So does the 14-30 not match the 24-120 for sharpness?

I had this on my list but have watched/read several reviews of late that this lens just doesn't live up to the rest of the S line and falls well short of the twice as expensive 14-28. Do you guys agree with these assessments? If $2k for the 14-28 is a bit steep would you opt instead for a 16 or so prime? Maybe Viltrox? Not sure the Nikon 20 1.8 is wide enough to give the expansive feel.

I'm on a self imposed purchase ban for a while but it's still fun to plan ahead!

Superscroll said:

I had this on my list but have watched/read several reviews of late that this lens just doesn't live up to the rest of the S line and falls well short of the twice as expensive 14-28. Do you guys agree with these assessments?

Click to expand...

You didn't mention what you're shooting. Astro? People? Scenery? Architecture? Nighttime? Travel?

Maybe just in the corners. The benefit of the 14-30F4S is that for MOST shooting in this range it is good enough. Keeping things in perspective, better than most DSLR options too. There really isn't a horrible Z lens IMO. Then considering the weight, size, and filter options it gets even better. It needs a lot of correction (automatic btw,) and it just wasn't for me. I've tried a few copies as well.

I'm adapting (Neewer FTZ) the Tamron 20-40f2.8, and it is lighter, smaller, and cheaper than the 14-30F4S. I have to shoot RAW and manually apply lens corrections, as a batch.

Superscroll said:

If $2k for the 14-28 is a bit steep would you opt instead for a 16 or so prime? Maybe Viltrox?

Click to expand...

IMO, no Viltrox is as good as an F4S Nikon. I've only tried a few of them though.

Superscroll said:

Not sure the Nikon 20 1.8 is wide enough to give the expansive feel.

Click to expand...

This lens is just stellar, but too large and expensive for my hobbyist needs.

Superscroll said:

I'm on a self imposed purchase ban for a while but it's still fun to plan ahead!

Click to expand...

The 14-28f2.8 is just a safe bet, and you don't have to carry around a faster prime when there is less light. Or maybe buy th e14-30 and rent the 14-28 when needed, based on your savings and how often you'd rent it.

There are other options such as Voigtlander and hopefully some Sigma primes like their great DX options. There are some great videos on wide lens options specific to what you're primarily shooting.

Good luck!

I was always quite happy with the image quality of the 14-30 and don’t notice it being any worse than the 24-120 that I often use as a travel lens on the Z6III.

I sold the 14-30 and bought the 14-24 f2.8 because I didn’t like the ‘twist to turn on’ function of the 14-30 (and the 24-70 f4), although this doesn’t bother some users.

Here’s a couple of old images from the 14-30.





--
Alan

Rubbish.

I use this lens for Architecture. It is plenty sharp.









--
“Everyone sees what you appear to be, few experience what you really are.”
- Niccolo` Machiavelli.

skyrunr said:

Maybe just in the corners.

Click to expand...

Not at 24mm.

The Z 14-30/4 S does have a mid-zone dip, but in terms of resolution performance in the corners, it scales very well at 24mm compared to the Z 24-120/4 S, at the latest when both are at f/5.6 and even compared to the Z 14-24/2.8 S, which is at the weak end at 24mm.

Apart from the fact that the challenges are likely to be greater in the ultra-wide-angle range.

I own both, Z 14-30/4 S & Z 24-120/4 S and consider them to be in a very similar league.

It just comes with different challenges at extreme UWA focal lengths down to 14mm than is the case with a 24-120mm.

The Z 24-120/4 S shines with a very high resolution in the center and mid zone for a 5x zoom, even at f/4, but the corners are definitely nothing to write home about and worse than the Z 14-30/4 S @ 24mm, which is particularly weak in the middle zone @ f/4, but has better corner performance.

The OP might also want to take a look at the new Tamron 16-30mm f2.8 Di III G2 as an alternative.

... is that it's only limited to f/4 ;-) .I love both my 14-30 & 24-120. When I need the UWA, I know I can pick up my 14-30 and it'll take brilliantly sharp shots (barring the photographer, of course -ha!).





--
Randy A

With ultra wide angle lenses in particular, ultimate sharpness is less important IMO than finding suitable subject matter, and learning how to photograph it at ultra wide focal lengths. Those are not insignificant challenges. Many people buy the most expensive UW lenses, and take uninteresting pictures with them, and end up selling the lenses at a loss.

Superscroll said:

I had this on my list but have watched/read several reviews of late that this lens just doesn't live up to the rest of the S line and falls well short of the twice as expensive 14-28.

Click to expand...

About $1k short of the f/2.8 lens I think ;-)

Superscroll said:

Do you guys agree with these assessments? If $2k for the 14-28 is a bit steep would you opt instead for a 16 or so prime? Maybe Viltrox? Not sure the Nikon 20 1.8 is wide enough to give the expansive feel.

Click to expand...

I have the 14-30 and 24-120.

Nebido's post with the charts from Photography Life tells part of the story.

I use both lenses on a Z5. So 24MP sensor. With some finely detailed subjects I can tell a difference when viewed at 100% on my 27" iMac.

But that is not how I output my photos.

