrating. Wish I could have published this review a month earlier! Although having the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 is an excellent alternative. I’m sure you got some great photos with that lens.
So, the obvious question after the foreshadowing re the Sigma 14/1.4 on Nikon is whether Sigma (and Tamron) actually compensate for these off-axis aberrations by modifying their optical designs ever so slightly for different systems, or whether they just live with the fact that their lenses are better when used on some systems than on others. The fact that they offer(ed?) a mount conversion service for some lenses would suggest the latter.
I do not want to send Spencer down a rabbit hole, but hopefully, at some point there will be Z-mount versions of some of these lenses available that can be compared with adapted copies of the same lens manufactured for different mounts.
I would assume that they mostly do not adjust for different sensors, and rather tailor it to one particular system. I’d be interested in testing the same third-party lens on 3-4 systems to see which one it’s the most tailored to. Though the amount of work to test this on every third-party lens would be prohibitively high.
Given that this probably most strongly affects fast wides, testing it on one of these would already be very insightful. I do not think that testing all third-party lenses on all systems would be required for this “proof of principle” to be useful.
Spencer, maybe compare with the Laowa 15 Zero-D.
At 15mm instead of 14mm, and f/2.0 instead of 1.8, there is the Laowa 15 Zero-D. I’ve had this lens for many years in its original 7 aperture blade E mount version (with all other mounts it has 5 blades.) The Laowa has advantages: direct mechanical focus with reproducible infinity point, extreme close focus (<6"), 72mm filters. The Laowa t-stop is also 2.0 so it might transmit as much light as does the more complex f1.8 Sony.
Vs. the Sony, it costs a grand less, weighs only 50g more. It's not weather sealed, but I don't shoot astro in rain.
I'm sure the wide open coma is greater than that of the Sony, however in my Milky Way and aurora photos I need to come up close and pixel peep in the extreme corners to find it.
It gives me spectacular high center resolution wildflower close ups while showing the surroundings.
MF is an advantageous feature for both astro and close ups. For astro and for flower close ups I prefer precise reproducible mechanic MF than AF with focus by wire.
For landscapes in which I wish a long shutter, I just drop on a magnetic ND, and I can add a magnetic CPL, standard 72mm, same as on several other lenses in my arsenal.
It does sound like a nice lens and I may review it at some point. That said, for now I’m prioritizing name-brand lenses from Nikon, Canon, and Sony, as well as third-party autofocus lenses mainly from Tamron and Sigma. I can review about one lens per week at the moment and have a lot to get through!
Very nice review again Spencer,
There are quite some things to consider when shopping lenses for astro.
Yes Milky Way / astro shooting, it’s about sagital coma, astigmatism! , field curvature, chromatic aberrations , but also vignetting, if too heavy you’ll end up with noisy corners after the software corrections,. Some spherical aberration wide open cmbined with low coma like the Samyang 24 f1.4 and 35mm f1.4 is not that bad. The clear stars would be larger and the constellations will be better recognizable. But quality control was an issue with those lenses and they tend to loose their centering after a few months of use (except the 135mm f2)
A lightweight lens helps when you’re hiking into a remote dark mountain site, imho
Another interesting cheap option is the Viltrox 16mm f1.8 a -bit less good on coma from what I have seen- quality control?
Absolutely, coma is just part of the equation. Designing a good Milky Way lens is no easy task, and Sony did a great job balancing the various factors here. I’d like to try the Samyang lenses you mention, too.
I am scratching my head on the coma performance when adapted to the Nikon. Coma is a lens issue, not a sensor issue.
Now I might be wrong, but I am going to want to see a strong technical argument before I am convinced.
I think it is more likely that Sony cameras are running an algorithm correcting the coma, which of course would not get corrected on the Nikon.
It might also mean that the Sigma is a better performer coma-wise.
That’s a fair guess, but I don’t think it’s the case. You’ll see next week, but a similar issue occurs on the Sigma 14mm f/1.4 Art when adapting it to Nikon Z. I highly doubt that Sony is building in any software corrections on a Sigma lens. I’ve also never heard of any manufacturer doing coma-related corrections in RAW files in the first place.
Apart from this lens, we’ve very consistently seen lower sharpness in general (particularly in the extreme corners) when adapting mirrorless lenses across brands – this is true when analyzing the RAW files. It isn’t a new phenomenon and has been observed for years when trying to adapt Leica lenses across mirrorless brands, especially wide-angles. They just work best on their native sensors.
