100% I had an X100V and loved it. But the AF wasn’t as good as Nikon (close, but not as good), and the video wasn’t as good either. This small 24mm 1.7 looks like it’d play the role of a more capable X100 style camera.
I have the same dilemma 🙂. But after some consideration I think I go with the Nikon24/1.7, since my Z fc is my ”light kit”, and I try to keep everything as small and light as possible. (My ”heavy kit” is my Z 6ii with a pair of the 1.8 primes and the 24-70/f4. Not so heavy, maybe, but requires a larger bag and is significantly more heavy to carry around.)
YOU should get the Viltrox - you've tested it, you like it, and you want that aperture ring. Personally I think the Nikon's size would win the day as I'd want the Zfc as a walkabout camera, the smaller and lighter the better.
I have that Viltrox with the Zfc. Quiet autofocus. It has a nice balance but I also like the small and light profile of my 16-50. Nice image quality. got it used for 200 usd so happy for that purchase
since i went for the z-50. over the Z-fc, ie focusing on the images rather than the esthetics.. I will be getting the Nikon 24 1.7. making it the perfect carry everywhere camera for me.
Definitely the Nikon lens to pair with a Zfc. For the simple fact that it’s significantly smaller and lighter. No need to make the APSC camera bigger than it needs to be if you already have a killer full frame kit.
I have the Viltrox 23mm f/1.4 it’s excellent. Quick note, the Viltrox is $299, the Nikon 24mm f1.7 is $279. Negligible difference in the US. I think if you’re a manual shooter, probably the Viltrox will be a better experience but do note that with the lens hood mounted it’s considerably bigger. Big con for the Nikkor, I hate plastic mounts, always have, always will.
Why was the smallest 26/2.8 lens made with a metal mount if it doesn't matter?))) This is just Nikon's attitude towards the DX user. This is why I want to switch to Fuji.
Nikon. Because the Nikon Zfc also has an aperture ring built into the camera, even with a display. Whether I turn the front of the lens or the top right of the camera is probably the same.
I decided for the Nikkor Z DX 24 mm/1.7 and haven't had any regrets yet. It's way sharper than the Viltrox lens, smaller and lighter, which makes perfect sense on a compact DX camera.
Other than the smaller size, I don't see an advantage for the Nikon lens. The Viltrox is 1mm wider, a 0.56 stops brighter, has a metal construct and a metal mount, and has an aperture ring. Furthermore, it's 18% cheaper! To me personally, I would have the two regardless, because I like the advantages the Viltrox offers but I also like the compactness of the Nikon version. However, if I have to only choose one, I'd definitely go for the Viltrox. Even if the Nikon arguably has an advantage of sharpness at 1.7, by 2.0 I bet both would be very comparable. So, the Viltrox is definitely the better ultimate choice here.
You seem to need or enjoy the aperture ring and I see is important to you, however you’re getting a heavier and bulkier lens with good optics but maybe not up to par with Nikon. I think that you also want to keep the “retro vibe” of your Zfc. I will be personally getting the Nikon since I’ve been waiting for a while to have a DX prime. You should consider the Sigma trio; I avoided them for the longest time but they’re fantastic and ended up getting the 56 1.4.
@@russandloz It’s like if you buy accessories for a new car you purchased. The factory parts are specifically designed and work as they should with the car. Plus you avoid warranty issues. It’s true that you could find an aftermarket part that works as well or better than a factory equivalent, but then you’ve got this Nikon/ Viltrox mess (to me) that could bite you later on. Just my opinion. For what it’s worth.
@@russandloz Russ, I remember back in the film days, around 1986, I had a Sigma zoom lens on my Pentax SF-1n that literally fell apart in my hands. To this day I won’t touch a Sigma lens, even though I know they’re much better built now. So I’m damaged goods lol, and as I said, consider the source (me).
I own the Viltrox one (all of the primes actually), but I would have got the Nikon one if it would have been available when I bought the Viltrox. The difference in price is not substantial. Let’s see how it is performing against the Viltrox. The size and weight is I’m fa our of the Nikon. I never used the aperture ring of the Viltrox. I see no reason to, since I can use the rings on my Zfc.
I have three Viltrox lenses and I feel the quality is certainly there... BUT as mentioned by another viewer, I use my Z50 as my "light" kit and pair with the Nikon 40mm... I am tempted to go for the Nikon 24... I just haven't been able to pull that trigger yet! Thanks for the video...