For 12"x18" prints on lustre paper at reasonable viewing distances I can't tell the difference. For the most part, the same for reduced size images for web posting.

I'm not sure a 45MP sensor would make much difference at those sizes. If printing at 24"x36" then maybe a different story.

I choose to mount the 14-30 or 24-120 based on my intended subjects for the day. And regardless of the lens, I rarely try to get the viewers eyes to move towards the corners.

Superscroll said:

I'm on a self imposed purchase ban for a while but it's still fun to plan ahead!

Click to expand...

Superscroll said:

I had this on my list but have watched/read several reviews of late that this lens just doesn't live up to the rest of the S line and falls well short of the twice as expensive 14-28. Do you guys agree with these assessments? If $2k for the 14-28 is a bit steep would you opt instead for a 16 or so prime? Maybe Viltrox? Not sure the Nikon 20 1.8 is wide enough to give the expansive feel.

I'm on a self imposed purchase ban for a while but it's still fun to plan ahead!

Click to expand...

I lovelovelove the Z 14-30 the most and it and the Z 24-120, both f/4 lenses, are my two most used lenses. I've had the Z 14-28 f/2.8 for a short while and I did not find enough justification to spend $1000 more for the f/2.8. I discovered I could bump the ISO up a bit on the Z 14-30 with pretty much zero noise penalty. Here's a link to a whole bunch of my Z 14-30 photos on both my Z7II and Z6.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/klhman/albums/72157717878862071/

It is a wonderful lens!

Ken

Nebido said:

skyrunr said:

Maybe just in the corners.

Click to expand...

Not at 24mm.

Click to expand...

Hmmm, the charts you provided indicate the 24-120 is sharper throughout a larger portion of the frame. So the corners are similar, but when viewing images, the 24-120F4S appears shaper throughout the frame with the same corners, and a faster transition from sharp to soft. Perception to the eye is often more important than numbers on a chart.

I mostly shoot wide open, so that is where I focus on comparisons, but not everyone does. YMMV

However, stopped down the 14-30F4S has a major advantage. It will handle heavier lifting when it comes to noise correction and editing. It will be more even. I have a personal perception of the distortion/correction of the 14-30F4S that I just can't seem to shake.

--
SkyRunR
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
“Stop down and smell the roses.”

KLHman said:

Superscroll said:

I had this on my list but have watched/read several reviews of late that this lens just doesn't live up to the rest of the S line and falls well short of the twice as expensive 14-28. Do you guys agree with these assessments? If $2k for the 14-28 is a bit steep would you opt instead for a 16 or so prime? Maybe Viltrox? Not sure the Nikon 20 1.8 is wide enough to give the expansive feel.

I'm on a self imposed purchase ban for a while but it's still fun to plan ahead!

Click to expand...

I lovelovelove the Z 14-30 the most and it and the Z 24-120, both f/4 lenses, are my two most used lenses. I've had the Z 14-28 f/2.8 for a short while and I did not find enough justification to spend $1000 more for the f/2.8. I discovered I could bump the ISO up a bit on the Z 14-30 with pretty much zero noise penalty. Here's a link to a whole bunch of my Z 14-30 photos on both my Z7II and Z6.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/klhman/albums/72157717878862071/

It is a wonderful lens!

Ken

Click to expand...

Thanks for that gallery link- definitely look great! the grassy shots like the delta show fantastic sharpness. most I looked at said F4...are you focus stacking and it just puts the wrong exif data?

Oh, I should have mentioned that with the close focusing, found it to be a good product lens for selling items too! If you don't mind some distortion. It was an easy button. It has decent sun-stars too. Just tinkering in the yard was fun.















--
SkyRunR
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
“Stop down and smell the roses.”

A couple years back someone asked a similar question about which might be preferred lens to use in the overlap regions of the 14-30, 24-120 and 100-400, so owning all 3 and having a little bit of time on my hands, I stopped by a nearby college campus, set up a tripod and proceeded to shoot a quick comparison.

For my usage, any difference in these lenses in their overlap ranges is so insignificant as to have no bearing on which one I might choose to shoot a given scene with, so basically, the one I happen to have on my camera gets the call.

Here is a link to the photos from that effort. https://flic.kr/s/aHBqjAG153

All photos were shot on a tripod using a Z9 from the same location. A sunny day, but passing clouds did impact areas of the scene illumination, somewhat, in some of the shots.

I shot each lens wide open (or maximum aperture in the case of the 100-400), and also a f5.6 and f8) the files were uploaded to Flickr at full FX resolution, uncropped with 100% quality setting for jpeg conversion. Shot in standard profile with all settings in default.

These can be zoomed into for you pixel peepers. The photos are grouped by overlap range and by f#, so you can flip back and forth between like images at a given focal length and aperture. Also, I believe I have this album set to allow download of the full-size files for local viewing on your own display.

Cheers

ajr images said:

I was always quite happy with the image quality of the 14-30 and don’t notice it being any worse than the 24-120 that I often use as a travel lens on the Z6III.

I sold the 14-30 and bought the 14-24 f2.8 because I didn’t like the ‘twist to turn on’ function of the 14-30 (and the 24-70 f4), although this doesn’t bother some users.

