NIKON Z 8 (38mm, f/8, 1/50 sec, ISO360)
Here I want to review my Nikon Z lenses by comparing them to lenses that I owned in the past.
Of course it doesn’t make sense to compare lenses cross systems but I think it could be helpful as an orientation for someone familiar with one of the lenses mentioned. It could also be of value for someone who considers to switch brands. Without further ado here are my findings.
Zooms first:
Nikon Z 24-120/4 S.
I have a difficult history regarding standard zooms. Most of the time they simply were just mediocre with only a few exceptions. The range is difficult: from wide angle to tele. The first standard zooms were 35-70 which increased over the years to 24-50, 28-70, 24-104 and 24-120. When I shot with Nikon DSLRs I just used my old 24-85 from the film times but my focus back then was on wide angle and tele.
When I switched to Canon full frame my first lens was the EF 24-105/4 IS L. I loved the range but the lens was not good at all. Tons of distortion at the wide end at a time when this was not corrected automatically. You could see the lines bending in the viewfinder. It was not a nice experience. I later got the EF 24-70/4 IS L which was better but still nothing special. Finally I got the EF 24-70/2.8 L II. This lens was really excellent.
When I converted to Fuji the first standard zoom was the XF 18-55/2.8-4 R. A very nice and small lens but image quality was mediocre. I know that this lens earned some reputation on the internet but in reality it is just a kit lens. When I finally got the XF 16-55/2.8 WR image the quality made a big jump. This lens was so much better though it is also rather big and heavy for an APS-C lens. But I was willing to compromise on that because this lens was excellent too. Now there is a mkII version which is much smaller and lighter. I think this is the lens to get if you shoot Fuji X.
Back to the Nikon Z 24-120/4 S: On paper it just looks like another lens with a great range but mediocre performance but it is anything but that. I have no idea why this lens is so good. Maybe it is because of the large lens mount? Maybe Nikon discovered some secret formula. Whatever it is this lens is great. The best 24-120 lens I’m aware of. Maybe Bokeh is not so nice so you have to watch for distracting backgrounds. But the lens is sharp at all focal lengths even if shot wide open. The slightly lower contrast at 120mm@f4 can be fixed in post.
NIKON Z 8 (40mm, f/8, 1/50 sec, ISO500)
Nikon Z 14-24/2.8 S
My history with wide angle zooms is also difficult. My favourite lens when I shot slide film was the Nikon AF 20-35/2.8 D. I really fantastic lens that sucked when I switched to digital. Not only because of the crop but also regarding sharpness. The 12-24DX from Nikon worked better but it was nothing special. The Canon EF 17-40/4 L simply was bad, really bad. No idea how this deserved to be an L lens. I later got the Canon EF 16-35/4 IS L which was a really fine lens. When I switched to Fuji the only choice was the XF 10-24/4 OIS R. A good lens but I much preferred the XF 14/2.8 R. At the end I planned to get the Fuji XF 8-16/2.8 WR. I already got the 16-55/2.8 and the 50-140/2.8 and at that point I started to consider full frame. And finally switched.
And that’s what I did: I finally switched to full frame again and beside the 24-120 the Z 14-24/2.8 S was another strong reason why I switched to Nikon. Finally an excellent super wide angle lens. Yes it compromises on range, like a lot, but it is stunning especially on the wide end. This is the lens when you love wide but hate mushy corners. I hate mushy corners but I started to believe that this is something that can’t be avoided at super short focal lengths. I was wrong and this lens is the proof. It can be done. I think Nikon only compromised on the range on this lens and nothing else.
Would I prefer a 14-35 or 14-30 or at least a 14-28? Sure but not if it means a compromise on image quality. The Z 14-24/2.8 S is easily the best super wide angle zoom I ever owned. Sharpness, colours and contrast are fantastic. It’s perfect. The 24-120 is a really good lens but the 14-24 is a clear step above. And it’s even much lighter than the Fuji XF 8-16/2.8 WR or the old F-mount version of this lens.
