Hello Spencer! I want to use this lens for astro. My question is, what aperture would you use for an untracked single astro shot (raw)? And what aperture for untracked stacking? I think this lens improves quite a bit at f/2.2 in terms of vignetting (about half a stop), but don’t you get more exposure in the corners at f/1.8 anyways? It seems sharp enough wide open. From testing I think has a bit more contrast at f/2.2, but maybe that’s just the improvement in vignetting. Let me know your thoughts.
I understand. However, if you shoot at the same shutter speed (which I would), there would be an exposure difference. 1.8 would actually give me the most exposure, even in the corners, despite the vignetting. It would just be less even compared to the centre pre correction.
Hi Thomas, I’m sorry I just saw this. I think you could reasonably use anything from f/1.8 to f/2.8 on this lens for Milky Way photography. The best balance is probably either f/2 or f/2.2. Any differences will be pretty small though.
That said, for untracked stacking, you might as well use f/2.8 or f/4 to maximize sharpness. I take most of my star stacked images at f/4, although f/2.8 on a sharp lens like this is also logical.
Jim
November 14, 2024 4:57 pm
Hi Spencer. I picked up a copy of the Viltrox 16 f1.8 and at first blush am a little disappointed. The lens seems soft corner to corner. I’m somewhat concerned though about my standards. I took a number of images at a variety of apertures of plants and birds in my garden. My usual standard is, if the image can’t stand up to a 100% crop it’s too soft. With the Viltrox, none of images retain much detail at all cropped 100%
Also just bought the viltrox and tested it- it is very sharp so maybe you have a dud. I would bring it back.
Actually this the first lens i buy due to a positive review here. What i can say is; this lens is really good ; Spencers review matches my observations. I would add some things: Like with more wide angle lenses the plane of sharpness is not perfectly straight . It is slightly curved ; the plane of sharpness on the sides is a little closer than in the middle. Also wide open the sharpness in the image is not everywhere at the same level. A commen problem with many lensparts put together. These are little things that you only see at pixel level 45MP. With a little sharpness added all is perfect. When you want a perfect overall image use f4- f8 and use manula focus and splitview to get the whole image as sharp as possible- it is always a compromise. A truly remarkable lens for the money. Nikon will have a headache. Even with pixelshift at the good apertures this lens delivers.
I agree with Pieter. That doesn’t sound like my impressions from the lens at all. Probably a bad copy but possibly some issue with your camera settings or focusing.
auderson
November 13, 2024 7:25 pm
Viltrox recently released their 135mm f/1.8 LAB, would you provide a review for that lens?
I am equipped with Sony and I have had the Viltrox 16mm for 7 months already. At first, I was excited because it is a remarkable lens and I thought that in many occasions, instead of taking my GM 14mm and G 20mm, this one would do the job. In fact, I realize that this is not the case. The five real differences between the Viltrox and my other Sonys are: color reproduction, autofocus accuracy, ergonomics, flare resistance and distortion. It is like with my Sigma 85mm F1.4 DG DN :( The corrections made with the files from the Viltrox on my 61 MPX sensor are more important. In the end, I stopped using it.
Sounds like you’ve settled on the right kit for your needs, even though our impressions of the Viltrox don’t really match. But the Sony 20mm f/1.8 G and 14mm f/1.8 GM are both phenomenal lenses.
ANTHONY
October 24, 2024 6:26 pm
I bought this lens when it was introduced for the Nikon Z mount for 465.00. I had the 13mm 1.4 lens for my Fuji Xh2 and it was a low light beast. This lens does an excellent job in night landscape photography don’t be afraid to buy it.
The Plena is a master of corner-to-corner sharpness, but yeah, we sometimes see lenses that measure slightly higher in the center at some apertures. An interesting curiosity but not enough to be visible outside a lab environment!
There might be also error bars in the measurements. Did you make any estimate ? Also somewhere close to upper level of your scale the measurement errors should increase. So maybe these differences in top sharpness might not even be significant at all (even in the lab).
Loi
October 23, 2024 11:04 pm
Would this and the 14-30 be a good combo for landscape and occasional astro, Spencer?
I am not Spencer (obviously), but if you buy both the 14-30 and the 16/1.8, you are approaching the price range of the 14-24/2.8 (at least when discounted). My personal experience from owning both an ultra wide zoom and a prime within that range for F-mount was that I rarely took both, and in the end used only the prime. Therefore, I went with the 14-24/2.8 when moving to Z-mount. This way, I carry that one lens, which works for almost all applications (even though the zoom range is a little shorter and the aperture is a little slower than the combo you are considering). It is also not much heavier than each lens on its own and clearly lighter than both combined. Just something to consider.
Hi Loi, yes it would! For what you’re describing, the 14-30mm + Viltrox 16mm f/1.8 combo is a great option. So would be the Nikon Z 17-28mm f/2.8, or the Nikon Z 14-24mm f/2.8 S. Any of those three approaches will get you plenty of image quality. I would choose between them based on considerations like focal length, price, and portability rather than image quality.
