The ultra wide to wide prime or zoom use case is binary/exclusive; its either low light or high light. If you have the Z 20 f1.8 there is no point to buy the Z 14-24 f2.8 and vice versa. So, the choice is really the following. Buy the Z 20 f1.8 and Z 14-30 f4 or you buy the Z 14-24 f2.8 For use cases involving low light, the Z 20 f1.8 is going to be the winner over the Z 14-24 f2.8. For uses cases not involving low light, the Z 14-30 f4 is going to be the winner over the Z 14-24 f2.8. The Z 14-24 f2.8 is the compromise option. Its not going to be the best in low light, and its not going to be the best in high light. But, it is one lens vs two lenses. Cost-wise, its more expensive to go with the f2.8 zoom, especially with recent sale prices of the other two. I've had the Z 14-30 f4 for a year now. Got the Z 20 f1.8 a few months ago. They are both exceptional lenses for their use case. Spending $2400 for a compromise lens is not an appealing option for me, but your results may vary. The Z 20 f1.8 is almost the Z 50 f1.8 overall. Its that good. Additionally, it is the best astro lens Nikon has ever made by a fair margin. It is the destroyer of all ultra wide to wide prime and zoom lenses for FF, period, any brand. Although it is not a zoom, APS-C mode is no problem for this lens IQ wise. The resolving power is simply amazing. The Z 14-30 f4 obviously has the zoom range and additional range beyond the f2.8 zoom, while still being light, small, takes common screw in filters, and is quite capable in better light conditions. There are basically zero downsides to this lens other than it being one stop slower than the f2.8 zoom. Perfect for general landscape, architecture, real estate, general video, video on gimbals, and more. The f4 ultra wide to wide zooms did not used to be this good. They are now. Ive even used it for astro with modest results on the Z6/II.
Thank you for this comparison. The 20mm has been on my radar for a couple of months and I've been looking at all kinds of reviews (lab, street, landscape, night) and your astro video seals the deal pretty much for me.
112mm is a HUGE filter! Wow. Great video. That 1.8 aperture is also a huge point in favor of the prime, which you could also use for video work in low light.
Ya the 112mm is massive lol. NISI did come out with a 100mm square filter adapter. I've been holding off on buying it, but I think that may be the better option. That's a good point on the prime, I don't have much video experience, but makes sense that it would really lend a hand to making low light videos.
Thanks for you nice video, i still ordered the 14-24mm and i cannot wait to hold it in my hands 😍 By the way you have brilliant astro-pictures, they looks good, i like your videos keep going. 💪
Thank you for the kind words and encouragement. You'll love the lens! I was excited to get to mess with it for a week and wasnt even buying it yet. You'll have to let me know what you think of it once you get it.
I have the 14-24 for versatility. With reasonable static photos, it pays off to just stack a couple of Milky Way exposures. Only time it likely isn’t fast enough is for meteorites/fast moving aurora photography. Then you want that f/1.8 or less. Please sigma release the 14 f1.4 for Z mount 🎉.
I can't wait one day to shoot an aurora. Having never experienced, I never really thought about the f/1.8 being an advantage in that use. One day Sigma will lol
I don’t understand why people worry about it getting darker out at the edges, I think it looks better, because naturally you would expect it to get darker as you get farther away from the Milky Way.
For Astro, while the new 20 F1.8S is better than the old 20 F1.8G in every category, but it's still not that hot, still have tons of coma and lacking behind its competitor, Sony 20 F1.8, it's also a huge lens in comparison too. i am a little surprise to see such optic performance give how big the lens is when compare to the Sony 20.
Unfortunately I can't speak much for the Sony's as I've never tried them. Although as you said, Sony does make a great product from what I hear and I think there's a reason lots of people use their cameras over Nikon and Canon!