NIKON Z 8 (51mm, f/4, 1/60 sec, ISO64)
The Prime lenses:
Nikon Z 20/1.8 S
I just told you that the Z 14-24/2.8 S is perfect but here comes the lens that I will use even more often: the Z 20/1.8 S. Here is why: The Fuji X system made me a prime lens guy. For years I shot with various Fuji bodies: X-Pro1, X-T1, X-Pro2, X-Pro3 but mostly with the following prime lenses: 14/2.8, 23/2 and 35/1.4 when I was on business trips in Asia. The Fuji XF 14/2.8 R was my favourite lens by far. 14mm on an APS-C is 21mm on full frame so the Nikon Z 20/1.8 S is as close as it gets. I think it is a fantastic focal length. It’s really wide, much wider than the rather boring 24mm, but it’s not crazy wide. There is some perspective distortion but it is not massive. Nothing shouts ultra wide. You are just in the scene. I recently learned that 21mm is Steven Spielbergs favourite focal length. Just rewatch “Raiders of the Lost Ark” to understand why.
The Fuji XF 14/2.8 R is a fantastic lens and my all time favourite lens from Fuji. The Nikon Z 20/1.8 S is just as good or maybe even slightly better. The Nikon Z 14-24/2.8 S is a fantastic super wide zoom but the 20mm prime beats it. But of course I would not have bought this lens for a slight advantage in image quality. I bought it because I prefer to shoot the 20mm prime for anything but landscapes. 20mm is perfect for street photography in tight places (Asia), it’s perfect for architecture and interiors. In short: it’s much more versatile than you think. It’s a little lighter than the zoom too but unfortunately it is very long. Much too long for a 20mm lens and the lens hood is big and ugly too. Well, nobody is perfect. It has the same 77mm filter size as the Z 24-120/4 S which is very convenient when switching in between those two lenses: only one lens cap!
Nikon Z 26/2.8
This is a very special lens. It’s super small and light. It has a strange focus mechanism, it doesn’t look like much but it is rather expensive. It’s twice the price of the 28/2.8 or 40/2 from Nikon but at least you get a lens mount that is made of metal. Initially I was hesitant to get this lens because I thought the price is too high. I still think the price is high but it performs very well. The lens focuses a tad slower than my other Nikon lenses but still very fast compared to the Fuji XF 27/2.8 that I used to own. AF is not totally quiet but much quieter than focus on my favorite Fuji lenses: 14/12.8 and 35/1.4. It’s sharp in the center even at f2.8. You can stop down the lens but you will not gain much except depth of field. The corners will never get 20/1.8- or 14-24/2.8 – sharp but I think it would be unreasonable to expect that.
The main reason why I bought this lens is the 20/1.8. Sometimes I want to have a small lens that doesn’t stick out so that I don’t bump it all the times when I’m in tight spaces. The Nikon Z 20/1.8 S is massive compared to the XF 14/2.8 R from Fuji but the Nikon Z 26/2.8 is both shorter and lighter. Of course my Z8 doesn’t become a small, light camera just because of this lens but it is an improvement. And I like its lens hood and lens cover design.
Viltrox AF 28/1.8 Z
My history with this focal length is short: The Fuji XF 18/2 R was the first lens on my Fuji X-Pro1 and I also owned the Ricoh GR. There is something special about 28mm and that’s why I got this lens. There is no Z-lens from Nikon so I went with Viltrox. Is it as good as Nikon Z? No. It is good? Yes. AF is fast and silent and sharpness is good too. An aperture of f1.8 means that you can have a little subject isolation thanks to the full frame sensor. I guess in the real world this lens on my Z8 is as good as the Fuji XF 18/1.4 WR on a Fuji body. It’s also the same weight and the same size as the lens from Fuji but it’s less than half of the cost.
For me this is a rather specialised lens for environmental portraits. Something for which I would have used my XF 23/1.4 R from Fuji in the past. The difference is that 28mm vs 35mm allows to include even more of the surroundings.
NIKON Z 8 (48mm, f/8, 1/50 sec, ISO500)
Nikon Z 40/2
At the time when my main camera was the Fuji X-T1 my Asia business trip setup was: Fuji X-T1, the XF 14/2.8 R and the Fuji XF 27/2.8. The smallest and lightest camera I ever used ob trips and I loved it. Only two primes and a small and light camera. It was a fantastic experience. It felt amazing and strangely I never felt limited. I think this is what you should consider if you plan to of light on gear when visiting cities.
