Thom's reviews of 14-30 and 24-70 f2.8s out

[Tony Lau]

14-30 f4 S: I am a little disappointed, as I longing for this lens most for the Z system as a landscape/travel shooter. I have thought that would be the main reason to go with Z. probably now I will wait for 14-24 f2.8 S to decide which wide angle to buy.

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

24-70 f12.8 S: Thom likes it. Sorry, for me the 24-70 f4 is good enough. The f2.8 will work when I need for event shooting.

http://www.sansmirror.com/lenses/lens-reviews/lenses-for-nikon-z/nikon-24-70mm-f28-s-lens.html

--
Tony

 

[Clayton1985]

14-30 f4 S: I am a little disappointed, as I longing for this lens most for the Z system as a landscape/travel shooter.

He recommended the lens for landscape and travel.

"landscape photographers and those that spend most of their time at the wide end at smaller apertures are probably going to like this lens: the center is excellent and the corrected corners can get to very good at many focal length/aperture combos. You're going to want to leave those lens corrections on, though, as linear distortion and vignetting are very high at 14-16mm without them. That the lens takes 82mm filters makes it a friendly lens to the landscape shooter, too, though you need very thin filters not to vignette.

Coupled with the small size and weight coupled with good performance overall, I can see the landscape, cityscape, and travel folk really liking this lens."

 

[Tony Lau]

14-30 f4 S: I am a little disappointed, as I longing for this lens most for the Z system as a landscape/travel shooter.

He recommended the lens for landscape and travel.

"landscape photographers and those that spend most of their time at the wide end at smaller apertures are probably going to like this lens: the center is excellent and the corrected corners can get to very good at many focal length/aperture combos. You're going to want to leave those lens corrections on, though, as linear distortion and vignetting are very high at 14-16mm without them. That the lens takes 82mm filters makes it a friendly lens to the landscape shooter, too, though you need very thin filters not to vignette.

Coupled with the small size and weight coupled with good performance overall, I can see the landscape, cityscape, and travel folk really liking this lens."

I have used nikon 16-35 f4 before and do not particularly like it. if the 14-30 is like that lens, probably I will skip. so regret as it is so compact and good for travel.

But for landscape, the IQ is the ultimate.

 

[Clayton1985]

14-30 f4 S: I am a little disappointed, as I longing for this lens most for the Z system as a landscape/travel shooter.

He recommended the lens for landscape and travel.

"landscape photographers and those that spend most of their time at the wide end at smaller apertures are probably going to like this lens: the center is excellent and the corrected corners can get to very good at many focal length/aperture combos. You're going to want to leave those lens corrections on, though, as linear distortion and vignetting are very high at 14-16mm without them. That the lens takes 82mm filters makes it a friendly lens to the landscape shooter, too, though you need very thin filters not to vignette.

Coupled with the small size and weight coupled with good performance overall, I can see the landscape, cityscape, and travel folk really liking this lens."

I have used nikon 16-35 f4 before and do not particularly like it. if the 14-30 is like that lens, probably I will skip. so regret as it is so compact and good for travel.

IMO, Thom needs to clarify those comments. I don't believe he was saying that the image quality of the 14-30 f4 was not better than the 16-35 f4 but rather that some aspects of the design and compromises reminded him of the 16-35 f4 when it was released.

But for landscape, the IQ is the ultimate.

What UWA zoom do you use today that is better than the 14-30 f4 for landscape photography?

 

[RodneyCampbell]

I have used nikon 16-35 f4 before and do not particularly like it. if the 14-30 is like that lens, probably I will skip. so regret as it is so compact and good for travel.

IMO, Thom needs to clarify those comments. I don't believe he was saying that the image quality of the 14-30 f4 was not better than the 16-35 f4 but rather that some aspects of the design and compromises reminded him of the 16-35 f4 when it was released.

But for landscape, the IQ is the ultimate.

What UWA zoom do you use today that is better than the 14-30 f4 for landscape photography?

Indeed - whilst the 16-35/4 wasn't necessarily the best - it was able to use the standard 100mm filter system without too much vignetting and for me the 14-30/4 is even better in that regard

So for me whilst it may not be the "ultimate" pixel peepers IQ (e.g. at 14mm) - it will be orders of magnitude more convenient and possibly better than anything else that exists of this nature (on any system) - which means I'll actually carry it everywhere and use it - thus I'll actually get images (with the filtering control I want) rather than none and it totally wins in that regard

If the 14-24/2.8 S ends up being non bulbous with 82mm front thread and can take my 100mm filter system I may reassess then - until then I'm not going to stop taking images and wait...

 

[ArmchairPro]

On the 14-30, let me quote some of his words from his review of another lens, which lens, based on his review, has more or less the same number of problems.

I like that kind of challenge, and frankly, done well gives you a leg up on someone using a wide angle lens poorly ... I'm really happy with this lens. Knowing its weaknesses allows me to shoot to its strengths ... Overall, ... is a keeper ...

 

[mholdef]

Interesting reviews. I have held off on the 14-30 mainly because it's not a focal legnth I use very much - only on rare occasion. I still might pick one up given it is quite small and compact for travel.

The 24-70/2.8S however is very different - I've always been disappointed by any 24-70 zooms out there - for any brand - until I bought the 24-70/4 which is a great lens. This said, I sold it and upgraded to the 2.8S which is really a step up in sharpness and gives the extra stop which is welcome for bokeh and low light. Worth the extra money.

 

[EvPa]

[...] the 2.8S which is really a step up in sharpness and gives the extra stop which is welcome for bokeh and low light. Worth the extra money.

Unfortunately comes at the expense of compact travel size, while it would be nice to have the 24-70 2.8S the 24/70 f/4S is more than adequate for my use (and the "saved" space lets me take my 300mm f/4 PF).

 

[Lance B]

14-30 f4 S: I am a little disappointed, as I longing for this lens most for the Z system as a landscape/travel shooter.

He recommended the lens for landscape and travel.

"landscape photographers and those that spend most of their time at the wide end at smaller apertures are probably going to like this lens: the center is excellent and the corrected corners can get to very good at many focal length/aperture combos. You're going to want to leave those lens corrections on, though, as linear distortion and vignetting are very high at 14-16mm without them. That the lens takes 82mm filters makes it a friendly lens to the landscape shooter, too, though you need very thin filters not to vignette.

Coupled with the small size and weight coupled with good performance overall, I can see the landscape, cityscape, and travel folk really liking this lens."

I have used nikon 16-35 f4 before and do not particularly like it. if the 14-30 is like that lens, probably I will skip. so regret as it is so compact and good for travel.

But for landscape, the IQ is the ultimate.

I had the 16-35 f4 VR and sold it when the 14-30 f4S came out. The 14-30 f4S leaves the 16-35 f4 VR for dead, it is also better than the 14-24 f2.8 which I also had but sold for the Tamron 15-30 f2.8. I will be selling my Tamron 15-30 f2.8 as well now.

 

[chambeshi]

14-30 f4 S: I am a little disappointed, as I longing for this lens most for the Z system as a landscape/travel shooter.

He recommended the lens for landscape and travel.

"landscape photographers and those that spend most of their time at the wide end at smaller apertures are probably going to like this lens: the center is excellent and the corrected corners can get to very good at many focal length/aperture combos. You're going to want to leave those lens corrections on, though, as linear distortion and vignetting are very high at 14-16mm without them. That the lens takes 82mm filters makes it a friendly lens to the landscape shooter, too, though you need very thin filters not to vignette.

Most landscape photographers will use at most a CPL behind a maximum of 2 square filters.

Vignetting can be corrected, with minimal penalties in PP on a Z6 or Z7 shooting at slowest ISO

I had the 16-35 f4 VR and sold it when the 14-30 f4S came out. The 14-30 f4S leaves the 16-35 f4 VR for dead, it is also better than the 14-24 f2.8 which I also had but sold for the Tamron 15-30 f2.8. I will be selling my Tamron 15-30 f2.8 as well now.

Topping the 14-24 f2.8 Nikkor is no trivial feat. I cannot see a better option optimizing IQ and compactness PLUS 82mm filter

One factor in criticisms and condemnations of this 14-30 f4S seems to be the expectation the IQ of a zoom will get close to a prime, or rather series of primes [ie the Zeiss Distagons]. This is very tough territory for a UW zoom. In any case, most landscapes are shot at f8

I've been relying on the 18-35 G as the lighter option to the Zeiss 15 and 28 Distagons. So eagerly awaiting the 14-30 f4S to marry with my Z7 (later in the year)

 

[Digital Click]

Cancelled my order a while back for the 15-30 instead got a 18-35 Nikon (superb) and a 10-20 DX lens which is equivalent to 15-30 on FX for £189 on special deal from Grays at the moment. Thom says of the 10-20: "Coupled with the VR, the very fast AF-P motor (think Live View/Video), and its compact size, and Nikon has produced a real winner that should appeal to everyone from D3xxx to D500 users. Heck, in a pinch you can use it on some FX bodies."

I have used it on the Z6 and it works fine! £189 against £1350 for occasional use lens.

Tan

 

[Michel Jarry]

14-30 f4 S: I am a little disappointed, as I longing for this lens most for the Z system as a landscape/travel shooter.

He recommended the lens for landscape and travel.

"landscape photographers and those that spend most of their time at the wide end at smaller apertures are probably going to like this lens: the center is excellent and the corrected corners can get to very good at many focal length/aperture combos. You're going to want to leave those lens corrections on, though, as linear distortion and vignetting are very high at 14-16mm without them. That the lens takes 82mm filters makes it a friendly lens to the landscape shooter, too, though you need very thin filters not to vignette.

Coupled with the small size and weight coupled with good performance overall, I can see the landscape, cityscape, and travel folk really liking this lens."

... Where short focal lengths and small apertures are commonly used

Michel

 

[Horshack]

14-30 f4 S: I am a little disappointed, as I longing for this lens most for the Z system as a landscape/travel shooter.

He recommended the lens for landscape and travel.

"landscape photographers and those that spend most of their time at the wide end at smaller apertures are probably going to like this lens: the center is excellent and the corrected corners can get to very good at many focal length/aperture combos. You're going to want to leave those lens corrections on, though, as linear distortion and vignetting are very high at 14-16mm without them. That the lens takes 82mm filters makes it a friendly lens to the landscape shooter, too, though you need very thin filters not to vignette.

Coupled with the small size and weight coupled with good performance overall, I can see the landscape, cityscape, and travel folk really liking this lens."

Hmmm, that doesn't really read like a recommendation to me.

 

[PaulV]

I stopped worshipping at the cult of Thom and his hermetic world of self-referential reviews a long time ago. I begrudge nobody their need for click-throughs and traffic, but I got tired of his negativity and Nikon-bashing. In his world, Nikon should have gone out of business years ago. But oh yeah, that didn't happen and his predictions were so much vapor, passed around on the Internet like nuggets of revealed wisdom.

Since he's going with his gut and "getting the exact same feeling" with the 14-30 as he did with the 16-35, he won't recommend it. He still "likes it," though and is "using it with good results." Okay, fair enough. Here's where the professionalism comes in: he's maybe "just being a bit harsh...because Nikon says it's 'superior.'"

Another win for the click count. Use it if you like it. Don't use it if you don't, and take all reviews with a grain of salt.

 

[Tom - 2015]

14-30 f4 S: I am a little disappointed, as I longing for this lens most for the Z system as a landscape/travel shooter.

He recommended the lens for landscape and travel.

"landscape photographers and those that spend most of their time at the wide end at smaller apertures are probably going to like this lens: the center is excellent and the corrected corners can get to very good at many focal length/aperture combos. You're going to want to leave those lens corrections on, though, as linear distortion and vignetting are very high at 14-16mm without them. That the lens takes 82mm filters makes it a friendly lens to the landscape shooter, too, though you need very thin filters not to vignette.

Coupled with the small size and weight coupled with good performance overall, I can see the landscape, cityscape, and travel folk really liking this lens."

Hmmm, that doesn't really read like a recommendation to me.

Agree. Here are the next two paragraphs in the review that Clayton must have accidentally forgotten to include in his cut and paste:

"Yet...there's an inherent tradeoff going on here that's a bit tough to reconcile. Because the lens has so much vignetting and linear distortion at 14mm, the landscape shooter is going to want to be correcting those, and the current corrections can introduce some chromatic aberration, smear the corner sharpness a bit, and can potentially raise corner noise issues in some situations. So be aware of that.

On my sample the drop-off in sharpness by 30mm is noticeable, and it's far worse in the corners wide open. Event shooters might not like that. The corners also never really reach the levels I'd really like them to at any focal length and aperture setting at 30mm. The vignetting, as noted, is high; even corrected it remains visible at 14-16mm."

Ref. www.bythom.com

 

[Clayton1985]

14-30 f4 S: I am a little disappointed, as I longing for this lens most for the Z system as a landscape/travel shooter.

He recommended the lens for landscape and travel.

"landscape photographers and those that spend most of their time at the wide end at smaller apertures are probably going to like this lens: the center is excellent and the corrected corners can get to very good at many focal length/aperture combos. You're going to want to leave those lens corrections on, though, as linear distortion and vignetting are very high at 14-16mm without them. That the lens takes 82mm filters makes it a friendly lens to the landscape shooter, too, though you need very thin filters not to vignette.

Coupled with the small size and weight coupled with good performance overall, I can see the landscape, cityscape, and travel folk really liking this lens."

Hmmm, that doesn't really read like a recommendation to me.

I don't know how saying "are going to like this lens" and "I can see landscape, cityscape, and travel folk really liking this lens" isn't a recommendation?

Is really liking the lens not the desired outcome?

 

[Horshack]

14-30 f4 S: I am a little disappointed, as I longing for this lens most for the Z system as a landscape/travel shooter.

He recommended the lens for landscape and travel.

