s 14-30mm corners?

[whoosh1]

Of course it is a special lens - the size and the ability to take regular circular filters is what makes it a special lens. More than tiny differences in image quality, these are the things which affect more in terms of a lens' usability - how small it is, weight, features like ability to take filters, VR, etc.

No, to me the size and ability do not make it special. That logic makes an iphone lens special!. To me a special lens is determined by its image quality. By the way I always loved the 14-24 when I had it. It's just too big, especially on a D850 sized body.

I don't know what to say to this - especially as you say you want ultimate image quality and but you also say the old 14-24 was too big. BTW the iPhone lens is probably special - but it does not zoom from 14 to 30mm with f/4 aperture at FF size - and does not take filters. Also I guess I must have a good copy of 14-30mm as the image quality did not disappoint.

I admit I am very picky when it comes to lenses. I also think that there is a very wide difference in what one person considers a good lens and what another considers a not so good lens. To me, there are very few lenses out there that are truly impressive (Nikon 105F1.4, 200F2, Leica 50F1.4, 50F2 APO, 21F3.4 ASPH, Fuji 90, Zeiss 21 and 100 are a few I would name).

Well I have and have had my share of stellar lenses - including 200 f/2 VR (sold as too close to 300), 300 f/2.8 VR II, 600 f/4E, Zeiss 15mm f/2.8 - these are lenses in the range of $3k-$12k. Also of course the good but not-in-the-same league: f/1.4G series (24/35/85), the f/2.8E zooms, etc. But I think it is quite unreasonable to expect an f/4 zoom lens which is in the price range of 16-35 f/4 to have performance similar to the first set (200 f2, 300 f2.8, Zeiss 15mm). BTW while I did not find quite an immediately apparent difference between the Zeiss 15mm Milvus and 14-30 on a tripod, I am sure there is some difference - especially with micro contrast, distortion, etc.

Not that anything else is bad, and there are an awful lot of fantastic lenses that I have never shot with, but I do compare what I try or use to these. Not that I expect everything to equal these (most don't even come close), but these raise the bar enough for me to be less than enthusiastic about a lot of other lenses.

Maybe compare in the same range: 14-30 f/4 with 16-35 f/4 VR; f/2.8 zooms with f/2.8 zooms; primes with primes of similar price range/weight, etc.

I preordered the 14-30 as soon as it was announced and waited many weeks for it. I mentioned elsewhere in this thread that perhaps my expectations were just too high.

Yes!

At this point though, I really want to see some results with the Loxia 21 and and e to z adapter.

I guess your best choice is to wait for the Z 14-24mm f/2.8. Or maybe try out the Zeiss 15mm Milvus - it is an awesome lens (it did beat my old Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 quite handily).

 

[Droster]

Some comparisons with the various ultrawides and the 24-70/4.

https://www.coolpix.com.tw/article/Z_14-30MM_F_4_S/228

 

[ericbowles]

Here is one that I took yesterday at 14mm F9, they look pretty good to me..

Sorry, but the corners look mushy to me. And at F9!

Yes but - the "but" is where AF was aimed?

Working out the distance to the nearest stone (bottom left), doubling that distance and focussing manually on that is often the best way to get front to back sharpness shooting wider than about 50mm on FX

Even focussing at 2.5 feet does not give "front to back" sharpness at f8 - confirmed in the dof tables Nikon provide with the original 24-70

Many think focussing one third in - which might be about 20 feet in this image - is a good starting point for maximum depth of field. Often it is not :-(

With anything wider than about 50mm "one third in" does not give the "perfect solution". Focussing at 20 feet with 14mm at f9 is too far away to get detail as close as the nearest stone seems to be is likely be - and the background trees.

Even at infinity focus at f8 14mm FX, detail closer than 3.5 feet is unlikely to be critically sharp.

IMO this subject needs some foreground detail to aid the composition - which has been included by the photographer.

Good post, Len. My thoughts exactly.

Lots of the complaints about soft corners are based on images that have a sharp background - an indication that focus was too far away for near corners to be sharp.

I see the 14-30 f/4 as a replacement for the 16-35 f/4 F mount lens. Thats a standard focal length, aperture and price point for both Nikon and Canon, and very popular. If the 14-30 is sharp in the corners by 16mm, it's really quite good for that price point.

The Z mount 14-24 f/2.8 will definitely be a step up, but with the heavy weight and probably a bulbous front element to accompany the design. It's all about trade offs.

--
Eric Bowles
BowlesImages.com

 

[Clayton1985]

Some comparisons with the various ultrawides and the 24-70/4.

https://www.coolpix.com.tw/article/Z_14-30MM_F_4_S/228

Some great information there, maybe deserving of it's own thread.

 

[chambeshi]

14-30 f4S Review
http://www.sansmirror.com/lenses/lens-reviews/lenses-for-nikon-z/nikon-14-30mm-f4-s-lens.html

 

[rokoko]

14-30 f4S Review
http://www.sansmirror.com/lenses/lens-reviews/lenses-for-nikon-z/nikon-14-30mm-f4-s-lens.html

Thanks! A good one.

 

[Paul Richman]

1. chambeshi wrote:

14-30 f4S Review
http://www.sansmirror.com/lenses/lens-reviews/lenses-for-nikon-z/nikon-14-30mm-f4-s-lens.html

Thanks. Good review that reinforces my worries. If I was still doing a lot of foreign travel I would jump on this lens for his compactness and light weight.

By the way, the link did not work for me. I had to Google sans mirror but did find it rather easily that way

 

[Jim Keye]

no text

 

[Snapshotx7]

Good but not great. Hopefully the 20mm 1.8 will be great. I'm looking forward to that one as well as a 70-200 F4.

 

[Geomaticsman]

Meh, kinda what I thought. I'll probably buy it, but not at list price. Since it's in stock in at many major retailers I don't think I'll have to wait too long to find one discounted. Due to the many reports of decentered elements, I won't be buying used.

--
Garfield

 

[Leonard Shepherd]

14-30 f4S Review
http://www.sansmirror.com/lenses/lens-reviews/lenses-for-nikon-z/nikon-14-30mm-f4-s-lens.html

Can you provide a correct link please?

 

[rokoko]

14-30 f4S Review
http://www.sansmirror.com/lenses/lens-reviews/lenses-for-nikon-z/nikon-14-30mm-f4-s-lens.html

Can you provide a correct link please?

http://www.sansmirror.com/lenses/lens-reviews/lenses-for-nikon-z/nikon-14-30mm-f4-s-lens.html

 

[chambeshi]

thanks for fix!

 

[chambeshi]

more comments on both lens reviews here

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4399627#forum-post-62755861

 

[rokoko]

thanks for fix!

Very welcome!

 

[Jim Keye]

Good but not great. Hopefully the 20mm 1.8 will be great. I'm looking forward to that one as well as a 70-200 F4.

A lens like that (size, range including ultra-wide, able to take filters), some compromises seem inevitable. But IMO, viewed in context, it is acceptable. But there is no reason that a prime shouldn't be able to wipe the floor with it. I would fully expect the prime to be better than the upcoming 14-24, for that matter.