24-70mm or 14-30mm for sharpness ?

Nebido said:

I already mentioned this in my initial post.

The selection criterion should be the required focal length range and not the sharpness performance, especially since the f/4 lenses are roughly all in the same optical league.

If you want to see significant, meaningfull differences, then you should consider the faster and more sophisticated f/2.8 S trinity zooms or primes.

In my opinion, the Z 14-30/4 S only makes sense if the focus is really on that range and focal lengths below 24mm are frequently required.

If you hardly ever use it below 24mm, there's not much left of it's gigantic FoV flexibility, so it's a waste of money and a used/like new Z 24-70/4 S is not only much cheaper, but also more suitable.

Due to its extreme wide-angle range, it is a much more specialized zoom than a Z 24-70/4 S or Z 24-120/4 S and only makes sense if that is exactly what you are looking for, i.e., landscapes, real estate, interiors, or if you simply enjoy extreme wide angles, which again presents its own creative challenges.

Click to expand...

FujLiver said:

Nebido said:

They are almost identical in terms of sharpness and are otherwise extremely similar in terms of their optical qualities, character.

For me personally, this is also the wrong approach, especially as both lenses are almost like twins in this respect.

At least for lenses that are within the normal/tolerable range for this lens category in terms of decentering/tilt.

One is an ultra-wide-angle zoom, the other a standard zoom, that's where the main differences lie and that should be the decisive criterion, which focal length range do I really need and want to cover with the purchase, not which one might deliver 0.05% more resolution in the resolution charts.

The Z 14-30/4 S makes sense if I also want to use the range below 24mm frequently, otherwise it's a waste of money, as it costs considerably more than one of the many used Z 24-70/4 S that you get thrown at you.

I own/owned both the Z 14-30/4 S, as well as having used the Z 24-70/4 S for several years at the same time, and currently the Z 24-120/4 S as a replacement for the Z 24-70/4 S, which has since been sold.

Ultimately, the sharpness of all lenses is very similar and comparable.

The Z 24-120/4 S packs a bit of a punch in the center and in the midframe, but ultimately all three zooms are close to each other in practice and in the listed focal lengths.

Especially at 24mm, the Z 14-30/4 even scales very favorably in the corner areas.











30/35mm









Ultimately, all of these zooms are more than sharp enough and the level that has been achieved in the meantime, even with 5x zooms like the Z 24-120/4 S, is worthy of all honor.

But that doesn't change the fact that it's not prime quality and that progress has been made there too.

As I also have good comparative values in the focal length range with lenses such as the 35/2 Apo Lanthar Z, Z 50/1.8 S, Z MC 105/2.8 VR S, Z 135/1.8 S.

If you want prime quality and that doesn't just apply to resolution, but to the complete rendering, you should buy primes.

The zooms are convincing in terms of image quality, but their strength is their flexibility.

If I want ultimate quality, then I am better off with a high-quality prime lens, at the expense of flexibility in focal length, but also in favor of the overall quality of the rendering, bokeh, subject isolation/available light potential and creative possibilities at this level.

Click to expand...

This is super useful

it shows that the 24-120 is a different league from the other two f4 zooms

Click to expand...

FujLiver said:

the 14-24 f2.8 is amazing. At only 650g it’s another contender in the ring, although I prefer up to 30mm

Click to expand...

NikonImages

Discover the artistry of Nikon photography. Join a community of passionate photographers sharing breathtaking images, tips, and insights using Nikon cameras and lenses.

www.nikonimages.com

Nebido said:

sirhawkeye64 said:

FujLiver said:

Hi,

I am thinking of adding a zoom for daylight outdoor walkabout, with an emphasis on the wider end (24-35)

I am normally a prime shooter, so am always comparing lenses to prime sharpness, although realistically looking for something similar only in the centre of the lens.

Both of theses lenses would be fine for this. The 14-30mm is more compact, which is great, but both are lightweight.

I just wondered from you guys experiences, which one is sharper ? particularly around the 24mm, but the rest of the range as well!

Click to expand...

The 24-70 is shsarper than the 14-30 pretty much at every FL, so I'd get that. it's longer but it's also narrower in terms of diameter (the front of the 14-30 is quite larger obviously and not something I'd want to necesarily carry around everyday as my everyday lens, but the 24-70 f/4 would be fine and was my walkaround lens for a few years when the Z first came out). Otherwise if you want more speed the 28-75 is a good option as well and decently sharp. But the 14-30 would NOT be my first choice (for one, at leasti n my copy and I think according to MTFs) it's sharpness starts to show at the longer FLs (so about 20mm-30mm is where it performs best, so you're not gaining much [IMO] by using it over a 24-70 f/4... maybe another 4mm. In fact around 24mm I 'd be inclined to use the 24-70 because of its longer zoom range if I had both lenses available (but part of that is my shooting style as i tend to zoom in and get detail shots half the time).

Click to expand...

In the split focal length range, which only covers the range from 24-30mm, I can absolutely not confirm this.

This cannot be found in any review that I know of, see also the photgraphylife charts in 24mm and 30/35mm that I linked.

The resolution values there are almost interchangeable between the Z 24-70/4 S and the Z 14-30/4 S, with slight, theoretical advantages of the Z 14-30/4 S in the corners @ 24mm.

Ultimately, they're in the same category, with the same optical quality across the shared focal length range.

The overall rendering look is also very similar: sharp, especially in the center, cleanly corrected, but also a touch clinical, or perhaps better said a bit boring, without the rendering extravagance a more specialized, faster lens can deliver.

Suggesting that the Z 24-70/4 S is a league above the Z 14-30/4 S is, in my opinion, pure illusion, based on my own experience with these lenses over several years of parallel use.

In contrast to the UWA range of 14-16mm, where the Z 14-30/4 S has severe uncorrected distortion and vignetting values and has to iron them out via profile correction, this is much more moderate in the split focal length range of 24-30mm, which is why the Z 14-30/4 S probably shows its strongest performance in the range around 24mm.

Anyone who wants significantly more should either consider the Z 24-70/2.8 S or simply choose a prime lens.

The deficits of the f/4 zooms, at least for me, are never actually in the sharpness area, but rather in limitations in the overall aesthetics of the rendering, compared to specialized solutions.

Click to expand...

FujLiver said:

looking at the 24-120mm it is actually almost 15% better .. ho humm

Click to expand...

InkedMarie said:

Wow! The Old Town Trail and ski lift photos are my favorites!

Marie

Click to expand...