Your review pretty much echos my experience with this lens. I bought this lens for landscapes and astro. Was shocked at how good this lens is. My other Viltrox lens; the 28 f1.8 Z is similar in quality to your experience with the Viltrox 24 and 35 1.8.
That’s good info on the 28mm f/1.8, thanks! Yeah, the 24mm and 35mm Viltrox lenses I tested weren’t great. They pulled a rabbit out of a hat with the 16mm!
bg5931
October 22, 2024 2:52 pm
And I thought I was done buying lenses! :D These are some insane numbers. How is copy variation with this one? Any concerning or encouraging reports?
Good question! Libor and I both tested a copy and our opinions matched. That said, I’ve seen a few user reviews on B&H talking about either a mechanical issue or some other sample variation on this lens. I didn’t run into that on my copy. But I would buy from someone with a good return policy and do the usual tests to make sure your copy is sharp (photographylife.com/good-…py-of-lens)
bjorn
October 22, 2024 2:15 pm
Hi , great informative review again, in line with my findings. I use this lens since July next to the Nikkor Z 20mm f1.8 , for astro, landscapes, (astro)time lapses . It’s great for visible part of the spectrum, not so for Infrared, the Nikkor 20mm is reasonable good. By the way the 20mm f2.8 Viltrox is great for IR photography, and quite nice for visual as well and even much cheaper.
Incredible photo, Vital! Regarding the weight, Viltrox specifies 550 grams on their website and in their literature. Unfortunately, I no longer have the lens in front of me to measure, but I see that Ken Rockwell noted his copy measured 588 grams. Where are you seeing the 650 number? Is that a direct measurement of your copy?
Pavel
October 22, 2024 1:41 pm
So what should I do now? It only got worse. I’ve almost decided to take the Nikon 17-28 f/2.8 instead of 14-30 f/4 and 20 f/1.8S. I already have a Viltrox 13mm f/1.4 on my Z50, and it’s gooood, but there’s nothing wide on the Z7ii. And I have already excluded Viltrox 16 from the possible options… And now this wonderful test. Oh, what should i do, Viltrox 16mm f/1.8 or Nikon (Tamron) 17-28 f/2.8 twice price, but zoom…
There’s no easy answer! At least there’s also no bad answer. The 17-28mm f/2.8 is a good lens, so the question is exactly as you describe – more money for a zoom or less money for a prime. Personally I’d lean toward the Viltrox and put the cash toward travel.
Your review pretty much echos my experience with this lens. I bought this lens for landscapes and astro. Was shocked at how good this lens is. My other Viltrox lens; the 28 f1.8 Z is similar in quality to your experience with the Viltrox 24 and 35 1.8.
That’s good info on the 28mm f/1.8, thanks! Yeah, the 24mm and 35mm Viltrox lenses I tested weren’t great. They pulled a rabbit out of a hat with the 16mm!
And I thought I was done buying lenses! :D These are some insane numbers. How is copy variation with this one? Any concerning or encouraging reports?
Good question! Libor and I both tested a copy and our opinions matched. That said, I’ve seen a few user reviews on B&H talking about either a mechanical issue or some other sample variation on this lens. I didn’t run into that on my copy. But I would buy from someone with a good return policy and do the usual tests to make sure your copy is sharp (photographylife.com/good-…py-of-lens)
Hi , great informative review again, in line with my findings. I use this lens since July next to the Nikkor Z 20mm f1.8 , for astro, landscapes, (astro)time lapses . It’s great for visible part of the spectrum, not so for Infrared, the Nikkor 20mm is reasonable good. By the way the 20mm f2.8 Viltrox is great for IR photography, and quite nice for visual as well and even much cheaper.
Glad you liked the review, Bjorn! And thanks for the info on IR performance. Looking forward to testing the Viltrox 20mm f/2.8 at some point, too.
HI !
This is a great wide angle lens
I’ve been using it since August – mainly for astro photography
There is an error in your review
Actual weight of the Viltrox 16mm Z – 650g (not 550g)
Incredible photo, Vital! Regarding the weight, Viltrox specifies 550 grams on their website and in their literature. Unfortunately, I no longer have the lens in front of me to measure, but I see that Ken Rockwell noted his copy measured 588 grams. Where are you seeing the 650 number? Is that a direct measurement of your copy?
So what should I do now? It only got worse. I’ve almost decided to take the Nikon 17-28 f/2.8 instead of 14-30 f/4 and 20 f/1.8S. I already have a Viltrox 13mm f/1.4 on my Z50, and it’s gooood, but there’s nothing wide on the Z7ii. And I have already excluded Viltrox 16 from the possible options… And now this wonderful test. Oh, what should i do, Viltrox 16mm f/1.8 or Nikon (Tamron) 17-28 f/2.8 twice price, but zoom…
There’s no easy answer! At least there’s also no bad answer. The 17-28mm f/2.8 is a good lens, so the question is exactly as you describe – more money for a zoom or less money for a prime. Personally I’d lean toward the Viltrox and put the cash toward travel.