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

[rokoko]

Was really looking forward to this lens with Nikon and the whole internet claiming the large mount diameter will mean EXCELLENT (never before seen on small mounts) performance on WA lenses. But After reading Thom who in my eyes is a Nikon fan give it faint praises I’m having second thoughts to this whole large mount hype.

The 14-30/4 lens doesn't take advantage of the wide mount diameter:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62158194

Jim

If true that’s quite strange when the lens mount is/was the main focus of Nikon’s push for Z mount. It sort of feels like false advertising.

Look like I had to choose: a compact sized f4 zoom as small as a prime, or a f2.8 standard zoom not as gigantic as a prime. The similarity: they all share the same mount size.

 

[Lance B]

Was really looking forward to this lens with Nikon and the whole internet claiming the large mount diameter will mean EXCELLENT (never before seen on small mounts) performance on WA lenses. But After reading Thom who in my eyes is a Nikon fan give it faint praises I’m having second thoughts to this whole large mount hype.

The 14-30/4 lens doesn't take advantage of the wide mount diameter:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62158194

Whilst you may be correct, I am not sure that this tells the whole story. If it were the case that they didn't use the flexibility of the whole mount, then why is the 16-35 f4 VR so big in comparison to the tiny 14-30 f4S and it goes to 14mm, not the much easier to design 16mm. I really don't think VR would be the difference of it needing to be that big.

Looks to me that the reason that it's so big is that big negative front element.

Are we talking the 16-35 or the 14-30? If it is the 14-30, then that must be why it is designed the way it is, and that they couldn't use the width at the mount end, not that it isn't of actual benefit. At the end of the day, the lens is smaller for a reason and it must have something to do with the mount width and/or flange distance otherwise it would be looking more like the 16-35.

The short throat allows more symmetric lenses, but this ain't one.

Jim

I think the 14-24 f2.8S will more likely show how the new mount is of benefit, just like the 24-70 f2.8S.

 

[JimKasson]

Was really looking forward to this lens with Nikon and the whole internet claiming the large mount diameter will mean EXCELLENT (never before seen on small mounts) performance on WA lenses. But After reading Thom who in my eyes is a Nikon fan give it faint praises I’m having second thoughts to this whole large mount hype.

The 14-30/4 lens doesn't take advantage of the wide mount diameter:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62158194

Whilst you may be correct, I am not sure that this tells the whole story. If it were the case that they didn't use the flexibility of the whole mount, then why is the 16-35 f4 VR so big in comparison to the tiny 14-30 f4S and it goes to 14mm, not the much easier to design 16mm. I really don't think VR would be the difference of it needing to be that big.

Looks to me that the reason that it's so big is that big negative front element.

Are we talking the 16-35 or the 14-30?

The 14-30. That's the lens I used for the diagram linked to above.

If it is the 14-30, then that must be why it is designed the way it is, and that they couldn't use the width at the mount end, not that it isn't of actual benefit.

If they didn't use it, it's not a benefit for that design. It might be for some other design.

At the end of the day, the lens is smaller for a reason and it must have something to do with the mount width and/or flange distance otherwise it would be looking more like the 16-35.

There could be other reasons why it's different.

The short throat allows more symmetric lenses, but this ain't one.

I think the 14-24 f2.8S will more likely show how the new mount is of benefit, just like the 24-70 f2.8S.

Maybe. We won't know until the diagram is published.

Jim

 

[anotherMike]

Hey John,

Regarding the price. Yea, all this stuff is whacko crazy expensive. But I'm a guy who hauls around the massive Zeiss 25/1.4 Milvus, which cost me north of 2 grand, so a zoom that is almost half that price is in some sick way, sort of reasonable...

-m

 

[pgl1960]

2346011[/ATTACH]
Nikon Z series brochure pages 10-11

Horshack, post: 62757984, member: 622255"]

Was really looking forward to this lens with Nikon and the whole internet claiming the large mount diameter will mean EXCELLENT (never before seen on small mounts) performance on WA lenses. But After reading Thom who in my eyes is a Nikon fan give it faint praises I’m having second thoughts to this whole large mount hype.