If the viltrox had a more retro look I would have said this one, but as it stands you can still use the aperture dial on the zfc and the Nikon lens is lighter and smaller, that would be my choice.
@@russandloz Yes, I've already seen his video, it's the only one I've found apart from yours and the Grays one. It's good, but mostly it's a technical valuation.
You can use the control ring on the lens to control aperture, and it will show in the little window on top of the camera. Still not the same as a dedicated aperture ring as the Viltrox has, though.
With lenses surely it’s all about image quality. The road to photographic discontent is built on trying to choose lenses based on specifications, buttons and rings. It’s not a journey you should even consider undertaking. The only way to avoid ending up there is to do blind testing of side by side images taken by the two. If there are clear differences in colour balance, bokeh, chromatic aberrations, edge sharpness etc, that produce nicer images, you can pick the one which matches the image quality you prefer. If you cannot see clear differences you will find the decision is not at all easy. Cost doesn’t help either because it is a huge mistake to think about cost at this level unless the difference is more than twice the total cost. If you use it to make money, how long would the extra cost take to recover? Once you have chosen you may be tempted to second guess the whole thing. Was I correct? What if? All this is what makes finding a lens which produces better images than you expected so much fun. Try both lenses first. See if you like the image quality. It’s your only hope of being pleasantly surprised.
@@russandloz This where friends, relatives, friendly camera shops, rental outlets, photography clubs, birding groups etc. come in handy. I have been fortunate enough to try out some good lenses. However I don’t have any relatives or acquaintances who have bought Viltrox gear. I hope you get something which you enjoy.
I own the 23mm Viltrox and it is a wonderful lens if you don't want to do closeups with a slight wide angel look. Have a look at the minimum focal distance...that is a clear plus for the nikon. But I guess that is the only negative point on teh Viltrox 23mm.
Nikon z dx camera lineup need more native lenses. Sony has plenty of options from their own yard & even from third parties. Definitely nikon has more or less complete FX lens lineup which can be mounted on z dx bodies. But it is an expensive option. And sony also gave stabilised lenses for apsc body which is useful & great for those cheaper non ibis bodies.
Having listened to you describe your found love for your new ZFC, it sounds like you really value more/most the smaller, lighter merits of the Nikon 24 f1.7. I have the Z50 and love that little gem similarly. I believe you can set the lens’ programmable control ring to change aperture. I’m pondering the Nikon option for myself. I tried the Viltrox 13mm for my wide angle option but while having robust build, felt its weight and bulk ran counter to my light, everyday carry goal for my Z50 system. When i care most about image quality i will use my FF option.
Yes I do, I used that lens to film this video! Issue is it weighs 647g and is quite big. But I get your point, its not too imbalanced with the zfc and useful 24/36 eqv mm
somebody on youtube told me the Nikkor Z 24mm 1.7 was absolute trash at 1.7 so I bought the Viltrox instead. I found out the Viltrox is HOT MF GARBAGE when opened all the way to 1.4.
I have the Viltrox 23 1.4 - it is decent, but it does stick out quite a bit from the body making it a much less compact proposition than the Nikon alternative - and not just because of weight but also size/form factor. I like that the Viltrox has an aperture ring, but the apertures stops do NOT click so it is not like using the lenses of old in this way - I find I mostly leave it on the A setting and use the command dial just as one would with the Nikon lens anyway. The IQ of the Viltrox is likewise okay, but I do not find it to be as good as the Nikon Z lenses. It displays more aberration - I do not think that it has the same level of optical engineering and certainly not the coatings of the higher line Z lenses from Nikon. I do not have the 24 1.7, but comparing it to lenses like the 28mm 2.8 and 40mm f/2 that are Nikkor Z but not S line, I find the latter to have better IQ than the Viltrox - but not by a ton. The Viltrox lens for me was purchased as a kick-around lens for my Z50 - which admittedly I do not use much as I much prefer full frame even for my personal shooting - professionally I exclusively use full frame (Z8, Z6II). It seems to me that if you are buying lenses for walk around purposes with a Zfc that size would be a paramount consideration, and if that is the case, I think the Nikkor 24 1.7 is the obvious answer - it will not change the form factor of the Zfc (almost at all) and will not add relevant weight - both are points that the Viltrox can not claim, and I am betting that the IQ of the Nikkor, in spite of being smaller and lighter, will still be slightly better than the Viltrox. If I were buying again today, I would likely buy the Nikkor for these reasons and not buy the Viltrox. Just some additional thoughts to consider from someone that has the Viltrox. -PD
@@russandloz Yeah - both are good I am sure, but in thinking about the real 'use case' for an APS-C camera, I would say it is portability (least weight and smallest form factor) - that being the case the Nikon is the obvious choice.
