im honestly about to lose it with my current setup. I just got back from a week in Zion and looking through these raws on my 5k monitor is making me want to cry because everything just looks... soft. I've been using the 24-200mm z because people said it was "good enough" for hiking but honestly its just not cutting it for the big prints I want to do. The corners are basically mush even at f/8 and the chromatic aberration is driving me insane in the high contrast canyon shots. I switched over to the z8 recently thinking the sensor would solve my problems but it just highlights how mediocre my glass is i guess. Im tired of spending thousands on travel and lodging just to come home and feel like my gear let me down when I see the files on a big screen. My buddy shoots with a Sony A7RIV and his 35mm gm shots make mine look like they were taken with a potato and I cant even defend the Nikon anymore. I need something that actually resolves all those megapixels without making me regret my life choices. I dont care if its a prime or a zoom at this point but it has to be sharp from corner to corner.
Im planning a big trip to the Isle of Skye in October and I want to have this sorted by then so I have time to practice with it. Budget is around 2500 dollars but I could stretch it a bit if its truly the holy grail of lenses. Is the 14-24mm f2.8 s really the one or should I be looking at the 20mm prime or maybe that 24-70mm f2.8 s? I keep hearing conflicting things about the 24-120 too but after the 24-200 disaster im skeptical of anything with a big zoom range. Just tell me what the absolute sharpest landscape lens for the z system is right now.
The Nikon NIKKOR Z 24-70mm f/2.8 S is the most reliable choice for edge-to-edge sharpness. Its a safe investment. Use a high-quality tripod to ensure the Z8 sensor resolves perfectly.
> Re: "late to the party but honestly if you..."
- I’ve spent way too many hours staring at MTF charts and in my experience, the 24-200mm is basically just a glorified paperweight once you put it on a high-res body like the Z8. You’re seeing the limits of the resolving power, not the sensor. So far the thread has covered the 24-70mm and the 20mm prime, which are both stellar, but honestly if you want the actual holy grail for landscapes, you need the Nikon NIKKOR Z 14-24mm f/2.8 S. I’ve tried many wide zooms over the years and this is the first one that actually beats out primes in the corners. It’s expensive, yeah, but for Isle of Skye you’re gonna want that wide perspective for the Quiraing and Old Man of Storr. If you’re still skeptical about zooms after that 24-200 disaster, I get it, but the S-line glass is a completely different species. If you want to save some cash and still get stupidly sharp files, the Nikon NIKKOR Z 50mm f/1.8 S is punchy as hell and punches way above its weight class for like 600 bucks. Basically, grab the Nikon NIKKOR Z 14-24mm f/2.8 S and maybe the Nikon NIKKOR Z 24-120mm f/4 S if you want a walkaround lens that actually works. The 24-120 is lightyears better than that superzoom you have now, though it wont be quite as clinical as the f/2.8 primes. Just make sure you get a good filter system for the 14-24... that 112mm thread is huge.
late to the party but honestly if you want max sharpness you might want to consider the Nikon NIKKOR Z 20mm f/1.8 S instead of another zoom. @Reply #1 - good point on the 24-70 but zooms always have compromises. be careful with the Nikon NIKKOR Z 14-24mm f/2.8 S because the filter situation is a mess and pricey. for pure resolution on that Z8 sensor primes are usually the safer bet for those big prints.