The larger mount provides flexibility of design, including the option to go smaller and lighter as a design priority, which is what I believe Nikon chose with this lens. For its size the lens is an excellent performer for the focal range it covers. I'm sure we'll see other UWA lenses from Nikon that are weighted (figuratively and literally) toward other priorities.

Yeah, but why give it an "S" designation then? That sets a certain IQ expectation. That's where I think Nikon missed.

Yes, there is room in the product line for a Z-mount lens that is similar to the 16-35 f/4, but is that an "S" lens? I wouldn't think so.

Every Z lens Nikon has introduced has the "S" moniker, including the 24-70 f/4. I checked online and couldn't find any information which implies the moniker confers any special status. Perhaps I'm missing something?

 

[Lance B]

Was really looking forward to this lens with Nikon and the whole internet claiming the large mount diameter will mean EXCELLENT (never before seen on small mounts) performance on WA lenses. But After reading Thom who in my eyes is a Nikon fan give it faint praises I’m having second thoughts to this whole large mount hype.

The 14-30/4 lens doesn't take advantage of the wide mount diameter:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62158194

Whilst you may be correct, I am not sure that this tells the whole story. If it were the case that they didn't use the flexibility of the whole mount, then why is the 16-35 f4 VR so big in comparison to the tiny 14-30 f4S and it goes to 14mm, not the much easier to design 16mm. I really don't think VR would be the difference of it needing to be that big.

Looks to me that the reason that it's so big is that big negative front element.

Are we talking the 16-35 or the 14-30?

The 14-30. That's the lens I used for the diagram linked to above.

If it is the 14-30, then that must be why it is designed the way it is, and that they couldn't use the width at the mount end, not that it isn't of actual benefit.

If they didn't use it, it's not a benefit for that design. It might be for some other design.

I think it means that the front element needs to be that big due to the throat of the mount. It may have needed to be bigger if the throat was smaller and a shorter flange. I know it sounds a little converse, but it may have meant less correcting elements to achieve this design on Z mount than F mount. Or, conversely, they may have needed many more elements to correct an F mount version of similar zoom range. I mean, there has to be a reason there was no F mount version that was 14-30 f4, why just have a 16-35 f4 and not a 14-30 f4? I know an F mount version would have been more popular and useful if it would have been made as small and light as the Z mount we now have.

At the end of the day, the lens is smaller for a reason and it must have something to do with the mount width and/or flange distance otherwise it would be looking more like the 16-35.

There could be other reasons why it's different.

Possibly.

The short throat allows more symmetric lenses, but this ain't one.

I think the 14-24 f2.8S will more likely show how the new mount is of benefit, just like the 24-70 f2.8S.

Maybe. We won't know until the diagram is published.

Again possibly. However, we have seen mock ups that appear to show no bulbous front element and looking like filter threads. Now, these may bring into the argument of a different compromise. In other words, to obtain this ability of filter threads and no bulbous front element may mean that they had to design it differently to achieve this and thus it may not be all that much smaller or lighter. Or conversely, it may mean that they can easily design it without the bulbous front element simply because of the new mount geometry.

Jim

 

[Horshack]

2346011[/ATTACH]
Nikon Z series brochure pages 10-11

Horshack, post: 62758473, member: 1725074"]

Was really looking forward to this lens with Nikon and the whole internet claiming the large mount diameter will mean EXCELLENT (never before seen on small mounts) performance on WA lenses. But After reading Thom who in my eyes is a Nikon fan give it faint praises I’m having second thoughts to this whole large mount hype.

The larger mount provides flexibility of design, including the option to go smaller and lighter as a design priority, which is what I believe Nikon chose with this lens. For its size the lens is an excellent performer for the focal range it covers. I'm sure we'll see other UWA lenses from Nikon that are weighted (figuratively and literally) toward other priorities.

Yeah, but why give it an "S" designation then? That sets a certain IQ expectation. That's where I think Nikon missed.

Yes, there is room in the product line for a Z-mount lens that is similar to the 16-35 f/4, but is that an "S" lens? I wouldn't think so.

Every Z lens Nikon has introduced has the "S" moniker, including the 24-70 f/4. I checked online and couldn't find any information which implies the moniker confers any special status. Perhaps I'm missing something?

Thanks, hadn’t seen that before. I wonder what types of designs they have planned for non-S designated lenses.