Someone better versed in sensor design than I am may have a better answer for why this is, rather than simply saying “sensor stack differences.” But it’s a pretty persistent issue that I strongly don’t believe is software related.
(You’re right that organizing it under the “coma” header is not accurate, but I included it there because it’s so relevant to nighttime photography in this case. I think it is essential to compare it against the other crops in that section in order to get a sense of the issue.)
Good response. Now I am curious.
Thanks, Spencer. This was going to be my question, too.
I am surprised that so many people seem to be completely unaware of this problem (not only here, but also e.g. on DPReview).
I guess software correction would be possible in principle by some sort of deconvolution process, but such an algorithm would most likely require far more computing power than a camera can offer.
I only have one non-Nikon lens. The other 50 or so are all Nikon, so it didn’t come up.
Jeff, the corner aberration that occurs with this Sony lens mounted on the Nikon Z isn’t coma. If it was then it would reduce quickly on stopping down, which it doesn’t.
As a general observation of lens test results: coma is quite easy to reduce during lens design, especially when using aspherical elements; therefore, the “bird wings” observed may not be coma per se, but could well be (partially at least) caused by oblique spherical aberration.
I wonder if any issues like this exist with the FTZ?
No, lenses measure the same on a native DSLR and on a Nikon Z camera via the FTZ adapter. We tested this extensively with the Nikon D850 and Nikon Z7 and never saw significant difference in Imatest numbers when the same lens was used on both cameras.
Actually, there is no such issue with adapting DSLR lenses to mirrorless in general. We have tested both Nikon and Canon DSLR lenses on Nikon, Canon, and Sony mirrorless cameras and did not notice a loss in corner sharpness with any combination. It seems to be strictly when testing mirrorless lenses across brands. I believe it involves the angle at which the light is hitting the sensor, which is much steeper on most mirrorless lenses (especially wide-angles) due to the shorter flange distance.
“I believe it involves the angle at which the light is hitting the sensor, which is much steeper on most mirrorless lenses (especially wide-angles) due to the shorter flange distance.”
Theoretically. But this Sony 14mm lens serves as an excellent counter example. If this lens was symmetrical — having the same focal length in both object space and image space — then its corner natural vignetting could never drop below 3.5 stops (cosine to the fourth power illumination falloff). But it drops to 1.44 stops therefore its exit pupil is much further away from the sensor than 14mm: it’s a retrofocus lens with a pupil magnification ≫ 1.
Regarding the effect of sensor stack thickness, I recommend these excellent articles:
The Glass in the Path: Sensor Stacks and Adapted Lenses
By Roger Cicala (2014‑06‑06) LensRentals
Sensor Stack Thickness: When Does It Matter?
By Roger Cicala (2014‑06‑09) Lensrentals
Sensor Stack Thickness Part III: The Summary
By Roger Cicala (2014‑07‑06) Lensrentals
www.lensrentals.com/blog/…ickness%22
Thanks for posting these.
I think you are right in saying that what we colloquially call “coma” is often not coma, but I believe that what we complain about is mostly astigmatism (maybe with a bit of coma mixed in), not spherical aberration. See e.g. here:
www.lonelyspeck.com/a-pra…tion-test/
I’ve read so many times over the years that what we colloquially call coma is mainly caused by astigmatism that I used to believe it. However, astigmatism, field curvature, and axial colour are all directly proportional to aperture diameter 𝑨, whereas coma and elliptical coma are proportional to 𝑨², and spherical and oblique spherical aberrations are proportional to 𝑨³.
Therefore, aberrations that reduce quickly as the lens is stopped down — such as our colloquial coma — cannot be caused by astigmatism or field curvature.
Note that spherical aberration is quite different from the oblique spherical aberration I mentioned above, which is subdivided into sagittal oblique spherical aberration and tangential oblique spherical aberration.
Further reading:
What Actually Happens When You Stop Down a Lens
By Roger Cicala (2016‑01‑26) Lensrentals
www.lensrentals.com/blog/…wn-a-lens/
QUOTE
Just so you are aware, a lot of knowledgeable people call most edge and corner blurs ‘coma’ even though they are often combinations of coma, astigmatism, and most commonly oblique spherical aberration. Unless you know a lot of optical theory and examine the blur of points of light at various distances and apertures, you can’t tell exactly which aberrations are causing this so-called ‘coma’. Why does it matter? Because stopping down improves that ‘coma’ by varying degrees depending upon what it actually is.
END of QUOTE
Fair enough – thanks for the link.
Very nice literature – all of your citations !
