Yongnuo YN 14mm f/2.8 ultra-wide lens for Nikon F-mount


Yongnuo published new pictures and technical details about their new YN 14mm f/2.8 ultra-wide lens for Nikon F-mount (only the Canon version was previously announced and is already available for sale on Amazon for $557.99):


114° Ultra-wide Angle
The diagonal angle of view is about 114°. For YN14mm F2.8N helps to collect the vast landscape and giant structures, it’s easier to show a grand and solemn atmosphere.

Ultra-low Dispersion Lens and Aspherical Lens
YN14mm F2.8 carries 2pcs of aspherical lens. One of the aspherical lens adopts ultra-low dispersion lens, which effectively compensates various optical aberration, reduce the color difference to the maximum, and provide excellent sharpness and color correction.

Precision-machined Abnormal Dispersion Lens
YN14mm 2.8 adopts 1pcs of abnormal dispersion lens, which helps to better control the dispersion problem with super-wide angle and large aperture, and, helps to improve second order spectrum.

Glass Optical Lens, Multilayer Coating
The whole series of this product adopts glass optical lens and multilayer coating technology to effectively increase light transmittance and control backlight ghost image and glare.

Firmware Upgrade
YN14mm F2.8 is equipped with USD port. The users can download the latest firmware from the official YONGNUO website and update the lens to keep best compatibility and performance.

F2.8 Large Aperture
With F2.8 bright and large aperture, background blurred, subject highlighted.

Focus Modes: Auto Focus (AF) and Manual Focus (MF)
YN14mm F2.8 supports auto focus and manual focus. The focus mode can be selected according to practical requirement.

7cps of Diaphragm Leaves
YN14mm F2.8 has 7pcs of diaphragm leaves, which helps to take picture of circular defocused spots or helps to reduce the aperture and take picture of 14-star effect.

Durable Metal Mount
YN14mm F2.8 adopts chrome-plated and high-accuracy metal mount. It’s wearable, corrosion-resistant, and highly consistent with the camera.

Focus Distance Indicator
YN14mm F2.8 is equipped with focus distance indicator. It’s convenient for you to judge the distance and the depth of field.

Gold-plating Technology
The metal contacts adopts gold-plating technology to effectively improve signal conductivity and corrosion resistance.

Specifications:


MTF charts:


Lens design:


Yongnuo lenses are sold at B&H and Amazon.

Thanks for the info Radojuva!

This entry was posted in Nikon Lenses and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • 120_300 OS for nikon

    Yes and now also the Samyang version and than a choice to make !Many thanks Admin ! Prices soon i think .

    • 2blueherring3

      How does this compare with the Bower, Rokinon/Samyang 14mm 2.8 which I bought for $300 less and gives me great photos with easily correctable distortion?https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3f87ceed96438a77b24e62b78399736bd0382d514f9186984695da824ea90185.jpg ,

      • Mauro Schramm

        The problem with Saymyangs/Rokinos/Bowers is getting a good copy. I tried twice and failed.

        • 2blueherring3

          Guess I got lucky. As did my friend Ken. Have done a lot of great stuff with it, including astro work, always in the bag. I think that photographers are afraid of it because it is too cheap.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/500716429d6b0bd9689477b0165d2835f2e68d3903d2d3ceac1dbeb775380e2d.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a17c3f7286682e4d71d72d1b962b05440e7dda2b93b06a08620ecd48a76b573b.jpg

          • RC Jenkins

            I have one too, along with the Nikkor 14-24mm F/2.8.

            I’m not afraid of cheap lenses. But I think there are a few other issues, like performance wide open, flare & contrast, corners, and yes, the distortion, which loses resolution after correction for large prints.

            I like some aspects of my Rokinon 14mm (after I tore it apart to correct the infinity focus point), but my Nikkor 14-24mm is definitely better except for size/weight, price, and ability to do starburst.

            Performance comes closer by around F/5.6.