@@russandloz Aperture 1.4 ~ 16 vs 1.7 ~ 11, aperture ring, better build quality, better distortion control, and better image quality due to more elements/groups/blades. For a mere $20 difference it is a no-brainer to me. I stay away from all entry-level Nikon lenses because they are like toys in comparison to the offerings from third-party manufacturers.
For the small, easy carry-around camera/lens combo, the Zfc and Nikon 24mm f/1.7 makes a lot of sense. It is then very comparable to the Fuji X100V.
I feel exactly the same - a more comfortable to use alternative to the Fujix100v
100%
I had an X100V and loved it. But the AF wasn’t as good as Nikon (close, but not as good), and the video wasn’t as good either. This small 24mm 1.7 looks like it’d play the role of a more capable X100 style camera.
I have the same dilemma 🙂. But after some consideration I think I go with the Nikon24/1.7, since my Z fc is my ”light kit”, and I try to keep everything as small and light as possible.
(My ”heavy kit” is my Z 6ii with a pair of the 1.8 primes and the 24-70/f4. Not so heavy, maybe, but requires a larger bag and is significantly more heavy to carry around.)
YOU should get the Viltrox - you've tested it, you like it, and you want that aperture ring. Personally I think the Nikon's size would win the day as I'd want the Zfc as a walkabout camera, the smaller and lighter the better.
I got the 24 dx a few days ago. Really love the image quality and the compactness of it.
Is the sharpness serviceable wide open?
Nikon, it's an easy choice given the weight difference and the firmware compatibility issues you may experience in the future with Viltrox
I have that Viltrox with the Zfc. Quiet autofocus. It has a nice balance but I also like the small and light profile of my 16-50. Nice image quality. got it used for 200 usd so happy for that purchase
since i went for the z-50. over the Z-fc, ie focusing on the images rather than the esthetics.. I will be getting the Nikon 24 1.7. making it the perfect carry everywhere camera for me.
Definitely the Nikon lens to pair with a Zfc. For the simple fact that it’s significantly smaller and lighter. No need to make the APSC camera bigger than it needs to be if you already have a killer full frame kit.
Very true. Though I will miss that aperture ring. Why can’t Nikon put them on!
is this compatible with the Z line of cameras or all of the DX sensor size which would include my D7000?
I have the Viltrox 23mm f/1.4 it’s excellent. Quick note, the Viltrox is $299, the Nikon 24mm f1.7 is $279. Negligible difference in the US. I think if you’re a manual shooter, probably the Viltrox will be a better experience but do note that with the lens hood mounted it’s considerably bigger. Big con for the Nikkor, I hate plastic mounts, always have, always will.
Why you hate plastic mount? Doesn't really matter on tiny lenses
Why was the smallest 26/2.8 lens made with a metal mount if it doesn't matter?))) This is just Nikon's attitude towards the DX user. This is why I want to switch to Fuji.
Nikon. Because the Nikon Zfc also has an aperture ring built into the camera, even with a display. Whether I turn the front of the lens or the top right of the camera is probably the same.
I decided for the Nikkor Z DX 24 mm/1.7 and haven't had any regrets yet. It's way sharper than the Viltrox lens, smaller and lighter, which makes perfect sense on a compact DX camera.
Fair enough, I just posted a new video of how I got a used Viltrox for £125 instead and find it's really good image quality so happy enough.
Other than the smaller size, I don't see an advantage for the Nikon lens. The Viltrox is 1mm wider, a 0.56 stops brighter, has a metal construct and a metal mount, and has an aperture ring. Furthermore, it's 18% cheaper! To me personally, I would have the two regardless, because I like the advantages the Viltrox offers but I also like the compactness of the Nikon version. However, if I have to only choose one, I'd definitely go for the Viltrox. Even if the Nikon arguably has an advantage of sharpness at 1.7, by 2.0 I bet both would be very comparable. So, the Viltrox is definitely the better ultimate choice here.