To me it looks like an alignment issue introduced by the adapter. The optical axis of the lens is not perpendicular to the sensor slightly. Of course this is just a guess.
It’s a good guess, but if that were the case, I would have expected significant improvement upon stopping down, which we don’t see. I think different sensor stack properties is the most likely explanation.
I had the Sigma first, like others a 14mm f/1.8 is WOW and before Sony but should have waited. The Sigma has so many coma issues and elongated stars in corners but not the mustache distortion of the old Rokinon 14mm f/2.8, had to use the Sigma at f/4 and above. The Sony is well worth whatever price. It is light and full of features. Have not found any bad things and I do a lot of MW Rainbows. One thing MW photographers may not be aware of is the wider aperture the faster the shutter speed needed just like the more pixels a camera also adds to the faster shutter speed all of which is a good thing for faster shooting of an image and getting just as bright of an image as a f/4 like the APS-C E 10-18mm (15-27mm) f/4 OSS in full frame at 12mm or 14mm a small lens with treads for filters or a screw on filter holder for a blur filter, very old lens but gets the pinpoint stars and no coma’s and still below $1K. I used the 10-18mm on my A7S for 4 years but also the A7III. My lesson to others is to learn panoramas if you want more in a image save $’s in the long run. A pano will get more but of the arc and using a single mm like even a 12mm or now 10mm you only get a straight line MW.
I’m glad you’re enjoying this lens! It’s a great choice for the panoramic Milky Way photos that you describe, since the corners are so good in terms of coma. You won’t have periodic blurry areas in the panorama, even at f/1.8.
Looks like a fantastic prime in a surprisingly small package. Nikon is sorely missing some wide primes. After devoting time to the tele end, I’m hoping now they focus on wide offerings.
This is in your opinion. In my opinion, lenses with a fixed focal length wider than 20 mm are not needed. And that means Nikon is doing everything right)
And yes. I had 14 2.8 but I sold it.
Your opinion doesn’t matter. The opinion of potential customers matters, who will interpret your opinion has condescending. Now if you said, ”In my opinion there is not a profitable market for a 14mm prime lens. Sony must have a reason other than profit to offer this lens.” We would have an interesting discussion.
There is one resource. In it, you can view various statistics on the number of owners of certain lenses. And on it, Nikon has 14-24mm 2.8G. 16-35mm 4G in 84th place among lenses wider than 20 mm in a full frame in only 70th place
.
18-35mm on the 154th place.
14mm 2.8D in 163rd place.
16mm 2.8D in 164th place.
15mm 3.5 Ai-s in 222nd place.
Result. There are only two zoom lenses with a wide viewing angle in the first hundred. Lenses with a fixed focal length of 20 mm are not particularly needed by Nikon owners)
Nikon has already released two zoom lenses with a Z mount. Accordingly, the chance of a lens with a fixed focal length of 20 mm is very low. Nikon’s biggest revenue comes from other glasses. And the general progress in the development of computational photography shows that lenses with a large focal value and a few lenses providing strong development have the greatest potential. But there are problems with blurring, the new Photoshop is able to simulate blurring)
Sony has a different market situation and strategy. They made another bet.
That 14mm 2.8 was a mediocre lens. I bought the 14-24mm 2.8G because it was a far superior 14mm prime. I rarely used it outside of 14mm.
Of course it’s in my opinion.
I guess I don’t see the point of your post or why you’re so sensitive to someone saying Nikon needs to make some ultra wide primes. If Sony is making them and others including Nikon have made them in the past there must be a market for them.
They certainly need a 17mm, preferably that takes filters. =<15mm are exotics with niche uses.
I would love for a 14mm f/1.8 for Milky Way shots. Specialized use, but that extra light is quite helpful when you can’t push your exposures too long without a tracker.
Have you tried Sigma 14-24/2.8 and tell how it compares? Thank you
I haven’t tried that lens yet.
Thanks for this great review.
You’re very welcome!
interesting to read that the lens does not function well in the corners on a Z8.
Could be the difference in coverglass used in both systems. Seems like a very good lens, but if you do not need f/1.8 the nikon Z14-24mm seems even better overall except for distortion. Like it when the corners can do 2500 lines as the Nikon can even on less megapixel.
Would be interesting to see if the Sigma’s have less vignetting and are therefore larger.
Yeah, adapting lenses isn’t usually ideal when critical corner sharpness is desired. That includes most astrophotography. 14mm at f/2.8 (or 20mm at f/1.8) is still quite good for Milky Way photography, but hopefully Nikon releases a 14mm f/1.8 lens of their own, or something similar, before long.