@@willchaneyphoto thanks! are you generally happy with the Z6? mainly asking forthe noise and megapixels... i know the Z6 performs better than the Z7 in low light, but im still a bit concerned about the lowered Mps... i am currently shooting with the D810, which has 36 Mp, so the Z6 would be a downgrade in that area...
@@Nicolas-eo7lo I absolutely love it, however my camera before was a D3200 so anything was going to be a huge improvement hah. Noise wise I've been happy with it. I mostly shoot astro shots at ISO6400 and I've never had an issue as long as the exposure time was long enough and the scene is lit properly.
@@willchaneyphoto thanks for the fast answer! good to hear. i'm also mostly interested in night photography (as you can see on my website nicolasperspective.com)... still unsure about the price and how the Z series holds up at heavy minus temperatures etc. thanks anyways, great tutorials and i'm happy to stick around for future reviews on the Z camers! cheers from Switzerland.
I would care about the high price of 14-24 and the further expense on filter. 20 I would care about the sharpness. Not sure how different between the two?
Nice comparison, with some time between the two trials. It is hard to decide, optically, maybe, what are star trails (earth rotation and travel caused motion blur) or atmospheric effects, versus optical artifacts. As f/1.8 is more than 1 f-stop from f/2.8 (we don't know the T-stops, do we?), I had expected half the exposure time or shorter for the f/1.8, thus reducing the star trails to begin with, but I noticed a difference only from 25 sec to 20 sec when 2.8 -> 1.8 would predict 10 seconds. And the 1.8 shots looked deeper into the universe because of this? Prejudice has it that the Z 6 has better high ISO and I believe that to be true, but the 7 has a larger dynamic range (counter intuitive to me) as well as a larger color space and it lacks the glass AA filter over the sensor. That AA filter, in my book, is the "fuzzy filter" as the dispersion it causes to aid processing raw data into RGB pixels, by definition causes reduction of sharpness. See the difference between D800 and D800E for comparison of the effect. This then brings us to raw processing. Converting raw data from the camera's scanning of the sensor to RGB - deBayerization and demosaicking - is actually what we look at when we "judge" our cameras and lenses in Lightroom. The raw processing profile in LR does a lot and can be generic or camera specific. And this applies to lens profiles too. I noticed that LR does not do the deBayerization and demosaicking properly, out of the box, for my Z 7 (now replaced by Z 7II). I also noticed LR did a different job with Z 7 files when there was an F-mount lens (with FTZ) on it (better demosaicking out of the box). Nikon Capture NX-D did a good job, out of the box, without messing with sliders for half an hour per image, but it is limited and has an awkward UI. Capture One 20 (C1.20) did a good job, but had no specific support for 3 of my 5 Z 1.8S lenses. As the firm cannot commit to what is included in a version's updates, versus what needs to be bought as a paid upgrade, this is a no-go commercially for me. I tested DxO PhotoLab 4 (PL4) and its noise processing AI "deepPRIME" is incredibly good. But opening a folder with a couple dozen Z 7 raw shots takes ages to build thumbnail-previews each time you go to that folder - designed as plugin to LR, apparently. The resulting PL4 file edits not compatible with LR, going to the plugin and back requires format conversions - meh. A thing to test along these raw processing lines are the apps from Topaz. I never bought one after a test last year proved installation and using of Gigapixel AI was not reliable, but they have improved. Topaz noise processing is stellar, though, and in the region of PL4. Topaz also have a sharpening app and an upscaling (upsampling - inventing pixels) app that work very well. The upsampling made details visible that I had not thought were there. Way better than upscaling in Photoshop (that has an old and a new algorithm). As a LR user, though, I feel I already paid for these Topaz qualities in my photographic subscription. The Mudbricks (*) must work more effectively and spend my money much better. Every time the Mudbricks announce functionality X in product C that they already had in A, where A does a better X than C, I feel robbed. Photoshop's panorama stitching is incredibly clever when LR's is not. So, I don't need LR's version and feel the Mudbricks have wasted my money by creating a separate code, with different programmers, different algorithms. And then all the services running in the background of my PC all the time. In short, assessing camera and lens qualities may be 90% raw processing evaluation. (*) [dictionary:] adobe - mudbrick
I own both. If your concerned about the cost, which most are. You can buy the 14-30 f4 and 20 1.8 and still have money left over compared to the 14-24 2.8.