I saw some really nice sample images of the Nikon lens
Ditto. Viltrox for the win.
You seem to need or enjoy the aperture ring and I see is important to you, however you’re getting a heavier and bulkier lens with good optics but maybe not up to par with Nikon. I think that you also want to keep the “retro vibe” of your Zfc.
I will be personally getting the Nikon since I’ve been waiting for a while to have a DX prime.
You should consider the Sigma trio; I avoided them for the longest time but they’re fantastic and ended up getting the 56 1.4.
The Nikon would be the better choice. It's lighter and the lens ring can be programmed for aperture control.
Oh I didn’t think of that. Good idea.
For me it’s a no-brainer. Nikon!
Why’s that Jeff?
@@russandloz It’s like if you buy accessories for a new car you purchased. The factory parts are specifically designed and work as they should with the car. Plus you avoid warranty issues. It’s true that you could find an aftermarket part that works as well or better than a factory equivalent, but then you’ve got this Nikon/ Viltrox mess (to me) that could bite you later on. Just my opinion. For what it’s worth.
@@jeffrey3498 I get your point. I never liked third party lenses before. But they are a lot better made now
@@russandloz Russ, I remember back in the film days, around 1986, I had a Sigma zoom lens on my Pentax SF-1n that literally fell apart in my hands. To this day I won’t touch a Sigma lens, even though I know they’re much better built now. So I’m damaged goods lol, and as I said, consider the source (me).
I own the Viltrox one (all of the primes actually), but I would have got the Nikon one if it would have been available when I bought the Viltrox. The difference in price is not substantial. Let’s see how it is performing against the Viltrox. The size and weight is I’m fa our of the Nikon. I never used the aperture ring of the Viltrox. I see no reason to, since I can use the rings on my Zfc.
I have three Viltrox lenses and I feel the quality is certainly there... BUT as mentioned by another viewer, I use my Z50 as my "light" kit and pair with the Nikon 40mm... I am tempted to go for the Nikon 24... I just haven't been able to pull that trigger yet! Thanks for the video...
I'll get the Nikon when available. If it performs like most other Z lenses then it should be a great pocket lense to have for my Z fc.
If the viltrox had a more retro look I would have said this one, but as it stands you can still use the aperture dial on the zfc and the Nikon lens is lighter and smaller, that would be my choice.
I need to see review of the nikon z 24mm because I can't find hardly any, so please buy the nikon z 24, think it's only 135gr.
Ricci has made one, and it seems to be pretty sharp. czcams.com/video/iiuI7uH578Y/video.html
Rikki has done a good video on it. But I feel he doesn’t point out the negatives always
@@russandloz Yes, I've already seen his video, it's the only one I've found apart from yours and the Grays one. It's good, but mostly it's a technical valuation.
I'd get the 26mm Full frame lens and a Z5 for light second cam. So, neither.
I do like the size of that 2.8. But I like taking portraits with 1.8 or less
You can use the control ring on the lens to control aperture, and it will show in the little window on top of the camera. Still not the same as a dedicated aperture ring as the Viltrox has, though.
Might get knocked more often though I guess but a good work around.
With lenses surely it’s all about image quality. The road to photographic discontent is built on trying to choose lenses based on specifications, buttons and rings. It’s not a journey you should even consider undertaking. The only way to avoid ending up there is to do blind testing of side by side images taken by the two. If there are clear differences in colour balance, bokeh, chromatic aberrations, edge sharpness etc, that produce nicer images, you can pick the one which matches the image quality you prefer. If you cannot see clear differences you will find the decision is not at all easy. Cost doesn’t help either because it is a huge mistake to think about cost at this level unless the difference is more than twice the total cost. If you use it to make money, how long would the extra cost take to recover?
Once you have chosen you may be tempted to second guess the whole thing. Was I correct? What if?
All this is what makes finding a lens which produces better images than you expected so much fun.
Try both lenses first. See if you like the image quality. It’s your only hope of being pleasantly surprised.
Nice idea. But I don’t think I can try both lenses before I buy?