The Nikon Z40/2 is super small and light too. And it is cheap as dirt (only by today’s standards). It’s not perfect though but it has a couple of substantial advantages over the Fuji. First it is f2 instead of f2.8. That plus the fact that the sensor is twice the size means that it has much better subject isolation. AF is silent and fast, something that can’t be said about the Fuji lens. So what’s not to like? It’s not really sharp at f2 especially at close distance but I would not hesitate to shoot it wide open if necessary. Stopped down to f2.8 it is fine and at f4 it is really sharp. The lens is good but not as good as the Z 26/2.8.
The 40mm focal length sits somewhere in between the 35mm and the 50mm and I like that. For me 50mm is a portrait or “tele” lens. For me it feels always too tight for practically everything else. I liked 35mm (23mm on Fuji) but still shot most of my images with 21mm (14mm on Fuji). Together with the 20/1.8 I can mimic my super small setup that I had with Fuji. Only that it is not super small of course.
Nikon Z 50/1.8 S
I originally haven’t planned to get this lens but I got a second hand deal that I could not miss. I also bought my Z 20/1.8 second hand btw. I think 50mm is boring. I always felt like that. I’m a wide angle guy so 50mm is practically always too long. I learned on a 50mm though because back when I used to shoot with cameras that my father gave to me all I got was a 50mm lens and a 135mm. I later switched to zoom lenses but had a 50mm prime because it was the only option if you wanted a fast lens for not a lot of money.
So why did I get the Z 50/1.8 S? I have to blame Fuji. I simply love the XF 35/1.4 R. This lens is not perfect but it’s somehow magical at the same time. I used it as a “tele”-prime when in Asia and also for portraits. That’s why I got the 50mm from Nikon, mainly for portraits. the Nikon Z 50/1.8 S is regarded as one of the best Z lenses from Nikon. It is crazy sharp and contrasty and even Bokeh looks nice. Technically it’s much better than the XF 35/1.4 R. AF is fast and silent, it’s sharp, colorful and contrasty but it can’t quite match the magic of the Fuji. I can’t even explain it but the Fuji XF 35/1.4 R gives very special results despite or I guess because of its imperfections.
NIKON Z 8 (50mm, f/4, 1/50 sec, ISO100)
Conclusion:
So here I’m with my brand new camera gear. It compares very, very well to what I have used in the past and I have used some fine lenses.
The Z 14-24/2.8 S is the best wide angle zoom I ever owned. Period.
The Z 24-120/4 S is not the best standard zoom I ever had but it is close. The Canon EF 24-70/2.8 II L gets this crown and I think I also slightly preferred the output of the Fuji XF 16-55/2.8 WR. There would be an easy fix though: Simply get the Nikon Z 24-70/2.8 S but right now I’m not willing to give up the range of the Z 24-120/4 S.
The primes match the primes that I have used in past. Most important the Nikon Z 20/1.8 S is truly excellent I only wish it would be shorter. It’s almost like a regular 20mm with an FTZ adapter in one housing. The Z 50/1.8 S is excellent and AF is fast and silent. Even the small primes Z 26/2.8 and Z40/2 have fast and silent AF and with the exception of the Z 40/2 all my Nikon lenses are WR (weather resistant). Not the most important feature in the world but it gives me some peace of mind.
update 2025: My Nikon Z lenses revisited
Future Purchases:
Mid term I will also get a longer lens. The Nikon Z 70-200/2.8 S would be a fantastic lens but I’m not sure if I want to lug such a lens around anymore. I tried out the new 70-200/2.8 from Sony and it’s hard to ignore that their lens is 30% lighter. The Nikon Z 70-180/2.8 would be a light option but I think I would prefer more reach and I’m not sure how well the 70-180/2.8 would take converters. Converters are a perfect way to increase reach but if you end up using converters most of the time it is better to have a lens that has more reach by itself. The new Tamron 50-400 could be an option too but it’s almost the weight of the Nikon. It’s a tricky choice.