            For me, the Nikkor is worth 4x the price in many cases ($1200 vs. $300). It’s the one I usually reach for, unless I’m trying to save weight and know I don’t plan on shooting faster than F/4.

            • 2blueherring3

              I’m certainly not comparing it to the Nikon, which is exponentially more expensive. But I think it does some things exceedingly well. I am hesitant to post another astro shot and won’t for the sake of humility but I love the color saturation I got with the Bower lens in the Tetons, as good if not better than my 24 – 70 nikkor, and that is without any filter obviously. I convinced a friend I shoot with to get the lens and he is a fifty year pro and no one has had a problem. I think a lot of the qualitative analysis has to do with the way you shoot. It works for me and my style of photography.

        • David Lewis

          Exactly. I went through 2 copies, the second was worse than the first. I gave up and went with the Tamron 15-30.

          • Spy Black

            You were not immune from the symptom by buying a Tamron, or any lens maker. I had the same issue with the G1 24-70 Tamron. If your Tamron is good, then consider yourself lucky.

      • 120_300 OS for nikon

        I have to say super photo but AF is nice to have .

        • karayuschij

          AF on a 14 mm is useless…

          • It’s useless if you shoot landscapes. If you shoot things that move, for money, it’s necessary.

            • 2blueherring3

              I shoot a lot of portraits with a machined nikkor 55mm ƒ1.2. I have exhibited at a lot of shows and have had quite a few solo shows. There is no way that a chip can tell me what perfect focus is when I am shooting close to wide open and have a paper thin depth of field. You give up too much to an algorithm.

            • 200mm ƒ/2 and 100mm ƒ/1.4 lenses have a DOF similar to a 50mm ƒ/1. Your argument is invalid. Especially if you’re “close to wide open” and not actually wide open.

              That’s not a knock at your abilities, which may be excellent for all I know. But your idea that nobody else can use AF effectively at such shallow DOFs is pretty hard to defend, since folks clearly do it all the time.

              I’ll grant that only top end bodies have ever been very good at nailing ƒ/1.4 and wider shooting with any consistency, with many of Nikons models (ex D7000, D7100, D600, D750, Df) not meeting my needs for wide open shooting with such fast glass. You might be better at focusing than those cameras. But you can’t beat a D3/D4/D5/D500 when used properly. As they say: YMMV

            • 2blueherring3

              I am not saying nobody can use af effectively, I am saying better to trust your own eye for focus than the camera when doing portraiture with shallow depth of field. Just my opinion. I feel that manual focus gives me more control for portraiture.
              https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/996b674e71c32042f3ef85892c78a6fa0284088c44f9997b804af367bf5f1b50.jpg

            • What’s a MF ƒ/5.6 film shot got to do with a digital camera’s AF abilities?

            • 2blueherring3

              Sorry, grabbed the rollie shot accidentally, my bad. Whether digital or film, my point still stands. AF in wide open portraiture tends to make everybody’s work look pretty much the same, and can be limiting creatively, at least for me.

            • Apologies on the internet, especially in comment sections, are increasingly rare. You win the internet for the day! Legit.

              How do you feel about MF or manually selecting an AF point with a mirrorless camera?

            • 2blueherring3

              I have no comment on the matter. Will stick with my tried and true D810 until I figure out a way to sneak a D850 past my wife.

            • karayuschij

              If you know how to use hyperfocale it is useless…
              Such a lens will focus from 0.4 m to infinity @ f/8

  • Good news price point will determine if I get the old nikkorn14mm 2.8 or consider this.

    • Eric Bowles

      The Canon version is $558 on Amazon right now. This should be the same price.

      • 120_300 OS for nikon

        Yes Eric mi 2 cents taughts too but let’s wait.

      • Kinda close to the nikkor 14mm 2.8 on eBay, probably a better idea to go that route then

      • Good point, I will update my post.