@@russandloz
This where friends, relatives, friendly camera shops, rental outlets, photography clubs, birding groups etc. come in handy. I have been fortunate enough to try out some good lenses. However I don’t have any relatives or acquaintances who have bought Viltrox gear.
I hope you get something which you enjoy.
I choose nikon for style and light weight ..
Viltrox lenses are great but sure are metal and heavier
I own the 23mm Viltrox and it is a wonderful lens if you don't want to do closeups with a slight wide angel look. Have a look at the minimum focal distance...that is a clear plus for the nikon. But I guess that is the only negative point on teh Viltrox 23mm.
Yes closer distances are handy for macro or maximising dof
Nikon z dx camera lineup need more native lenses. Sony has plenty of options from their own yard & even from third parties.
Definitely nikon has more or less complete FX lens lineup which can be mounted on z dx bodies. But it is an expensive option.
And sony also gave stabilised lenses for apsc body which is useful & great for those cheaper non ibis bodies.
Yes we need stabilisation somewhere in lenses or body!
Absolutely the Nikon, size alone.
for me, the idea of the mirrorless camera era is lighter.
Having listened to you describe your found love for your new ZFC, it sounds like you really value more/most the smaller, lighter merits of the Nikon 24 f1.7. I have the Z50 and love that little gem similarly. I believe you can set the lens’ programmable control ring to change aperture. I’m pondering the Nikon option for myself. I tried the Viltrox 13mm for my wide angle option but while having robust build, felt its weight and bulk ran counter to my light, everyday carry goal for my Z50 system. When i care most about image quality i will use my FF option.
Yeah I’m swaying towards the Nikon. Be great to have an ultra light option
You’ve got the 14-24 2.8? Why get either of these?
Yes I do, I used that lens to film this video! Issue is it weighs 647g and is quite big. But I get your point, its not too imbalanced with the zfc and useful 24/36 eqv mm
somebody on youtube told me the Nikkor Z 24mm 1.7 was absolute trash at 1.7 so I bought the Viltrox instead. I found out the Viltrox is HOT MF GARBAGE when opened all the way to 1.4.
I have the Viltrox 23 1.4 - it is decent, but it does stick out quite a bit from the body making it a much less compact proposition than the Nikon alternative - and not just because of weight but also size/form factor.
I like that the Viltrox has an aperture ring, but the apertures stops do NOT click so it is not like using the lenses of old in this way - I find I mostly leave it on the A setting and use the command dial just as one would with the Nikon lens anyway.
The IQ of the Viltrox is likewise okay, but I do not find it to be as good as the Nikon Z lenses. It displays more aberration - I do not think that it has the same level of optical engineering and certainly not the coatings of the higher line Z lenses from Nikon.
I do not have the 24 1.7, but comparing it to lenses like the 28mm 2.8 and 40mm f/2 that are Nikkor Z but not S line, I find the latter to have better IQ than the Viltrox - but not by a ton.
The Viltrox lens for me was purchased as a kick-around lens for my Z50 - which admittedly I do not use much as I much prefer full frame even for my personal shooting - professionally I exclusively use full frame (Z8, Z6II).
It seems to me that if you are buying lenses for walk around purposes with a Zfc that size would be a paramount consideration, and if that is the case, I think the Nikkor 24 1.7 is the obvious answer - it will not change the form factor of the Zfc (almost at all) and will not add relevant weight - both are points that the Viltrox can not claim, and I am betting that the IQ of the Nikkor, in spite of being smaller and lighter, will still be slightly better than the Viltrox.
If I were buying again today, I would likely buy the Nikkor for these reasons and not buy the Viltrox.
Just some additional thoughts to consider from someone that has the Viltrox.
-PD
Thanks. Interesting viewpoint and I may well sway your way for the Nikon.
@@russandloz Yeah - both are good I am sure, but in thinking about the real 'use case' for an APS-C camera, I would say it is portability (least weight and smallest form factor) - that being the case the Nikon is the obvious choice.
❤
Nikon
Viltrox by a mile.
Why’s that? 😊
@@russandloz Aperture 1.4 ~ 16 vs 1.7 ~ 11, aperture ring, better build quality, better distortion control, and better image quality due to more elements/groups/blades. For a mere $20 difference it is a no-brainer to me. I stay away from all entry-level Nikon lenses because they are like toys in comparison to the offerings from third-party manufacturers.