Really depends on if you want 14mm for your Milky Way shots. If 20mm is good enough for you, the 14-30mm + 20mm combo is good. Problem is now you've got two lenses to carry around. I really like the 14-24 as an all around. The 24-70mm kit lens covers me for those extra few mm of focal length.
Good video and good information but let down, in my humble opinion, by background music. Glad I already have Z 20mm so no need to be tempted by other wides.
for me im going with the 20 1.8..I have a D850 im still holding onto and the Z 6ii..for my D850 Im using the Sigma Art 14mm 1.8 and I absolutely love it for Astro and maybe even some landscape if I do stacking (I can't put a filter on it and would need something like the Nisi s6 holder kit with all the NDs and CPL) but I don't want something cumbersome like that if I need filters for daytime long exposures or video work(I mainly used my 24-70 2.8 ed for daytime long exposures with breakthrough ND filters). Since I am jumping more into video im thinking I can get away with the 20 1.8 on my z 6ii and grab some Kase magnetic filters for it. and I still might be able to get some crazy video prospective on the sigma 14mm with ftz to the z 6ii and use it in controlled light or night time video. Def grabbing the 20mm!
If you want to get into deep space objects your longer focal length lenses will do an okay job, but you’ll need a star tracker. If you want to get into nightscapes with the Milky Way, there’s some cheap entry level wide angle lens options by Rokinon that work great for getting started. When they go on sale you can get them for as low as $300. I have a video on what’s needed to get started and how to figure out where you can go shoot. How To Photograph the Milky Way Part 1 - Getting Your First Photo ua-cam.com/video/yT5eaIzV4yE/v-deo.html
Good video, any thoughts on the 14-30 f4 and how it compares to the 14-24? I have the 14-30 but was considering selling it and a few other lenses and getting the 14-24. Then again maybe I could added the 20 1.8s. Keep up the good content!
Thanks, I really appreciate it. Unfortunately I've never shot with the 14-30, so I can't give a synopsis from experience. The f/4 would be the reason I'd stay away from it for astro, but I've shot some okay stuff with my 24-70 f/4 kit lens. The 14-30 probably does okay when shooting at 14mm, it's just not going to be as bright. It'd probably work out though if you planned on stacking 10 or so images with some dark frames. For me, I'd probably look at the 14-30 as a landscape lens if I end up choosing the 20mm when I do eventually buy. I'm sure the optics on the 14-30 are great though if they're anything like the 14-24 and the 20mm. Hope that helps!
This here is a nice video indeed. Another Ytoober doing lens comparisons is Ricci Chera, trainer at the British "Nikon School" (these are third party "schools" that have a contract with Nikon to brand their programs this way). His channel is called "Ricci Talks". Because of his job, he has access to products that most people don't have because of financial limitations. And a nice guy doing a nice job.
I'll be honest that I'm not as adept with using the lens for video. I would definitely say the 14-24mm will be a step up from the 14-30mm from a light standpoint since you will gain 1 stop of exposure going from f/4 to f/2.8. However, if shooting interiors, the depth of field at f/2.8 may be a hinderance for getting everything in focus. If you are on the cusps of purchasing it, I would recommend renting it first to see if the price tag is worth it for you. Spending the little extra to rent it was worth it for me. The 20mm is going to give you better low light performance than either the 14-30 or the 14-24, but with an even shallower depth of field at f/1.8. You then have to make sure your subject, I'm assuming inside hotel rooms based on your videos, that 20mm's gives you the focal length you need. Hope that helps in some way!
Hello...Thank you for nice video.. I was still expecting the same image comparison for the two lenses.. So I can check how much of field of view is taken by 14 and 20 mm.. Something like that.
Looking back on it, ya I definitely should have. I actually show that in my 14-24mm lens review video. I also just added that photo into my blog post that correlates to this video as well in case you want to see it! willchaney.com/2020/12/11/nikon-z-14-24mm-f-2-8-s-vs-nikon-20mm-f-1-8-s-astrophotography-comparison/
lol as an Engineer in the US, I hope you’ll understand that I have a deep appreciation for the metric system. I just tend to go with what I grew up with 🤣
The ultra wide to wide prime or zoom use case is binary/exclusive; its either low light or high light. If you have the Z 20 f1.8 there is no point to buy the Z 14-24 f2.8 and vice versa. So, the choice is really the following. Buy the Z 20 f1.8 and Z 14-30 f4 or you buy the Z 14-24 f2.8 For use cases involving low light, the Z 20 f1.8 is going to be the winner over the Z 14-24 f2.8. For uses cases not involving low light, the Z 14-30 f4 is going to be the winner over the Z 14-24 f2.8. The Z 14-24 f2.8 is the compromise option. Its not going to be the best in low light, and its not going to be the best in high light. But, it is one lens vs two lenses. Cost-wise, its more expensive to go with the f2.8 zoom, especially with recent sale prices of the other two. I've had the Z 14-30 f4 for a year now. Got the Z 20 f1.8 a few months ago. They are both exceptional lenses for their use case. Spending $2400 for a compromise lens is not an appealing option for me, but your results may vary.
The Z 20 f1.8 is almost the Z 50 f1.8 overall. Its that good. Additionally, it is the best astro lens Nikon has ever made by a fair margin. It is the destroyer of all ultra wide to wide prime and zoom lenses for FF, period, any brand. Although it is not a zoom, APS-C mode is no problem for this lens IQ wise. The resolving power is simply amazing. The Z 14-30 f4 obviously has the zoom range and additional range beyond the f2.8 zoom, while still being light, small, takes common screw in filters, and is quite capable in better light conditions. There are basically zero downsides to this lens other than it being one stop slower than the f2.8 zoom. Perfect for general landscape, architecture, real estate, general video, video on gimbals, and more. The f4 ultra wide to wide zooms did not used to be this good. They are now. Ive even used it for astro with modest results on the Z6/II.
Good work showing the extreme corners - a very often ignored part of UA-cam lens videos. Thanks for the video.
Thanks David!
Thank you for this comparison. The 20mm has been on my radar for a couple of months and I've been looking at all kinds of reviews (lab, street, landscape, night) and your astro video seals the deal pretty much for me.
Glad I could help! Did you end up buying it? If so, how are you liking it?
@@willchaneyphoto Hello Yamen, I am also thinking about the 20mm, did you pick it up?
112mm is a HUGE filter! Wow. Great video. That 1.8 aperture is also a huge point in favor of the prime, which you could also use for video work in low light.
Ya the 112mm is massive lol. NISI did come out with a 100mm square filter adapter. I've been holding off on buying it, but I think that may be the better option. That's a good point on the prime, I don't have much video experience, but makes sense that it would really lend a hand to making low light videos.
Thanks for you nice video, i still ordered the 14-24mm and i cannot wait to hold it in my hands 😍
By the way you have brilliant astro-pictures, they looks good, i like your videos keep going. 💪
Thank you for the kind words and encouragement. You'll love the lens! I was excited to get to mess with it for a week and wasnt even buying it yet. You'll have to let me know what you think of it once you get it.
Great Video Will >> Just ordered my 20mm f1.8 Z Lens for my Z7 for Milky Way
Thank you! Let me know what you think about it once you get a chance to do some shooting with it.
Thank you very much for your efforts and sharing. We are sincerely thankful. Have a wonderful time ahead.
Thank you for this Video and greatings from germany ✌🏻.
I have the 14-24 for versatility. With reasonable static photos, it pays off to just stack a couple of Milky Way exposures. Only time it likely isn’t fast enough is for meteorites/fast moving aurora photography. Then you want that f/1.8 or less. Please sigma release the 14 f1.4 for Z mount 🎉.
I can't wait one day to shoot an aurora. Having never experienced, I never really thought about the f/1.8 being an advantage in that use. One day Sigma will lol
Thanks! Thank for the comparison.
You bet! it was a lot of fun to put it together.
I don’t understand why people worry about it getting darker out at the edges, I think it looks better, because naturally you would expect it to get darker as you get farther away from the Milky Way.
in all darker photos also
And that’s why no one will remember your name.
For Astro, while the new 20 F1.8S is better than the old 20 F1.8G in every category, but it's still not that hot, still have tons of coma and lacking behind its competitor, Sony 20 F1.8, it's also a huge lens in comparison too. i am a little surprise to see such optic performance give how big the lens is when compare to the Sony 20.
Unfortunately I can't speak much for the Sony's as I've never tried them. Although as you said, Sony does make a great product from what I hear and I think there's a reason lots of people use their cameras over Nikon and Canon!
finally, the review i have been looking for... what nikon Z body did you use to take the images?
I shot it with a Z6
@@willchaneyphoto thanks! are you generally happy with the Z6? mainly asking forthe noise and megapixels... i know the Z6 performs better than the Z7 in low light, but im still a bit concerned about the lowered Mps... i am currently shooting with the D810, which has 36 Mp, so the Z6 would be a downgrade in that area...
@@Nicolas-eo7lo I absolutely love it, however my camera before was a D3200 so anything was going to be a huge improvement hah. Noise wise I've been happy with it. I mostly shoot astro shots at ISO6400 and I've never had an issue as long as the exposure time was long enough and the scene is lit properly.
@@willchaneyphoto thanks for the fast answer! good to hear. i'm also mostly interested in night photography (as you can see on my website nicolasperspective.com)... still unsure about the price and how the Z series holds up at heavy minus temperatures etc. thanks anyways, great tutorials and i'm happy to stick around for future reviews on the Z camers! cheers from Switzerland.
I would care about the high price of 14-24 and the further expense on filter. 20 I would care about the sharpness. Not sure how different between the two?
Nice comparison, with some time between the two trials. It is hard to decide, optically, maybe, what are star trails (earth rotation and travel caused motion blur) or atmospheric effects, versus optical artifacts.
As f/1.8 is more than 1 f-stop from f/2.8 (we don't know the T-stops, do we?), I had expected half the exposure time or shorter for the f/1.8, thus reducing the star trails to begin with, but I noticed a difference only from 25 sec to 20 sec when 2.8 -> 1.8 would predict 10 seconds. And the 1.8 shots looked deeper into the universe because of this?
Prejudice has it that the Z 6 has better high ISO and I believe that to be true, but the 7 has a larger dynamic range (counter intuitive to me) as well as a larger color space and it lacks the glass AA filter over the sensor. That AA filter, in my book, is the "fuzzy filter" as the dispersion it causes to aid processing raw data into RGB pixels, by definition causes reduction of sharpness. See the difference between D800 and D800E for comparison of the effect.