 

[JimKasson]

Was really looking forward to this lens with Nikon and the whole internet claiming the large mount diameter will mean EXCELLENT (never before seen on small mounts) performance on WA lenses. But After reading Thom who in my eyes is a Nikon fan give it faint praises I’m having second thoughts to this whole large mount hype.

The 14-30/4 lens doesn't take advantage of the wide mount diameter:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62158194

Whilst you may be correct, I am not sure that this tells the whole story. If it were the case that they didn't use the flexibility of the whole mount, then why is the 16-35 f4 VR so big in comparison to the tiny 14-30 f4S and it goes to 14mm, not the much easier to design 16mm. I really don't think VR would be the difference of it needing to be that big.

Looks to me that the reason that it's so big is that big negative front element.

Are we talking the 16-35 or the 14-30?

The 14-30. That's the lens I used for the diagram linked to above.

If it is the 14-30, then that must be why it is designed the way it is, and that they couldn't use the width at the mount end, not that it isn't of actual benefit.

If they didn't use it, it's not a benefit for that design. It might be for some other design.

I think it means that the front element needs to be that big due to the throat of the mount.

Makes no sense to me, even if the light went anywhere near the edges of the throat of the mount, which it doesn't.

Canon showed some examples where making the throat bigger allowed the front element to be smaller, but they weren't for zooms.

But let's assume your premise, which seems to be that a wider throat means a bigger front element. How can that be germane to the case of a lens design that doesn't go anywhere near the limits of the throat?

It may have needed to be bigger if the throat was smaller and a shorter flange. I know it sounds a little converse, but it may have meant less correcting elements to achieve this design on Z mount than F mount. Or, conversely, they may have needed many more elements to correct an F mount version of similar zoom range. I mean, there has to be a reason there was no F mount version that was 14-30 f4, why just have a 16-35 f4 and not a 14-30 f4? I know an F mount version would have been more popular and useful if it would have been made as small and light as the Z mount we now have.

At the end of the day, the lens is smaller for a reason and it must have something to do with the mount width and/or flange distance otherwise it would be looking more like the 16-35.

There could be other reasons why it's different.

Possibly.

The short throat allows more symmetric lenses, but this ain't one.

I think the 14-24 f2.8S will more likely show how the new mount is of benefit, just like the 24-70 f2.8S.

Maybe. We won't know until the diagram is published.

Again possibly. However, we have seen mock ups that appear to show no bulbous front element and looking like filter threads. Now, these may bring into the argument of a different compromise. In other words, to obtain this ability of filter threads and no bulbous front element may mean that they had to design it differently to achieve this and thus it may not be all that much smaller or lighter. Or conversely, it may mean that they can easily design it without the bulbous front element simply because of the new mount geometry.

Jim

 

[Lance B]

Was really looking forward to this lens with Nikon and the whole internet claiming the large mount diameter will mean EXCELLENT (never before seen on small mounts) performance on WA lenses. But After reading Thom who in my eyes is a Nikon fan give it faint praises I’m having second thoughts to this whole large mount hype.

The larger mount provides flexibility of design, including the option to go smaller and lighter as a design priority, which is what I believe Nikon chose with this lens. For its size the lens is an excellent performer for the focal range it covers. I'm sure we'll see other UWA lenses from Nikon that are weighted (figuratively and literally) toward other priorities.

Exactly.

 

[jfriend00]

2346011[/ATTACH]
Nikon Z series brochure pages 10-11

Horshack, post: 62758526, member: 622255"]

Was really looking forward to this lens with Nikon and the whole internet claiming the large mount diameter will mean EXCELLENT (never before seen on small mounts) performance on WA lenses. But After reading Thom who in my eyes is a Nikon fan give it faint praises I’m having second thoughts to this whole large mount hype.

The larger mount provides flexibility of design, including the option to go smaller and lighter as a design priority, which is what I believe Nikon chose with this lens. For its size the lens is an excellent performer for the focal range it covers. I'm sure we'll see other UWA lenses from Nikon that are weighted (figuratively and literally) toward other priorities.

Yeah, but why give it an "S" designation then? That sets a certain IQ expectation. That's where I think Nikon missed.