"landscape photographers and those that spend most of their time at the wide end at smaller apertures are probably going to like this lens: the center is excellent and the corrected corners can get to very good at many focal length/aperture combos. You're going to want to leave those lens corrections on, though, as linear distortion and vignetting are very high at 14-16mm without them. That the lens takes 82mm filters makes it a friendly lens to the landscape shooter, too, though you need very thin filters not to vignette.

Coupled with the small size and weight coupled with good performance overall, I can see the landscape, cityscape, and travel folk really liking this lens."

Hmmm, that doesn't really read like a recommendation to me.

I don't know how saying "are going to like this lens" and "I can see landscape, cityscape, and travel folk really liking this lens" isn't a recommendation?

He said “probably”, included a bunch of conditionals such as “those that spend most of their time at the wide end”, and was referring to others rather than himself, not to mention the subsequent negative paragraphs you left out. This is hardly a full-throated recommendation.

 

[Clayton1985]

Agree. Here are the next two paragraphs in the review that Clayton must have accidentally forgotten to include in his cut and paste:

"Yet...there's an inherent tradeoff going on here that's a bit tough to reconcile. Because the lens has so much vignetting and linear distortion at 14mm, the landscape shooter is going to want to be correcting those, and the current corrections can introduce some chromatic aberration, smear the corner sharpness a bit, and can potentially raise corner noise issues in some situations. So be aware of that.

On my sample the drop-off in sharpness by 30mm is noticeable, and it's far worse in the corners wide open. Event shooters might not like that. The corners also never really reach the levels I'd really like them to at any focal length and aperture setting at 30mm. The vignetting, as noted, is high; even corrected it remains visible at 14-16mm."

Ref. www.bythom.com

I'm pretty sure Thom knew this information when he wrote the comments I posted unless you're saying with your added quotes Thom meant to retract these statements and now doesn't think "landscape, cityscape and travel folk will really like the lens"?

In my opinion if that is the case then Thom should remove those comments. Otherwise, he was aware and still considers those comments to be valid.

 

[Clayton1985]

14-30 f4 S: I am a little disappointed, as I longing for this lens most for the Z system as a landscape/travel shooter.

He recommended the lens for landscape and travel.

"landscape photographers and those that spend most of their time at the wide end at smaller apertures are probably going to like this lens: the center is excellent and the corrected corners can get to very good at many focal length/aperture combos. You're going to want to leave those lens corrections on, though, as linear distortion and vignetting are very high at 14-16mm without them. That the lens takes 82mm filters makes it a friendly lens to the landscape shooter, too, though you need very thin filters not to vignette.

Coupled with the small size and weight coupled with good performance overall, I can see the landscape, cityscape, and travel folk really liking this lens."

Hmmm, that doesn't really read like a recommendation to me.

I don't know how saying "are going to like this lens" and "I can see landscape, cityscape, and travel folk really liking this lens" isn't a recommendation?

He said “probably”, included a bunch of conditionals such as “those that spend most of their time at the wide end”, and was referring to others rather than himself, not to mention the subsequent negative paragraphs you left out. This is hardly a recommendation.

He referred to himself here...

That said, I like it, and I'm using it with good results. Maybe I'm just being a bit harsh on the corners because Nikon says it is "superior."

 

[Horshack]

14-30 f4 S: I am a little disappointed, as I longing for this lens most for the Z system as a landscape/travel shooter.

He recommended the lens for landscape and travel.

"landscape photographers and those that spend most of their time at the wide end at smaller apertures are probably going to like this lens: the center is excellent and the corrected corners can get to very good at many focal length/aperture combos. You're going to want to leave those lens corrections on, though, as linear distortion and vignetting are very high at 14-16mm without them. That the lens takes 82mm filters makes it a friendly lens to the landscape shooter, too, though you need very thin filters not to vignette.

Coupled with the small size and weight coupled with good performance overall, I can see the landscape, cityscape, and travel folk really liking this lens."

Hmmm, that doesn't really read like a recommendation to me.

I don't know how saying "are going to like this lens" and "I can see landscape, cityscape, and travel folk really liking this lens" isn't a recommendation?

He said “probably”, included a bunch of conditionals such as “those that spend most of their time at the wide end”, and was referring to others rather than himself, not to mention the subsequent negative paragraphs you left out. This is hardly a recommendation.

He referred to himself here...

That said, I like it, and I'm using it with good results. Maybe I'm just being a bit harsh on the corners because Nikon says it is "superior."

Which is followed by more conditionals:

The recommendation I will give the 14-30mm f/4 is this: it's one of the three-lens set that those traveling with Z's looking for versatility probably should adopt (14-30mm f/4, 24-70mm f/4, and 70-300mm AF-P on the FTZ adapter).