Nikon Z6 and Z7 mirrorless

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
7,424
Edit My Images
Yes
So I tried the 14-30mm last weekend. I didn't seem so sharp in the extreme corners at 14mm and 30mm especially at f4. Not trying to start a s*** throwing match here, just wondering what people's experience here is?
Its rather sharp most of the frame and also very/amazingly small which is very nice indeed.
 
Messages
15,311
Edit My Images
No
So I tried the 14-30mm last weekend. I didn't seem so sharp in the extreme corners at 14mm and 30mm especially at f4. Not trying to start a s*** throwing match here, just wondering what people's experience here is?
Its rather sharp most of the frame and also very/amazingly small which is very nice indeed.
I haven't used it but from the reviews I've seen it does say that sharpness does drop towards the corners when wide open, worse at 30mm, all of which can be improved dramatically by stopping down to f5.6-8. TBH this is what I'd expect from a wide angle, and is not too dissimilar to any lens really ie softer edges wide open. Now of course without trying myself I can't comment on how soft this is.

I have also read about sample variation which is disappointing considering how new these lenses are and that they are supposed to be premium lenses. It does seem that sample variation seems to be accepted amongst most manufacturers these days :(

All this being said, I think we're at a point now where we're generally getting picky. The sharpness of modern lenses is generally very good and a far cry from lenses of yesteryear. I've seen some mixed reviews about the 24-70mm f4, and even DXO's test scores is poor, but my copy is one of the sharpest lenses I've used, beating all the copies of the 24-70mm f2.8's I've had.
 

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
7,424
Edit My Images
Yes
I haven't used it but from the reviews I've seen it does say that sharpness does drop towards the corners when wide open, worse at 30mm, all of which can be improved dramatically by stopping down to f5.6-8. TBH this is what I'd expect from a wide angle, and is not too dissimilar to any lens really ie softer edges wide open. Now of course without trying myself I can't comment on how soft this is.

I have also read about sample variation which is disappointing considering how new these lenses are and that they are supposed to be premium lenses. It does seem that sample variation seems to be accepted amongst most manufacturers these days :(

All this being said, I think we're at a point now where we're generally getting picky. The sharpness of modern lenses is generally very good and a far cry from lenses of yesteryear. I've seen some mixed reviews about the 24-70mm f4, and even DXO's test scores is poor, but my copy is one of the sharpest lenses I've used, beating all the copies of the 24-70mm f2.8's I've had.
I only tested it at 14mm and 30mm at f4 and f11. It definitely got better at f11 but its the wide open performance I was referring to.
sample variation is certainly higher these days with most manufacturers I think. One of the reason I thought I'd come ask here about people's experience.


One more from the 14-30
I don't care about the corners for the way I use it.
This dramatic perspective is my reason for owning it.
I am not questioning its usefulness. 14mm end is one of the reasons this lens is interesting to me (other being its size).
Z7+14-30mm for me is a better combination than say A7RIII+16-35mm. I am just wondering how much sharpness I will gain/lose going with nikon.
 
Messages
15,311
Edit My Images
No
I only tested it at 14mm and 30mm at f4 and f11. It definitely got better at f11 but its the wide open performance I was referring to.
sample variation is certainly higher these days with most manufacturers I think. One of the reason I thought I'd come ask here about people's experience.




I am not questioning its usefulness. 14mm end is one of the reasons this lens is interesting to me (other being its size).
Z7+14-30mm for me is a better combination than say A7RIII+16-35mm. I am just wondering how much sharpness I will gain/lose going with nikon.
It's always difficult to compare across systems tbh, and then you could get a really good Sony 16-35mm f4 and a bad Nikon 14-30mm and vice versa. Looking at this (for what it's worth) and comparing it to the Nikon 24-70mm f4 (they haven't done the 14-30mm yet) the Sony does look like a good performer (based on my 24-70mm being very sharp) and I would say drop off at the edges is very acceptable (although CA's look quite pronounced)

https://www.the-digital-picture.com...ensComp=1214&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

I think most of the mid to high end modern lenses are more than good enough for me. Technique, light etc etc will play a much more pivotal role. YMMV (y)
 
Messages
594
Name
Amanda
Edit My Images
Yes
Messages
1,012
Name
Steven
Edit My Images
No
I used the Z6 for a mma event yesterday. After it my eyes were really weird, for about 30-45 minutes. I used the EVF the whole approx 5 hours and my eye was almost permanently looking through it. Any idea why this would happen? This is my first intensive usage of the Z6.
 
