Great review. A very good "walkin' around" lens and typical build. I still think they want too much for this lens. It's a step up in versatility over the default 16-50 kit lens, but seems a little fragile. I never did like these telescoping zooms because they inhale dust as you zoom and weather sealing is lame. The nested barrels are also a point of wear so external abuse like bumping against walls or railings with the zoom extended accelerates the degradation of the cams and these helical gooves that control spacing between lens groups as you zoom. This design is common, but it builds in a process by which focus will get softer over time. So a new sample may be crisp, and a well used 5-year old example is very likely to exhibit soft focus or greater chromatic aberration. Focus is fast because there is a tiny internal group that moves so the mass is low. Downside to this is fairly significant focus breathing. At minimum focus distance the effective focal length is compromised.
This is at least the second Z mount lens you've reviewed that shows "diffraction" loss of sharpness before f is a tiny hole. I suspect that something else is going on that resembles diffraction. The reason I think this might be important to point out is that if it is the result of some other technology of the Z mount lenses, it's probably something that Nikon is aware of and corrects for in their more expensive S lenses, but not in the mid-range and low priced lenses. If this is the case, we can expect more or most of the non-S lenses to have this early loss of sharpness, unfortunately. I generally can't afford the S lenses yet, but I love the two that I do have!
I imagine a lot of people keep compensation for this on. I don’t. Generally you’ll get diffraction at some point to some degree past 6.3-7.1 though it’s gotten better since the F mount days. The only lens so far that was unusually bad was the 35mm f/1.4
@@NikonDave I have had one lens that didn’t come with a lens hood. The others have. Also, I think in other videos I stopped calling them out because I told them I was going to be renting thousands of $$$ for reviews and asked for a 5% coupon code for all of you, and were pretty mono tone copy/paste in telling me no. lol. I didn’t even ask for a discount myself, just something for my subscribers.
Great video but still not happy with the term full frame equivalent. I hate all plastic mounts 50mm and longer. I hate external focus lenses longer than 300mm. And I hate variable aperture on lenses in the studio ,, 🦘
More DX lenses please Nikon !! Well done ZWade!
Thanks for watching JRod!
i have this lens on my Nikon Zfc and love it , one and done when out on my photowalks.
A lens to rule them all, for some 🤙🤙🤙🤙
Great review. A very good "walkin' around" lens and typical build. I still think they want too much for this lens. It's a step up in versatility over the default 16-50 kit lens, but seems a little fragile.
I never did like these telescoping zooms because they inhale dust as you zoom and weather sealing is lame.
The nested barrels are also a point of wear so external abuse like bumping against walls or railings with the zoom extended accelerates the degradation of the cams and these helical gooves that control spacing between lens groups as you zoom. This design is common, but it builds in a process by which focus will get softer over time. So a new sample may be crisp, and a well used 5-year old example is very likely to exhibit soft focus or greater chromatic aberration.
Focus is fast because there is a tiny internal group that moves so the mass is low. Downside to this is fairly significant focus breathing. At minimum focus distance the effective focal length is compromised.
Good points.
Great review. I think this lens would be great for casual outdoor video recording with its fast and silent focusing.
@@Sam-jg5zv 🙌🙌🙌🙌🙌🙌
This is at least the second Z mount lens you've reviewed that shows "diffraction" loss of sharpness before f is a tiny hole. I suspect that something else is going on that resembles diffraction. The reason I think this might be important to point out is that if it is the result of some other technology of the Z mount lenses, it's probably something that Nikon is aware of and corrects for in their more expensive S lenses, but not in the mid-range and low priced lenses. If this is the case, we can expect more or most of the non-S lenses to have this early loss of sharpness, unfortunately. I generally can't afford the S lenses yet, but I love the two that I do have!
I imagine a lot of people keep compensation for this on. I don’t. Generally you’ll get diffraction at some point to some degree past 6.3-7.1 though it’s gotten better since the F mount days.
The only lens so far that was unusually bad was the 35mm f/1.4
@@ZWadePhoto Thank you
Wasn't LenRentals...One of the few Z mount that didn't come with a hood.
@@NikonDave I have had one lens that didn’t come with a lens hood. The others have.
Also, I think in other videos I stopped calling them out because I told them I was going to be renting thousands of $$$ for reviews and asked for a 5% coupon code for all of you, and were pretty mono tone copy/paste in telling me no. lol. I didn’t even ask for a discount myself, just something for my subscribers.
The copy I had showed extreme vignette at 18mm. Returned it,….
Thanks for watching 🙏
Great video but still not happy with the term full frame equivalent.
I hate all plastic mounts 50mm and longer.
I hate external focus lenses longer than 300mm.
And I hate variable aperture on lenses in the studio ,, 🦘
@@roybixby6135 I agree with all that, but still a decent performance compared to what was on offer when I started haha