[Smolk]

A general question here: to my surprise I read that the Nikon Z 14-30mm lens, which seems to be rated highly, has an extraordinary barrel distortion. Just look at this review: https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-z-14-30mm-f4-s/3
Apparently the lens profiles hide the 8% distortion at the widest end.
Others here may understand this better than I do, but my questions are:

- Surely this must have some negative effect on the image quality even after correction
- I thought that getting rid of retrofocus designs with mirrorless was going to make lens design in wide angle so much easier and better.

So is this Nikon taking a short-cut, or am I missing something?

[UncleVanya]

A general question here: to my surprise I read that the Nikon Z 14-30mm lens, which seems to be rated highly, has an extraordinary barrel distortion. Just look at this review: https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-z-14-30mm-f4-s/3
Apparently the lens profiles hide the 8% distortion at the widest end.
Others here may understand this better than I do, but my questions are:

- Surely this must have some negative effect on the image quality even after correction
- I thought that getting rid of retrofocus designs with mirrorless was going to make lens design in wide angle so much easier and better.

So is this Nikon taking a short-cut, or am I missing something?

You see this in Panasonic m43 as well. I think it’s a bit of a trade off. Definitely there is a price paid in correcting things. Additionally I do think there may be positive effects - perhaps it is smaller, lighter, has better contrast, etc based on this design. I’m sorry I’m not an expert in this lens and the tradeoffs.

[Smolk]

The one advantage I see is that EVFs apparently (because I don't have one) are not hampered by the slowness of a lens, hence the recent Canon RF long telephoto designs with a really slow widest aperture.
Smaller lenses: perhaps, but I have never been struck by that advantage, and the wider mount means a lot more glass, too, so more weight.

[mee]

A general question here: to my surprise I read that the Nikon Z 14-30mm lens, which seems to be rated highly, has an extraordinary barrel distortion. Just look at this review: https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-z-14-30mm-f4-s/3
Apparently the lens profiles hide the 8% distortion at the widest end.
Others here may understand this better than I do, but my questions are:

- Surely this must have some negative effect on the image quality even after correction
- I thought that getting rid of retrofocus designs with mirrorless was going to make lens design in wide angle so much easier and better.

So is this Nikon taking a short-cut, or am I missing something?

My nonscientific take -- Yes and no.

It looks to be a workaround for the design and price. But it's an 1100 dollar, 14-30mm full frame zoom that accepts 82mm ring filters. So the front isn't bulbous as some other ultrawide angles. And 82mm isn't super large given the focal length. As a result I think they are accommodating for this feature in the glass, while considering the cost, and the end result is a lot of distortion at the wide end.

If you want less distortion and more resolution on the wide end with a Z ultrawide zoom, you'll want to look at the 14-24mm f/2.8 S. But it also costs double and supports much larger (and expensive) 112mm ring filters.

[automorphism]

The one advantage I see is that EVFs apparently (because I don't have one) are not hampered by the slowness of a lens, hence the recent Canon RF long telephoto designs with a really slow widest aperture.
Smaller lenses: perhaps, but I have never been struck by that advantage, and the wider mount means a lot more glass, too, so more weight.

They are definitely less so hampered but not completely. If a lens is slower, in dimmer light an EVF will become lower quality and might be a bit more laggy with a slower lens compared to a fast one.

[LeeRunge]

Did they intentionally do something with the design to enhance sharpness elsewhere knowing they could just software correct for distortion? Like it's made to work that way with the body? Unlike film days that seems logical now if you could enhance another part of the lens design knowing the processor could correct for the rest. Most all the Z lenses are seriously sharp.

Or just keep the cost down, or as mentioned filter threads. It's a pretty compact lens for a 14mm wide end.

[Smolk]

Most all the Z lenses are seriously sharp.

That's what I hear. Can DSLR designs keep up with that sharpness?

[Smolk]

Or, alternatively, can Pentax lenses benefit from software correction while maintaining RAW files?

[mee]

That's what I hear. Can DSLR designs keep up with that sharpness?

Sure. But perhaps they'll be larger, heavier designs?

[Rondec]

That's what I hear. Can DSLR designs keep up with that sharpness?

There are sharp lenses for every mount. Some for the K mount, like the DFA *50 and DFA *85, are pretty pricey.

[Kunzite]

The one advantage I see is that EVFs apparently (because I don't have one) are not hampered by the slowness of a lens, hence the recent Canon RF long telephoto designs with a really slow widest aperture.
Smaller lenses: perhaps, but I have never been struck by that advantage, and the wider mount means a lot more glass, too, so more weight.

