If you want a 24mm prime lens for the Nikon Z system, two of your options are the Viltrox AF 24mm f/1.8 and the Nikon Z 24mm f/1.8 S. There’s a major price difference between them, but at least both lenses have autofocus capabilities and a Nikon Z mount! So, which one should you get?
Table of Contents
Initial Considerations
Without a doubt, the two lenses that I’m comparing today can be described as “budget” and “high-end” respectively. There’s a reason why the Viltrox AF 24mm f/1.8 costs $380 and the Nikon Z 24mm f/1.8 costs $1000, and it’s not just about the brand name.
I’ll get into the image quality side of things momentarily, but it’s probably not much of a spoiler to say that the Nikon Z lens is clearly ahead in that regard. For now, let me focus on some of the other considerations first.
The biggest one that stands out to me is weatherproofing. The Viltrox 24mm f/1.8 does not have weather sealing at all, while the Nikon Z 24mm f/1.8 S is extensively sealed. This alone could make the difference if you’re planning to use the lens in adverse conditions. Personally, as a landscape photographer, I’m always standing by my tripod in the rain waiting for the light to break – and I’d much rather trust the Nikon Z 24mm f/1.8 S in that situation.
Another difference is handling. The Viltrox AF 24mm f/1.8 is an all-metal lens, while the Nikon Z 24mm f/1.8 has a mix of metal and plastic construction. Both feel well-built, but the Viltrox is smaller and lighter than the Nikon. It weighs 370 grams compared to the Nikon’s 450 grams (AKA 0.82 pounds versus 0.99 pounds). That’s probably not enough to matter, but it’s not invisible, either. The Viltrox also has a dedicated aperture ring, as you can see below:
In terms of autofocus, the Viltrox AF 24mm f/1.8 definitely surprised me with its good autofocus performance – fast, accurate, and quiet. The Nikon Z 24mm f/1.8 S’s autofocus measures as slightly more consistent under lab conditions, but nothing that is likely to be obvious in real-world photography.
Finally, I should mention that there’s always some difference between first-party and third-party lenses. Nikon could always come out with a firmware update that harms the Viltrox’s autofocus performance. Props to Viltrox for building a USB-C port into the AF 24mm f/1.8, in order to mitigate this potential issue. But I still trust a native lens more than an off-brand lens, all else equal.
Image Quality
1. Vignetting
The Nikon Z 24mm f/1.8 S has much better vignetting performance than the Viltrox AF 24mm f/1.8. Not only is the Nikon lens much better wide-open, but upon stopping down, vignetting quickly reaches negligible levels on the Nikon Z 24mm f/1.8 S. One of my biggest complains with the Viltrox is that it has noticeable vignetting even at landscape apertures like f/8 through f/16.
2. Lateral Chromatic Aberration
Both lenses control lateral chromatic aberration to a very impressive degree. You will rarely, if ever, see this type of color fringing with either lens in real-world photos, even with chromatic aberration corrections turned off.
3. Distortion
The two lenses have very different distortion profiles, with the Viltrox measuring at 0.83% pincushion distortion and the Nikon measuring at -1.34% barrel distortion. This is a slight win for the Viltrox AF 24mm f/1.8, although neither lens has high enough distortion to be a nuisance in practice. I should also mention that the Viltrox’s distortion profile isn’t just simple pincushion distortion – it’s more of a wavy, mustache-shaped distortion, which can be a bit harder to remove completely in post-processing.
4. Sharpness
Now for the moment of truth! So far, the Viltrox lens is looking pretty good for the price, at least if you don’t need extensive weather sealing. But how do the two lenses perform in sharpness? Here’s what we measured in the lab.
It’s pretty clear that the Nikon Z 24mm f/1.8 S is the sharper lens. Central sharpness is never particularly close – the Nikon is way ahead, even at the narrower apertures. Corner sharpness also favors the Nikon lens, but it doesn’t really pull away until f/4. And it’s really the midframes where we see the biggest disparity, because the Viltrox has extensive field curvature that harms its sharpness on flat subjects (such as overlooks where everything is near infinity focus).
Still, the Viltrox AF 24mm f/1.8 is not a terrible performer and puts up a reasonable performance here. The Nikon Z 24mm f/1.8 S is simply one of the sharpest 24mm lenses we’ve ever tested, so it makes the Viltrox look worse by comparison.