Messages
4,147
Name
Stephen
Edit My Images
Yes
I used the Z6 for a mma event yesterday. After it my eyes were really weird, for about 30-45 minutes. I used the EVF the whole approx 5 hours and my eye was almost permanently looking through it. Any idea why this would happen? This is my first intensive usage of the Z6.
Do you get this problem using other mirrorless cameras? Staring at a screen for 5 hours is not recommended!
 
Messages
5,629
Name
Trevor
Edit My Images
Yes
I used the Z6 for a mma event yesterday. After it my eyes were really weird, for about 30-45 minutes. I used the EVF the whole approx 5 hours and my eye was almost permanently looking through it. Any idea why this would happen? This is my first intensive usage of the Z6.
I’m not an optician. But I guess it’s just a case of too much screen time.
 
Messages
13,527
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
I used the Z6 for a mma event yesterday. After it my eyes were really weird, for about 30-45 minutes. I used the EVF the whole approx 5 hours and my eye was almost permanently looking through it. Any idea why this would happen? This is my first intensive usage of the Z6.
You say "eyes" - were both eyes feeling weird? Could it have been the lighting in the Arena? If it was the evf responsible it would surely only affect the eye that had been looking through it
 
Messages
1,012
Name
Steven
Edit My Images
No
Yes both my eyes felt strange but probably the right eye more. I've shot the exact same setup of lighting with my D850 and never had a problem. Could be a coincidence or too much screen time as suggested. I found it harder to focus on far off subjects once the fighting was over. It'll probably not happen again anyway as the Z6 isn't a camera for mma, but I wanted to see how it coped. Focus is not up to sports of any kind of speed. Happy with it for portraiture, still life, architecture and landscape though.
 

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
7,424
Edit My Images
Yes
It's always difficult to compare across systems tbh, and then you could get a really good Sony 16-35mm f4 and a bad Nikon 14-30mm and vice versa. Looking at this (for what it's worth) and comparing it to the Nikon 24-70mm f4 (they haven't done the 14-30mm yet) the Sony does look like a good performer (based on my 24-70mm being very sharp) and I would say drop off at the edges is very acceptable (although CA's look quite pronounced)

https://www.the-digital-picture.com...ensComp=1214&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

I think most of the mid to high end modern lenses are more than good enough for me. Technique, light etc etc will play a much more pivotal role. YMMV (y)
indeed, sample variation was another thing that came to mind. The lensrentals folks tests normally give us a good idea of how good/bad it is in terms of sample variation. I was hoping one of the advantages of a large mount was less sample variation due simpler optical designs as nikon (and canon) have claimed.

CA doesn't bother me too much tbh. I am not sure how bad the corner drop off is hence I commented here. I was pixel peeping on the camera, so its not good to judge it solely based on this.

Anyway I am still pleased that they have gone with the 14-30mm design. The sony 16-35mm is hardly the sharpest at 35mm anyway (or after 28mm). So even if Nikon matches sony at 16mm-30mm, its still a better lens in my books.
 
Messages
257
Name
David
Edit My Images
Yes
indeed, sample variation was another thing that came to mind. The lensrentals folks tests normally give us a good idea of how good/bad it is in terms of sample variation. I was hoping one of the advantages of a large mount was less sample variation due simpler optical designs as nikon (and canon) have claimed.

CA doesn't bother me too much tbh. I am not sure how bad the corner drop off is hence I commented here. I was pixel peeping on the camera, so its not good to judge it solely based on this.