  • Markus

    I wonder how good this is for astro shots, milky way in particular.

  • ArkadiiShapoval

    Thanks!

  • Gerard Roulssen

    Waaay lousier corners than 14-24/2.8 NIKKOR …

    • Spy Black

      …and you know this how?…

      • Gerard Roulssen

        By reading and comparing MTF charts, which show it clearly and without a doubt.

  • BlackRipleyDog

    “helps to improve second order spectrum.” What does that even mean?

    • Dan Cassaro

      That’s second order chromatic aberration (change of image size with wavelength), as opposed to primary chromatic aberration (change of focal position with wavelength).

      • BlackRipleyDog

        Is it that critical enough of an issue that the average hobbyist is going to noticeably benefit from?

        • If the average hobbyist has eyes that work and ever looks at their shots of high contrast edges off center in their images, then yes.

          • BlackRipleyDog

            I do landscape pano’s and would probably not recognize that since I stitch from multiple frames and any distortion is probably masked by the the edge to edge overlay nature of such images.
            My current work is with a D800 and older Nikkor fast AF-D primes.

            • The purple and green and blue fringing of chromatic aberration will absolutely be a challenge across different images in a pano. It’ll be a challenge to remove and probably a challenge for any software that’s attempting to align the tiles.

              For instance, a white mountain peak would have purple edges on the right in one image, but purple edges on the left in another, depending on what side of the frame it was on, and how off axis from the center of the image it is. And with aspherics, CA can happen inconsistently across the frame and throughout the image field.

              CA is one of the biggest reasons that DX0 exists–fixing such a complex problem is not easy in post.

          • BlackRipleyDog

            High contrast edge? A number of my panos may have a clearly defined tree on the left of right side. If there is any backlighting from behind it, I occasionally get some halo-effect around the branches. CA?

            • A white halo is more likely coma. CA is red/orange, purple, or blue (varies with white balance). There are two types, regular CA (I’ve heard it called “axial”) which is obvious in places of fine detail and sharpness in the plane of focus, on high contrast edges. Really obvious on backlit thing in daylight, like tree branches against the sky. This is an ok example: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/Purple_fringing.jpg Notice how it’s on all the righthand edges? This is probably a crop from the right side of the frame. It’ll be gone or less obvious closer to the center. And also it often shrinks/resolves when stopped down, although sometimes it becomes worse/more obvious. Depends on the lens.

              The other type is sometimes called “longitudinal” chromatic aberration, or LoCA for short. That happens with shallow depth of field and varies with position in the plane of focus, usually green behind the plane, blue/purple in front (though rarely the opposite of this). Here’s an example (if the link works!) Note the blue/purple in front and green/orange behind: http://www.opticallimits.com/images/8Reviews/lenses/sony_85_18/loca_f18.jpg

              It’s possible to exhibit both. Fast glass tends to exhibit more the latter, and wide lenses tend to exhibit more of the former.

              There are very few near perfect lenses, but the Coastal Optics 60mm UV/IR and the Nikon 200mm ƒ/2 are pretty much there.

              The issue is cause by a lens rendering different wavelengths (in other words colors) at different magnifications. In other words, if you separated out the red green and blue channels, you’d see that each was a slightly different size. Software can fix this a little, by enlarging/shrinking channels, but it doesn’t always work, since distortion, curved planes of focus, and non-planar projections all confound that simple fix. The other way is for software to find high contrast edges and just remove colors that are typically found in aberration, but that can end up removing actual color detail or missing aberration that show up an unexpected color.

              Anyway, I hope that helps give you more of an idea of what’s going on.

              “Normal” focal lengths tend to have less of these issues, and I’ve noticed folks that stitch a lot tend to use normal and longer focal lengths. I’ve only seen wide stitching work with shifted lenses.

            • BlackRipleyDog

              Thanks. This is one hell of an education on something I had noticed but not really sure what caused it. I was assuming it might of been an artifact over-doing contrast adjustments or sharpening.