This is one of the disadvantages of the mirrorless: compensating for intentional lens defects.
Is it too slow? It doesn't matter, the EVF image will be bright.
Does it have high distortion? That can be hidden, in EVF and image files.

[mee]

This is one of the disadvantages of the mirrorless: compensating for intentional lens defects.
Is it too slow? It doesn't matter, the EVF image will be bright.
Does it have high distortion? That can be hidden, in EVF and image files.

I don't think the distortion seen in the images is an effect of the camera being mirrorless, but instead an affect of the lens being so compact and the front element not being a giant bulb. They designed it to use inbody correction to limit the size, weight, and cost. And to allow for easily obtainable 82mm front ring filters to be used.


Look at the front elements of the 14-30mm f/4 S vs the 14-24mm f2.8G and S models here. They're tiny. This whole lens is an inch more than the size of a slower, DSLR 18-55mm crop kit lens.

[UncleVanya]

I don't think the distortion seen in the images is an effect of the camera being mirrorless, but instead an affect of the lens being so compact and the front element not being a giant bulb. They designed it to use inbody correction to limit the size, weight, and cost. And to allow for easily obtainable 82mm front ring filters to be used.


Look at the front elements of the 14-30mm f/4 S vs the 14-24mm f2.8G and S models here. They're tiny. This whole lens is an inch more than the size of a slower, DSLR 18-55mm crop kit lens.

I think you are both somewhat saying the same thing. The point made was that being mirrorless without an optical viewfinder the manufacturer can hid defects that would otherwise detract from the experience. This includes distortion but also the other items. It isn't an invalid way to design, but it isn't possible to do so in this degree with a traditional DSLR without some serious confusion on the part of the photographer when images as viewed via the finder don't look the same in the output from the sensor. Adding an EVF changes that.

[mee]

I think you are both somewhat saying the same thing. The point made was that being mirrorless without an optical viewfinder the manufacturer can hid defects that would otherwise detract from the experience. This includes distortion but also the other items. It isn't an invalid way to design, but it isn't possible to do so in this degree with a traditional DSLR without some serious confusion on the part of the photographer when images as viewed via the finder don't look the same in the output from the sensor. Adding an EVF changes that.

Why would that be a disadvantage of mirrorless then? Seems like an advantage to me. It's not like mirrorless hardware necessitates extra distortion or mirrorless lens designers are skimping simply because they have a way to sweep the dirt under the rug, so to speak.

My 16-35mm f/4 also has noticeable distortion at 16mm on DSLR. But it too accepts ring filters on the front (and 77mm - small for an UWA). If I could have the camera adjust and show me a corrected image through the viewfinder, I would let it! I'm going to do that anyway in post, and it would show me a more accurate view of what I'll get in post, right in the viewfinder when I'm taking the shot.

[UncleVanya]

Why would that be a disadvantage of mirrorless then? Seems like an advantage to me. It's not like mirrorless hardware necessitates extra distortion or mirrorless lens designers are skimping simply because they have a way to sweep the dirt under the rug, so to speak.

My 16-35mm f/4 also has noticeable distortion at 16mm on DSLR. But it too accepts ring filters on the front (and 77mm - small for an UWA). If I could have the camera adjust and show me a corrected image through the viewfinder, I would let it! I'm going to do that anyway in post, and it would show me a more accurate view of what I'll get in post, right in the viewfinder when I'm taking the shot.

The disadvantage is that the end user isn't aware that corrections are happening perhaps? The hiding of flaws is perhaps what he may be talking about. It's not inherent in mirrorless design, it's common however as there are some trade-offs that the manufacturers are choosing to make. The corrections being made are not without some cost - there is a cost when compared to optical performance that is better without correction - but that comes at another price ($, size, weight) - I maintain that all systems have compromises. I own both types of systems (mirrorless and SLR based) and have no delusions that one is superior to the other.

Lens design patterns change over time. Years ago Zeiss engineers stated that no one would be willing to pay the premium for uber prime lens designs which is why in their view many high end zooms outperformed the primes which at that time were optimized for size, speed and price and were good but had few exotic elements and consequently were a compromise compared to very high end zooms that could afford to cram in a few exotic glass elements since they covered so much of the range of a camera that the costs could be justified. The crazy thing is that today primes like the D FA 50 and D FA 85 are common across all systems. This shift isn't alone. The shift to in camera corrections (even in DSLR's) has pushed the boundary of what consumers will accept. The mirrorless systems get away with more because it is harder to see the real unmodified performance of the glass often. Is that wrong? I don't think so as long as people understand what the limitations are. The fact is even if it isn't a requirement for mirrorless - it is a standard that many march to.