Robert John
October 23, 2024 11:41 am
I suspect that if you already have a 14-30 the only reason to get this would be for specific f1.8 purposes.
But if I didn’t have a 14-30, this would be very tempting given the price. It would go particularly well with a Sony 20-70 and a 70-300.
I’m going to Mallorca at the end of the week. I’m taking the small GM 14mm, the G 20-70mm F4 and the G 70-200mm F 4 macro + TC 1.4 + Gitzo 1545T + Benro VF-1 filters. My Sony 20mm F1.8 and Viltrox 16mm F1.8 will stay at home. With 61 MPX, I really have some reserve for cropping and the purchase of the Sony 20-70mm often wins out over my trade-offs with my Sony 16-35mm and my fixed Viltrox 16mm and Sony 20mm, because I also take the 14mm.
Jim W
October 23, 2024 11:05 am
Many thanks for publishing this, Spencer. I a weird way, you said what I was afraid you might say – that the Viltrox is a worthy competitor to the Nikkor 20 f1.8. I really lust for the 20. The flip side is 1. my use case for the lens as I see it is pretty narrow – mostly Astro/Milky Way. 2. For situations where I want a really wide lens e.g. slot canyons and the like, 16 can deliver where 20 might struggle.
Add to this my 24-120 f4.0 is pretty darn good at 24mm wide open to stopped down. Viltrox it will be. Thanks again for your time and effort. When I buy it I’ll use your link to B&H.
Thanks Jim! This lens would be a great combo with the Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4. I’m a big fan of the Nikon Z 20mm f/1.8 S too, but if this will be your widest lens, going for a 16mm makes more sense. Cropping to a 20mm FoV isn’t too extreme either, if you need to.
Kevin
October 23, 2024 10:55 am
Other than for astro photography, is there any benefit to having f/1.8 on a super wide angle lens?
Milky Way is definitely the main reason, but there are a few others. A brighter aperture like f/1.8 helps focus in low light more accurately and quickly, even when you ultimately stop down. Could also be good for event photographers working in low light. And I found a few situations where I liked the slight background separation from shooting at f/1.8 for street photography.
Just bought the lens for performances in dark situations . Before i used f2.8 lenses, but the difference is 4/3 stop – so instead of iso 6400 iI can use iso 2500 with the same shutterspeed
Hello Spencer! I want to use this lens for astro. My question is, what aperture would you use for an untracked single astro shot (raw)? And what aperture for untracked stacking? I think this lens improves quite a bit at f/2.2 in terms of vignetting (about half a stop), but don’t you get more exposure in the corners at f/1.8 anyways? It seems sharp enough wide open. From testing I think has a bit more contrast at f/2.2, but maybe that’s just the improvement in vignetting. Let me know your thoughts.
Hi
I use aperture for astro landscape f2
This is quite enough.
for example at the beginning of the comments
Thank you! Why not 1.8 may I ask?
No need, There is no difference in brightness.
but there are shadows in the corners
I understand. However, if you shoot at the same shutter speed (which I would), there would be an exposure difference. 1.8 would actually give me the most exposure, even in the corners, despite the vignetting. It would just be less even compared to the centre pre correction.
Hi Thomas, I’m sorry I just saw this. I think you could reasonably use anything from f/1.8 to f/2.8 on this lens for Milky Way photography. The best balance is probably either f/2 or f/2.2. Any differences will be pretty small though.
That said, for untracked stacking, you might as well use f/2.8 or f/4 to maximize sharpness. I take most of my star stacked images at f/4, although f/2.8 on a sharp lens like this is also logical.
Hi Spencer. I picked up a copy of the Viltrox 16 f1.8 and at first blush am a little disappointed. The lens seems soft corner to corner. I’m somewhat concerned though about my standards. I took a number of images at a variety of apertures of plants and birds in my garden. My usual standard is, if the image can’t stand up to a 100% crop it’s too soft. With the Viltrox, none of images retain much detail at all cropped 100%
Am I being too picky?
Also just bought the viltrox and tested it- it is very sharp so maybe you have a dud.
I would bring it back.
Actually this the first lens i buy due to a positive review here.
What i can say is; this lens is really good ; Spencers review matches my observations.
I would add some things:
Like with more wide angle lenses the plane of sharpness is not perfectly straight . It is slightly curved ; the plane of sharpness on the sides is a little closer than in the middle.
Also wide open the sharpness in the image is not everywhere at the same level. A commen problem with many lensparts put together. These are little things that you only see at pixel level 45MP. With a little sharpness added all is perfect.
When you want a perfect overall image use f4- f8 and use manula focus and splitview to get the whole image as sharp as possible- it is always a compromise.
A truly remarkable lens for the money. Nikon will have a headache. Even with pixelshift at the good apertures this lens delivers.
I agree with Pieter. That doesn’t sound like my impressions from the lens at all. Probably a bad copy but possibly some issue with your camera settings or focusing.