            • I’m not sure about other software, but Adobe Camera Raw and Lightroom both have tools to remove CA globally and locally as an adjustment brush.

            • Spy Black

              ” If there is any backlighting from behind it, I occasionally get some halo-effect around the branches. CA?”

              That’s spherical chromatic aberration. Oddly enough there has been no digital post process filter for SCA like there are for other optical symptoms like CA, distortions, etc. Coma and astigmatism correction would be a great set of digital post processes. You can essentially use any lens and get decent image quality out of them.

  • Edward Chan

    Does anybody knows that this is a DX or FX?

  • Colin Stuart

    Would love to know how this compares with the Nikon 14/2.8, 14-24/2.8, Sigma 14/1.8, and a Tokina 11-16/2.8 DX (on FX) why not.

    I have the tokina and would love something sharper/less CA in the corners. The sigma looks amazing but really don’t want to pay the $1400+. I wish sigma made a smaller f2.8 version for $600-900.

    • tomskyphoto

      Look for Dave McKeegan’s review of the Canon version on YouTube. It actually seems to be a rather decent and well (massively!) built lens at its price point. He got enough example shots – including night skies – to judge whether the lens can meet one’s demands or not.

      Overall it looks like a reasonable offering at its price point. Bit of sharpness loss and vignetting in the corners wide open that both quickly disappear when stopping down and only moderate, simple barrel distortion that can easily be fixed in post if required/desired without losing too much FOV. Also noticed some lateral CA’s in his shots – lamp posts against bright skies – but not really bad and probably left completely uncorrected by him.

      • Colin Stuart

        Thanks for letting me know about that review. Just found it and it’s sounding good. The night sky shots look a lot better than what I could get with my Tokina. Man this doesn’t help me make my decision any easier! I guess I’ll really just have to buy it and try it out first hand. This needs to hurry up and get released for Nikon!

        The Nikon 14/2.8 used can get pretty close in price, but then again who knows what the previous owners have done with it (knocking it around / etc) .I’m sure it would probably be around the same level of sharpness at that point.

        • Farhad H.

          On the other hand, if you decide to re-sell the Nikon, it’ll be pretty much the same price, and the yongnuo will be 40% loss…

          • Spy Black

            If you’re buying gear for it’s resale value, photography is not that big a deal then, ay?

  • RC Jenkins

    One thing I immediately like is the mention of the 14-star effect, based on the shape & number of aperture blades.

    This is one bit missing on my Nikon 14-24. Yes, it’s great wide open; but for night-time cityscapes, I want stars on bright light sources. I’ll sometimes switch to other lenses, like my Nikkor 20mm F/1.8 just for these.

    Nikon: on the 14-24 update, please do 9-10 straight blades–or better yet, blades shaped so that they’re generally round wide open but straight when stopped down by F/8. This way, I have the best of both worlds: rounded for sharpness & bokeh (bokeh, being irrelevant on these lenses), and straight for starburst / sunstars.

    • Spy Black

      Straight blades are a thing of the past. With exception of some third-party lenses, I’m not aware of any modern lenses with straight blades.

      • RC Jenkins

        So…?

        • Spy Black

          …so don’t hold your breath…

          • RC Jenkins

            As I said, it doesn’t have to be exactly straight.

            One example I mentioned is in the relatively recent 20mm F/1.8. It has relatively straight blades when stopped down, so it produces nice stars.

    • %(numUsers)

      Heartily seconded.

      I think for ultrawides (hell, sometimes even for regular wide-angles), rounded aperture blades are actually a minus.

      Sure – go all out with the rounding for those nice bokeh balls on the longer focal lengths… but I want my pointy sunstars, gosh dangit!

  • Spy Black

    Does anyone know who they copied for this lens, or is this actually an independent design?

  • T.I.M

    This is a nice review of the lens (Canon version)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjryHJj_Xag

  • Back to top