Anyway I am still pleased that they have gone with the 14-30mm design. The sony 16-35mm is hardly the sharpest at 35mm anyway (or after 28mm). So even if Nikon matches sony at 16mm-30mm, its still a better lens in my books.
Another couple from my alternative to the 14-30. The first is typical of the sort of thing I like to do with this Samyang 14mm f2.8 and the harbour scene shows the slightly pinched to the top rather than stretched to the edges which the lens does uncorrected. Anyone recognise where it is, incidentally?
https://flic.kr/p/2gbXnJZ
https://flic.kr/p/2gbXzhR
 
Last edited:
Messages
257
Name
David
Edit My Images
Yes
havn't really got the hang of inserting a link to Flickr yet :mad:. At least there seems to be two photos now. They will in due course probably disappear as I only have a free account
 

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
7,424
Edit My Images
Yes
Another couple from my alternative to the 14-30. The first is typical of the sort of thing I like to do with this Samyang 14mm f2.8 and the harbour scene shows the slightly pinched to the top rather than stretched to the edges which the lens does uncorrected. Anyone recognise where it is, incidentally?
https://flic.kr/p/2gbXnJZ
https://flic.kr/p/2gbXzhR
Hardly an alternative IMO but horses for courses and all that ;)
 
Messages
257
Name
David
Edit My Images
Yes
I did write MY alternative ;). Of course for anyone who wants a zoom, it's no alternative at all. But I know that about 75% of all my shots taken with an ultrawide zoom in the past have been at the widest focal length. I'd argue that's mainly what you're paying for but I've also sometimes used a zoom out to around 35mm together with a telephoto, mising out the normal range altogether. I think the Tamron 17-35 would come into serious consideration for that.
 

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
7,424
Edit My Images
Yes
I did write MY alternative ;). Of course for anyone who wants a zoom, it's no alternative at all. But I know that about 75% of all my shots taken with an ultrawide zoom in the past have been at the widest focal length. I'd argue that's mainly what you're paying for but I've also sometimes used a zoom out to around 35mm together with a telephoto, mising out the normal range altogether. I think the Tamron 17-35 would come into serious consideration for that.
The zoom is one thing but that lens is HUGE with no filter ring and lots of distortion. It's a DSLR designed lens and UWA lenses are one area where you can really make some great size saving by going mirrorless.
I currently use a prime myself but I do miss the zoom sometimes.
 
Messages
15,311
Edit My Images
No
havn't really got the hang of inserting a link to Flickr yet :mad:. At least there seems to be two photos now. They will in due course probably disappear as I only have a free account
Copy and paste the bbcode, I usually select the largest of the medium sizes. They shouldn’t disappear unless you exceed the allowed number of photos on Flickr (y)
 
Messages
4,147
Name
Stephen
Edit My Images
Yes
The zoom is one thing but that lens is HUGE with no filter ring and lots of distortion. It's a DSLR designed lens and UWA lenses are one area where you can really make some great size saving by going mirrorless.
I currently use a prime myself but I do miss the zoom sometimes.
Each to their own. I'm sure David was well aware of the size of the lens when he decided to buy one to try it. And if I'm not mistaken, David has had long experience of m4/3 and wide-angle lenses :). For sure, it's not a lens for me - I'm happy enough with the Tamron. I'm too indecisive for prime lenses, unfortunately.
 
Messages
257
Name
David
Edit My Images
Yes
Copy and paste the bbcode, I usually select the largest of the medium sizes. They shouldn’t disappear unless you exceed the allowed number of photos on Flickr (y)
OK --"bbcode" instead of "share" tab -- will try that next time. And with disappear, I meant I will simply delete them :)
 
Last edited:
Messages
257
Name
David
Edit My Images
Yes
The zoom is one thing but that lens is HUGE with no filter ring and lots of distortion. It's a DSLR designed lens and UWA lenses are one area where you can really make some great size saving by going mirrorless.
I currently use a prime myself but I do miss the zoom sometimes.
This is actually one of the smaller FF DSLR UWA lenses, weighing around just 50g more than the 14-30. Of course the designed for mirrorless Nikon enables a less bulbous end. The Samyang is indeed notorious for distortions (there has to be cost cutting somewhere) but this is rarely an issue with landscape and can be largely corrected in LR if needed.
 