Viltrox recently released their 135mm f/1.8 LAB, would you provide a review for that lens?
That’s the goal!
I am equipped with Sony and I have had the Viltrox 16mm for 7 months already. At first, I was excited because it is a remarkable lens and I thought that in many occasions, instead of taking my GM 14mm and G 20mm, this one would do the job.
In fact, I realize that this is not the case. The five real differences between the Viltrox and my other Sonys are: color reproduction, autofocus accuracy, ergonomics, flare resistance and distortion. It is like with my Sigma 85mm F1.4 DG DN :( The corrections made with the files from the Viltrox on my 61 MPX sensor are more important. In the end, I stopped using it.
Sounds like you’ve settled on the right kit for your needs, even though our impressions of the Viltrox don’t really match. But the Sony 20mm f/1.8 G and 14mm f/1.8 GM are both phenomenal lenses.
I bought this lens when it was introduced for the Nikon Z mount for 465.00.
I had the 13mm 1.4 lens for my Fuji Xh2 and it was a low light beast. This lens does an excellent job in night landscape photography don’t be afraid to buy it.
That’s an awesome price for it!
Just realised that the centre on this one is sharper than the Plena at f/2.8. :D
f/2.8 and wider, that is.
The Plena is a master of corner-to-corner sharpness, but yeah, we sometimes see lenses that measure slightly higher in the center at some apertures. An interesting curiosity but not enough to be visible outside a lab environment!
There might be also error bars in the measurements. Did you make any estimate ? Also somewhere close to upper level of your scale the measurement errors should increase. So maybe these differences in top sharpness might not even be significant at all (even in the lab).
Would this and the 14-30 be a good combo for landscape and occasional astro, Spencer?
I am not Spencer (obviously), but if you buy both the 14-30 and the 16/1.8, you are approaching the price range of the 14-24/2.8 (at least when discounted). My personal experience from owning both an ultra wide zoom and a prime within that range for F-mount was that I rarely took both, and in the end used only the prime. Therefore, I went with the 14-24/2.8 when moving to Z-mount. This way, I carry that one lens, which works for almost all applications (even though the zoom range is a little shorter and the aperture is a little slower than the combo you are considering). It is also not much heavier than each lens on its own and clearly lighter than both combined. Just something to consider.
Hi Loi, yes it would! For what you’re describing, the 14-30mm + Viltrox 16mm f/1.8 combo is a great option. So would be the Nikon Z 17-28mm f/2.8, or the Nikon Z 14-24mm f/2.8 S. Any of those three approaches will get you plenty of image quality. I would choose between them based on considerations like focal length, price, and portability rather than image quality.
I suspect that if you already have a 14-30 the only reason to get this would be for specific f1.8 purposes.
But if I didn’t have a 14-30, this would be very tempting given the price. It would go particularly well with a Sony 20-70 and a 70-300.
I think that this lens plus the Sony 20-70mm f/4 and the Sony 70-200mm f/4 Macro would cover essentially 100% of the subjects that I shoot.
I’m going to Mallorca at the end of the week. I’m taking the small GM 14mm, the G 20-70mm F4 and the G 70-200mm F 4 macro + TC 1.4 + Gitzo 1545T + Benro VF-1 filters. My Sony 20mm F1.8 and Viltrox 16mm F1.8 will stay at home.
With 61 MPX, I really have some reserve for cropping and the purchase of the Sony 20-70mm often wins out over my trade-offs with my Sony 16-35mm and my fixed Viltrox 16mm and Sony 20mm, because I also take the 14mm.
Many thanks for publishing this, Spencer. I a weird way, you said what I was afraid you might say – that the Viltrox is a worthy competitor to the Nikkor 20 f1.8. I really lust for the 20. The flip side is 1. my use case for the lens as I see it is pretty narrow – mostly Astro/Milky Way. 2. For situations where I want a really wide lens e.g. slot canyons and the like, 16 can deliver where 20 might struggle.
Add to this my 24-120 f4.0 is pretty darn good at 24mm wide open to stopped down. Viltrox it will be. Thanks again for your time and effort. When I buy it I’ll use your link to B&H.
Thanks Jim! This lens would be a great combo with the Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4. I’m a big fan of the Nikon Z 20mm f/1.8 S too, but if this will be your widest lens, going for a 16mm makes more sense. Cropping to a 20mm FoV isn’t too extreme either, if you need to.
Other than for astro photography, is there any benefit to having f/1.8 on a super wide angle lens?
Milky Way is definitely the main reason, but there are a few others. A brighter aperture like f/1.8 helps focus in low light more accurately and quickly, even when you ultimately stop down. Could also be good for event photographers working in low light. And I found a few situations where I liked the slight background separation from shooting at f/1.8 for street photography.
Just bought the lens for performances in dark situations . Before i used f2.8 lenses, but the difference is 4/3 stop – so instead of iso 6400 iI can use iso 2500 with the same shutterspeed