This then brings us to raw processing. Converting raw data from the camera's scanning of the sensor to RGB - deBayerization and demosaicking - is actually what we look at when we "judge" our cameras and lenses in Lightroom. The raw processing profile in LR does a lot and can be generic or camera specific. And this applies to lens profiles too. I noticed that LR does not do the deBayerization and demosaicking properly, out of the box, for my Z 7 (now replaced by Z 7II). I also noticed LR did a different job with Z 7 files when there was an F-mount lens (with FTZ) on it (better demosaicking out of the box). Nikon Capture NX-D did a good job, out of the box, without messing with sliders for half an hour per image, but it is limited and has an awkward UI. Capture One 20 (C1.20) did a good job, but had no specific support for 3 of my 5 Z 1.8S lenses. As the firm cannot commit to what is included in a version's updates, versus what needs to be bought as a paid upgrade, this is a no-go commercially for me. I tested DxO PhotoLab 4 (PL4) and its noise processing AI "deepPRIME" is incredibly good. But opening a folder with a couple dozen Z 7 raw shots takes ages to build thumbnail-previews each time you go to that folder - designed as plugin to LR, apparently. The resulting PL4 file edits not compatible with LR, going to the plugin and back requires format conversions - meh.
A thing to test along these raw processing lines are the apps from Topaz. I never bought one after a test last year proved installation and using of Gigapixel AI was not reliable, but they have improved. Topaz noise processing is stellar, though, and in the region of PL4. Topaz also have a sharpening app and an upscaling (upsampling - inventing pixels) app that work very well. The upsampling made details visible that I had not thought were there. Way better than upscaling in Photoshop (that has an old and a new algorithm).
As a LR user, though, I feel I already paid for these Topaz qualities in my photographic subscription. The Mudbricks (*) must work more effectively and spend my money much better. Every time the Mudbricks announce functionality X in product C that they already had in A, where A does a better X than C, I feel robbed. Photoshop's panorama stitching is incredibly clever when LR's is not. So, I don't need LR's version and feel the Mudbricks have wasted my money by creating a separate code, with different programmers, different algorithms. And then all the services running in the background of my PC all the time.
In short, assessing camera and lens qualities may be 90% raw processing evaluation.
(*) [dictionary:] adobe - mudbrick
I own both. If your concerned about the cost, which most are. You can buy the 14-30 f4 and 20 1.8 and still have money left over compared to the 14-24 2.8.
Hi will Chaney good work!
My question : 14-30f4 + 20 f1.8 or 14-24 f2.8? for both landscape n astrophotography? Which one do u recommend?
Really depends on if you want 14mm for your Milky Way shots. If 20mm is good enough for you, the 14-30mm + 20mm combo is good. Problem is now you've got two lenses to carry around. I really like the 14-24 as an all around. The 24-70mm kit lens covers me for those extra few mm of focal length.
Good video and good information but let down, in my humble opinion, by background music. Glad I already have Z 20mm so no need to be tempted by other wides.
Noted!
I own both lenses and both are amazing!
One of these day's I'm going to also snag a 20mm! Hope you're enjoying them both!
Great comparison review. Thank you. I think I need both! :}
Thank you! I think I need them both too ha
How about add Sigma 14mm F1.8 DG HSM ART into this battle?
Great lens, nice pictures, congratulations 👍
Thank you! 👍
for me im going with the 20 1.8..I have a D850 im still holding onto and the Z 6ii..for my D850 Im using the Sigma Art 14mm 1.8 and I absolutely love it for Astro and maybe even some landscape if I do stacking (I can't put a filter on it and would need something like the Nisi s6 holder kit with all the NDs and CPL) but I don't want something cumbersome like that if I need filters for daytime long exposures or video work(I mainly used my 24-70 2.8 ed for daytime long exposures with breakthrough ND filters). Since I am jumping more into video im thinking I can get away with the 20 1.8 on my z 6ii and grab some Kase magnetic filters for it. and I still might be able to get some crazy video prospective on the sigma 14mm with ftz to the z 6ii and use it in controlled light or night time video. Def grabbing the 20mm!
So I normally photograph wildlife, basically birds.. how do I start photographing the sky? What equipment do I need?
If you want to get into deep space objects your longer focal length lenses will do an okay job, but you’ll need a star tracker. If you want to get into nightscapes with the Milky Way, there’s some cheap entry level wide angle lens options by Rokinon that work great for getting started. When they go on sale you can get them for as low as $300. I have a video on what’s needed to get started and how to figure out where you can go shoot.