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
7,424
Edit My Images
Yes
This is actually one of the smaller FF DSLR UWA lenses, weighing around just 50g more than the 14-30. Of course the designed for mirrorless Nikon enables a less bulbous end. The Samyang is indeed notorious for distortions (there has to be cost cutting somewhere) but this is rarely an issue with landscape and can be largely corrected in LR if needed.
Weight is one thing what about the size ;)

I used to own it and I paid £125 for it off eBay. For that price it was amazing. But it's not a lens I'd swap to mirrorless for :D
 
Messages
257
Name
David
Edit My Images
Yes
Each to their own. I'm sure David was well aware of the size of the lens when he decided to buy one to try it. And if I'm not mistaken, David has had long experience of m4/3 and wide-angle lenses :). For sure, it's not a lens for me - I'm happy enough with the Tamron. I'm too indecisive for prime lenses, unfortunately.
no previous experience of UWA primes, simply because in the past there were hardly any with a reasonable price/performance ratio. It's largely thanks to the likes of Samyang, Sigma and Irix that the situation has substantially changed. But the second hand lens I saw in the shop before deciding to get it. Still ten days to change my mind!
 
Messages
4,147
Name
Stephen
Edit My Images
Yes
no previous experience of UWA primes, simply because in the past there were hardly any with a reasonable price/performance ratio. It's largely thanks to the likes of Samyang, Sigma and Irix that the situation has substantially changed. But the second hand lens I saw in the shop before deciding to get it. Still ten days to change my mind!
Ah, I thought you'd had a Samyang with your Panasonic.
 
Messages
257
Name
David
Edit My Images
Yes
Weight is one thing what about the size ;)

I used to own it and I paid £125 for it off eBay. For that price it was amazing. But it's not a lens I'd swap to mirrorless for :D
Of course I didn't swap to mirrorless for this lens and indeed the original plan was always the 14-30. At under 1/4 of the price, I thought it worth a shot anyway. Especially as it's f2.8
 

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
7,424
Edit My Images
Yes
no previous experience of UWA primes, simply because in the past there were hardly any with a reasonable price/performance ratio. It's largely thanks to the likes of Samyang, Sigma and Irix that the situation has substantially changed. But the second hand lens I saw in the shop before deciding to get it. Still ten days to change my mind!
Of course I didn't swap to mirrorless for this lens and indeed the original plan was always the 14-30. At under 1/4 of the price, I thought it worth a shot anyway. Especially as it's f2.8
I have a bit of experience with UWA zooms and primes. They are speciality lenses much like telephoto primes (just on the other end) and hence cost more that the "standard" focal lengths (~24-100mm).

currently I use laowa 15mm f2 which is a great lens (and in pretty much every way better than samyang) but also costs 3x more than the samyang.
if you are willing to adapt there are plenty of options for z mount especially since you can even adapt e-mount lenses.
 
Messages
257
Name
David
Edit My Images
Yes
I have a bit of experience with UWA zooms and primes. They are speciality lenses much like telephoto primes (just on the other end) and hence cost more that the "standard" focal lengths (~24-100mm).

currently I use laowa 15mm f2 which is a great lens (and in pretty much every way better than samyang) but also costs 3x more than the samyang.
if you are willing to adapt there are plenty of options for z mount especially since you can even adapt e-mount lenses.
most reviews of the Laowa (other than one or two specialising in astrophotography) I've seen have been positive and I'd expect a lens at that price to outclass the original Samyang. No electronic communication with the camera would probably rule out anything at that price -- of course I accept it with AIS Nikons but this is a modern lens.
 

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
7,424
Edit My Images
Yes
most reviews of the Laowa (other than one or two specialising in astrophotography) I've seen have been positive and I'd expect a lens at that price to outclass the original Samyang. No electronic communication with the camera would probably rule out anything at that price -- of course I accept it with AIS Nikons but this is a modern lens.
Lack of electronic communications is bit disappointing for sure. But it's something I'm willing to look past especially for UWA lenses if it's optically good.
 
Messages
257
Name
David
Edit My Images
Yes
Lack of electronic communications is bit disappointing for sure. But it's something I'm willing to look past especially for UWA lenses if it's optically good.
Anyway, it's always useful to hear a positive endorsement by a fellow Z user and if Laowa come up with a native Z mount version (ideally) with electronics, I'd certainly be interested, particularly given the relatively low weight, size and f2.
 
Messages
15,311
Edit My Images
No
Top