Value and Recommendations
I don’t think that any photographers would seriously argue that the Viltrox AF 24mm f/1.8 is a better lens than the Nikon Z 24mm f/1.8 S. But is it a better value? At $380 rather than $1000, there’s definitely a case to be made.
To me, the biggest issues with the Viltrox AF 24mm f/1.8 are the lack of weatherproofing and the high levels of vignetting throughout the aperture range. Sharpness also clearly favors the Nikon Z 24mm f/1.8 S, but the Viltrox isn’t fatally bad in that department.
Personally, I would at least consider looking for a used copy of the Nikon Z 24mm f/1.8 S before buying the Viltrox, as the Nikon can be found for some pretty good prices on eBay these days (eBay partner program affiliate link). It’s definitely the better lens, and if you can find a good price on a used copy, I would snap it up.
That said, the Viltrox AF 24mm f/1.8 is obviously still cheaper. If you’re willing to work around some of its issues, you can get some great photos with the Viltrox and keep hundreds of dollars in your pocket along the way.
You can check the current prices, and support my testing efforts at Photography Life, at the following B&H affiliate links:
- Viltrox AF 24mm f/1.8 at B&H – Check prices and current sales
- Nikon Z 24mm f/1.8 S at B&H – Check prices and current sales
Let me know in the comment section if you have any questions about these two lenses! I’ve used them both in the field extensively and would be happy to help.
Well, actually I think the Nikkor Z 20mm F1.8 looks far more interesting to me. It is a great wide prime at a good price. It’s certainly worth comparing it with the 24mm lenses here. As you know it is really no contest once you do that. Given that lots of people have S zoom lenses which go to 24mm, a 20mm prime may be a better choice for most of us.
I agree, I think a 20mm f/1.8 is a bit more versatile and pairs better with a 24-XX zoom.
Hi,
You somehow forgot to mention the biggest plus of the Viltrox-the aperture ring!
The 24mm nikkor is the weakest of the Z lenses, the corners between f1.8 and f4 were much better on the 24mm f1.8 G lens for the Dslr’s, have a look at Thom Hogan’s review of the S lens.
This 24mm nikkor is good stopped down but the 24mm G lens was one of the best G lenses and one of the many reasons I went back to Dslr’s.
Also with the hood on it the 24mm S is one really ugly lens, looks like a mushroom!
This Viltrox is definitely one of the poorer Viltrox’s, the 13mm f1.4 for aps-c is terrific.
Interesting comparison, thank you.
“The 24mm nikkor is the weakest of the Z lenses, the corners between f1.8 and f4 were much better on the 24mm f1.8 G lens for the Dslr’s, have a look at Thom Hogan’s review of the S lens.”
In case anyone is interested:
Nikon Z 24mm f/1.8 S vs Nikon 24mm f/1.8G ED by Nasim Mansurov
photographylife.com/revie…4mm-f1-8-s
Sure thing, Mark – I just added a note about the aperture ring, not sure how I forgot to mention that here!
Based upon our tests, the Nikon Z 24mm f/1.8 outpaces the 24mm f/1.8G, but it’s definitely closer than most “Z vs F” comparisons – for instance, the difference is greater between the two 20mm f/1.8 and 50mm f/1.8 lenses.
I stand by our tests and MTF numbers that Pete linked to, but the two lenses are close enough that sample variation comes into play when choosing a “winner.” Thom may have tested a worse copy of the Z 24mm f/1.8, and we may have tested a worse copy of the 24mm f/1.8G.
I own several Viltrox lenses and my copies of the 23/33/56mm DX lenses suffer from incredible bad color reproduction and backlighting behavior (both easily the worst I’ve ever seen, probably due to a lack of coatings), while being reasonably sharp and having pretty fast AF.
The Viltrox 85mm f/1.8 on the other hand never made a bad impression on me.
Did you notice any major difference in color and backlighting performance on the Viltrox 24mm when compared to the Nikkor?
Thanks!
Often the case with cheap 3d party lenses is the lack of (good) coatings – resulting in a loss of contrast and flare ( like with old lenses) Nikons coatings are among the best. the latest 1.2 85mm lens is a very good example of this, but also a very expensive example.
That said i was disappointed with the 24mm 1.8s lens for it was hardly better than my 24mm 1.8G lens except for the mechanical part. Still waiting for a very good one. will be a very expensive one too i am sure…
The Nikkor is sharper wide open than the Viltrox at any aperture (in the center). Impressive.
Nikon’s f/1.8 primes have always been impressive, especially their mirrorless primes. I didn’t catch that tidbit until you pointed it out, though!