How To Photograph the Milky Way Part 1 - Getting Your First Photo
ua-cam.com/video/yT5eaIzV4yE/v-deo.html
@@willchaneyphoto awesome! Thank you so much!
thanks a lot ! great review
Glad you liked it!
Good video, any thoughts on the 14-30 f4 and how it compares to the 14-24? I have the 14-30 but was considering selling it and a few other lenses and getting the 14-24. Then again maybe I could added the 20 1.8s. Keep up the good content!
Thanks, I really appreciate it. Unfortunately I've never shot with the 14-30, so I can't give a synopsis from experience. The f/4 would be the reason I'd stay away from it for astro, but I've shot some okay stuff with my 24-70 f/4 kit lens. The 14-30 probably does okay when shooting at 14mm, it's just not going to be as bright. It'd probably work out though if you planned on stacking 10 or so images with some dark frames. For me, I'd probably look at the 14-30 as a landscape lens if I end up choosing the 20mm when I do eventually buy. I'm sure the optics on the 14-30 are great though if they're anything like the 14-24 and the 20mm. Hope that helps!
This here is a nice video indeed. Another Ytoober doing lens comparisons is Ricci Chera, trainer at the British "Nikon School" (these are third party "schools" that have a contract with Nikon to brand their programs this way). His channel is called "Ricci Talks". Because of his job, he has access to products that most people don't have because of financial limitations. And a nice guy doing a nice job.
Which one is best for video? Interiors? Low light? Currently have the 14-30 F4
I'll be honest that I'm not as adept with using the lens for video. I would definitely say the 14-24mm will be a step up from the 14-30mm from a light standpoint since you will gain 1 stop of exposure going from f/4 to f/2.8. However, if shooting interiors, the depth of field at f/2.8 may be a hinderance for getting everything in focus. If you are on the cusps of purchasing it, I would recommend renting it first to see if the price tag is worth it for you. Spending the little extra to rent it was worth it for me.
The 20mm is going to give you better low light performance than either the 14-30 or the 14-24, but with an even shallower depth of field at f/1.8. You then have to make sure your subject, I'm assuming inside hotel rooms based on your videos, that 20mm's gives you the focal length you need.
Hope that helps in some way!
Hello...Thank you for nice video.. I was still expecting the same image comparison for the two lenses.. So I can check how much of field of view is taken by 14 and 20 mm.. Something like that.
Looking back on it, ya I definitely should have. I actually show that in my 14-24mm lens review video. I also just added that photo into my blog post that correlates to this video as well in case you want to see it! willchaney.com/2020/12/11/nikon-z-14-24mm-f-2-8-s-vs-nikon-20mm-f-1-8-s-astrophotography-comparison/
@@willchaneyphoto thank you so much.
:) really appreciate it.
One quick question to ask you. Does the AF motor on your 20mm make any noticeable noise at all when it's in picture mode? Thanks.
So the one I used I rented about a year and a half ago. I don't remember it having any odd noises associated with the autofocus.
@@willchaneyphoto I received a brand new one from B&H yesterday that has AF noise as loud as any AF-S lens. So I guess it's a bad copy.
Hi there, any chance to get access to some raw files for deeper comparisons ?
shoot me an e-mail at the address in my "about" section on the channel and I'd be happy to get you some of the raws I used in the comparisons!
Subscribed
metric please
lol as an Engineer in the US, I hope you’ll understand that I have a deep appreciation for the metric system. I just tend to go with what I grew up with 🤣
What’s up with the empty bed in all of your vids? Really weird.
Would you prefer I lay in it? 😂 just the room I had at the time to use as a studio.
Background music is too distraction.
Background music/song way too loud and distracting. Totally unnecessary.
Good work otherwise!
Ugly Audio .. and MUSIC ???!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ARE YOU SERIOUS ????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!