Nikon Ultrawide Zooms

Started 3 months ago | Discussions thread
VBLondon Senior Member • Posts: 1,753
Re: Nikon Ultrawide Zooms

MoreorLess wrote:

VBLondon wrote:

PhotoKaz wrote:

MTF curves of Nikon's full frame ultra-wide zooms. I swapped out my f-mount 14-24 when the new 14-30 was released as the size, image quality, and ability to use filters made it a far better choice for the Z7. I'll have to check some real world reviews to see how much difference, in practice, there is between the two Z mount lenses but simply based on the MTF there may not be a huge difference between the two. The stop of light isn't a selling point to me personally.

Those Z mount curves look pretty good by comparison. Seems like every new lens Nikon makes for this mount is an improvement over the older F mount lens it replaces. I’m curious how much of this is the freedom of the Z mount itself and how much is newer design and technologies.

In this comparison, the Z lenses are also substantially smaller and lighter,567.110,795.812,567.325,ha,t

The 14-30mm is a retractable design though, extended its pretty much the same length as the 16-35mm.

Yes, to a degree, it's still a bit shorter extended and the 16-35 weighs 40% more (680 vs 485g).

The difference to me seems to be that Nikon is able to release 14mm lenses without resorting to bulb front elements, maybe that's down to the mount or maybe advancements in lens design?

I'd say the biggest issue is likely the Z lenses are much newer and more expensive, the F-mount lenses are both over a decade old and cost a lot less.

Not that much less. The 16-35 is $1100, the 14-30 $1300.

I would say performance wise the 16-35mm is good at landscape distances BUT needs both stopping down and keeping to a 16-30mm range. In that range the only significant weakness for me is in the extreme corners at 16mm.

It's just too big. I remember when the 16-35 launched, it was bigger than the 17-35 2.8 despite being a stop slower.

The Z14-30 is a real showcase for the Z lenses compared to the 16-35 - optically it's better, it has a more useful range to 14mm, it's much lighter, it's much smaller retracted for travel, the price premium is modest. That doesn't stop the 16-35 from being a good lens for those who have one.

We'll see on the 14-28s. My guess is it will be similar: Z 14-24 is smaller, much lighter (F is 50% heavier at 1000g vs 650g), optically better, doesn't have the vulnerable bulbous front element. Unsurprisingly as a brand new lens it has a meaningful price premium over the 14-24. My guess is for many it would be worth it. I borrowed a F 14-24 and liked the results from it, but never wanted one - too big and cumbersome, the front element felt fragile, I didn't like the lens 'cap' cylinder thing...just too 'specialised' for me.

I'm a fan of the 14-30 simply because in the first months I had it, I took more UWA pictures I liked and kept than in my prior 20 years of F mount use put together. My 17-35 was OK, but I shied away from it because it was fuzzy in corners wide open, with ugly color aberrations. The alternatives were too big (16-35, 14-28), the 18-35 didn't feel wide enough relative to my 20 f2.8D etc.

 VBLondon's gear list:VBLondon's gear list
Nikon Z6
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow