Nikon 10-20mm f/4.5-5.6 VR Lens Review

[Andrew L (gryphon1911)]

©NikonUSA

 

Background
Plans were made to go on a trip and I was without a wide angle option for my Nikon Z DX camera, the Z fc. At the time of this trip, the widest native lens option was the FX Z 14-30/4 S lens.

 

As an alternative to the 14-30, I opted to see if the AF-P 10-20mm f/4.5-5.6 VR lens on the FTZ adapter was worth it.

 

Disclosure – images were post processed to my liking and in various styles. Some were processed from RAW and others may be out of camera JPG.

 

These first set of images (cemetery) were the test shots used to see if I could trust it to deliver the quality I desired for the upcoming trip.

 

 

Handling/Size/Weight/Build
The lens itself feels light. It is relatively small given and honestly not a whole lot larger when plopped onto the FTZ.

 

Build is typical of the newer Nikon DX lenses. A lot of plastic, including the mount. I’ve not ever had a problem with this, although some people consider the plastic mount a strike against.

 

Zooming is quick and smooth. Going from 10-20mm is not that large a range, so pushing through the range is short. The zoom ring is large and easy to find.

 

Manual focusing is kind of an afterthought – as is the norm in most modern lenses. There is a focus ring to the front of the lens but it is small. Adequate for when you’ll want to use it occasionally.

 

 

Weather Sealed
Not sure of the weather sealing, but it might survive a few drops from a light shower. However, given the price tag, not sure I would risk this lens in precipitous weather.

Please make your own decision on what you feel is an acceptable risk on weather sealing claims and the conditions you will be shooting in.

 

Image Quality
So here is what most want to know. Yes, the lens is sharp! The AF-P lenses (also referencing the 18-55 AF-P we’ve used in the past) are very sharp – probably punching higher above their price range may suggest.

 

We feel that this 10-20mm lens is also in that range. If you already have one and want to use it on DX z-mount cameras, have no fear! The colors are excellent, the contrast is punchy.

 

Sharpness is all that one could ask for.

 

This lens delivers where it counts and where it is needed. If one is looking for a weakness, then that would be at the far edges at wide open apertures – which one should expect on a non-fisheye lens at 10mm.

 

 

Focusing
Focus is competent on this lens. In low light, I was able to get quick and snappy locks at all apertures. Given the depth of field you get at 10-20mm, the lens need not move it’s glass elements much to get the scene in focus!

 

On the D500 as well as the Z fc, this lens never had a focusing issue that I can recall.

 

VR (Vibration Reduction Stabilization)
This lens has VR built in but works just fine. Seeing as no Nikon DSLR has IBIS, and there is no IBIS equipped Z-mount DX camera, the VR is a bonus regardless if you think you need it or not.

 

 

Bottom Line
Bottom Line = Recommend. Before the Nikon 12-28mm f/4.5-5.6 VR lens in Z-mount was released, this recommendation would be “highly recommended”. It has nothing to do with it being in any way inferior to the 12-28 Z, which it really is not. Some people very well may miss the extra 2mm on the wide end and if you do want that – then this is the lens for you. However, if you need or want a native Z-mount wide zoom – then the 12-28 is the way to go.

 

 

[crowecg]

I'd always wanted one of these super-wide zooms when I was shooting Nikon.  Not sure why I never bought one.  I'd experienced this sort of focal length back in film days when I had an 18-35.  Now with Fuji, I'm still tempted by the focal length but not as a zoom.  I use the 16 f/2.8 a lot and am thinking about wider options, possibly a Laowa.  

[Andrew L (gryphon1911)]

Being a DX lens and the price, I didn’t have my hopes up when I got it.  I was pleasantly surprised. 

[crowecg]

59 minutes ago, Andrew L (gryphon1911) said:

Being a DX lens and the price, I didn’t have my hopes up when I got it.  I was pleasantly surprised. 

Yes, the AF-P you are talking about here was reasonably priced, but wasn’t compatible with some older bodies.  There was also older 10-24 and 12-24 that weren’t quite so cheap.