Click to expand...

Exactly.. that feature is terrible on the 14-30 F4, 24-70 F4 Z etc...(collapsible lens garbage) It's great until you Twist to turn it on and than it suddenly becomes 1 inch plus bigger in length too. The 14-30 once you twist to turn it, is nearly almost as long in length as the F2.8 14-24.

14-30mm F4 is 4.50 inches length once you unlock it (only way to use it).

14-24mm F2.8 is 4.9 inches length.

KLHman said:

Superscroll said:

I had this on my list but have watched/read several reviews of late that this lens just doesn't live up to the rest of the S line and falls well short of the twice as expensive 14-28. Do you guys agree with these assessments? If $2k for the 14-28 is a bit steep would you opt instead for a 16 or so prime? Maybe Viltrox? Not sure the Nikon 20 1.8 is wide enough to give the expansive feel.

I'm on a self imposed purchase ban for a while but it's still fun to plan ahead!

Click to expand...

I lovelovelove the Z 14-30 the most and it and the Z 24-120, both f/4 lenses, are my two most used lenses. I've had the Z 14-28 f/2.8 for a short while and I did not find enough justification to spend $1000 more for the f/2.8. I discovered I could bump the ISO up a bit on the Z 14-30 with pretty much zero noise penalty. Here's a link to a whole bunch of my Z 14-30 photos on both my Z7II and Z6.

Click to expand...

Yes, but you still can't shoot at F2.8 on your 14-30mm F4, so that is a moot point. There is a reason why 14-24 costs more.. it lets in twice amount the light and is sharper, esp at 14mm vs the 14-30mm. Where I use my UWA lenses.

KLHman said:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/klhman/albums/72157717878862071/

It is a wonderful lens!

Click to expand...

It is.. but not as good as the 14-24mm F2.8. When you need F2.8 you need it.

KLHman said:

Ken

Click to expand...

Superscroll said:

KLHman said:

Superscroll said:

I had this on my list but have watched/read several reviews of late that this lens just doesn't live up to the rest of the S line and falls well short of the twice as expensive 14-28. Do you guys agree with these assessments? If $2k for the 14-28 is a bit steep would you opt instead for a 16 or so prime? Maybe Viltrox? Not sure the Nikon 20 1.8 is wide enough to give the expansive feel.

I'm on a self imposed purchase ban for a while but it's still fun to plan ahead!

Click to expand...

I lovelovelove the Z 14-30 the most and it and the Z 24-120, both f/4 lenses, are my two most used lenses. I've had the Z 14-28 f/2.8 for a short while and I did not find enough justification to spend $1000 more for the f/2.8. I discovered I could bump the ISO up a bit on the Z 14-30 with pretty much zero noise penalty. Here's a link to a whole bunch of my Z 14-30 photos on both my Z7II and Z6.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/klhman/albums/72157717878862071/

It is a wonderful lens!

Ken

Click to expand...

Thanks for that gallery link- definitely look great! the grassy shots like the delta show fantastic sharpness. most I looked at said F4...are you focus stacking and it just puts the wrong exif data?

Click to expand...

Thank you for the compliment, And nope, no focus stacking, I have never focus stacked.



Ken

is as sharp generally as the 24-70/4s. but nothing spectacular in my experience.
never try the 24-120 tho.

Superscroll said:

I had this on my list but have watched/read several reviews of late that this lens just doesn't live up to the rest of the S line and falls well short of the twice as expensive 14-28. Do you guys agree with these assessments? If $2k for the 14-28 is a bit steep would you opt instead for a 16 or so prime? Maybe Viltrox? Not sure the Nikon 20 1.8 is wide enough to give the expansive feel.

I'm on a self imposed purchase ban for a while but it's still fun to plan ahead!

Click to expand...

From the charts at Photography Life, the 24-30 is a weaker than the 24-120 in the overlapping range. But you might notice only wide open (f/4) and pixel peeping. I hate the Bokeh character of the 24-120, so this lens is not in my bag. The 24-70 f/4 is similar to your ultrawide in the overlapping range.

[No message]

Fullframer said:

ajr images said:

I was always quite happy with the image quality of the 14-30 and don’t notice it being any worse than the 24-120 that I often use as a travel lens on the Z6III.

I sold the 14-30 and bought the 14-24 f2.8 because I didn’t like the ‘twist to turn on’ function of the 14-30 (and the 24-70 f4), although this doesn’t bother some users.

Click to expand...

Exactly.. that feature is terrible on the 14-30 F4, 24-70 F4 Z etc...(collapsible lens garbage) It's great until you Twist to turn it on and than it suddenly becomes 1 inch plus bigger in length too. The 14-30 once you twist to turn it, is nearly almost as long in length as the F2.8 14-24.

14-30mm F4 is 4.50 inches length once you unlock it (only way to use it).

14-24mm F2.8 is 4.9 inches length.

Click to expand...

--

I couldn't agree more. The twist to turn on Z lenses drive me crazy. The main reason I'm holding out for the 14-24 2.8 If the 14-30 had internal focusing I'd be all over it and save a grand in the process.