Yes, there is room in the product line for a Z-mount lens that is similar to the 16-35 f/4, but is that an "S" lens? I wouldn't think so.

Every Z lens Nikon has introduced has the "S" moniker, including the 24-70 f/4. I checked online and couldn't find any information which implies the moniker confers any special status. Perhaps I'm missing something?

Thanks, hadn’t seen that before. I wonder what types of designs they have planned for non-S designated lenses.

Imagine lenses that draw a slightly different cost-to-performance tradeoff such as a variable aperture 28-200 or a 70-300 or even a 24-85 that costs a lot less than the 24-70. If Nikon hopes to eventually have much lower cost Z-mount bodies, then they may need less expensive lenses to go with them.

--
John

 

[Lance B]

Was really looking forward to this lens with Nikon and the whole internet claiming the large mount diameter will mean EXCELLENT (never before seen on small mounts) performance on WA lenses. But After reading Thom who in my eyes is a Nikon fan give it faint praises I’m having second thoughts to this whole large mount hype.

The 14-30/4 lens doesn't take advantage of the wide mount diameter:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62158194

Whilst you may be correct, I am not sure that this tells the whole story. If it were the case that they didn't use the flexibility of the whole mount, then why is the 16-35 f4 VR so big in comparison to the tiny 14-30 f4S and it goes to 14mm, not the much easier to design 16mm. I really don't think VR would be the difference of it needing to be that big.

Looks to me that the reason that it's so big is that big negative front element.

Are we talking the 16-35 or the 14-30?

The 14-30. That's the lens I used for the diagram linked to above.

If it is the 14-30, then that must be why it is designed the way it is, and that they couldn't use the width at the mount end, not that it isn't of actual benefit.

If they didn't use it, it's not a benefit for that design. It might be for some other design.

I think it means that the front element needs to be that big due to the throat of the mount.

Makes no sense to me, even if the light went anywhere near the edges of the throat of the mount, which it doesn't.

Canon showed some examples where making the throat bigger allowed the front element to be smaller, but they weren't for zooms.

This seems to be the case with most zooms in this range I do believe. The Nikon 35 and 50 f1.8S lenses seem to have very small front elements as you say it is with Canon.

But let's assume your premise, which seems to be that a wider throat means a bigger front element. How can that be germane to the case of a lens design that doesn't go anywhere near the limits of the throat?

Good question, but not being a lens designer I can only speculate, but it must be for a reason me thinks. Maybe the large front element draws in more light and a wider angle and then is "steered" through other internal lens elements which don't need to be as big due to the large front element. More to do with light gathering rather than actual wide angle duties? Does the short FFD may play a role here? Just speculating of course.

It may have needed to be bigger if the throat was smaller and a shorter flange. I know it sounds a little converse, but it may have meant less correcting elements to achieve this design on Z mount than F mount. Or, conversely, they may have needed many more elements to correct an F mount version of similar zoom range. I mean, there has to be a reason there was no F mount version that was 14-30 f4, why just have a 16-35 f4 and not a 14-30 f4? I know an F mount version would have been more popular and useful if it would have been made as small and light as the Z mount we now have.

At the end of the day, the lens is smaller for a reason and it must have something to do with the mount width and/or flange distance otherwise it would be looking more like the 16-35.

There could be other reasons why it's different.

Possibly.

The short throat allows more symmetric lenses, but this ain't one.

I think the 14-24 f2.8S will more likely show how the new mount is of benefit, just like the 24-70 f2.8S.

Maybe. We won't know until the diagram is published.

Again possibly. However, we have seen mock ups that appear to show no bulbous front element and looking like filter threads. Now, these may bring into the argument of a different compromise. In other words, to obtain this ability of filter threads and no bulbous front element may mean that they had to design it differently to achieve this and thus it may not be all that much smaller or lighter. Or conversely, it may mean that they can easily design it without the bulbous front element simply because of the new mount geometry.

Jim

 

[JimKasson]

Was really looking forward to this lens with Nikon and the whole internet claiming the large mount diameter will mean EXCELLENT (never before seen on small mounts) performance on WA lenses. But After reading Thom who in my eyes is a Nikon fan give it faint praises I’m having second thoughts to this whole large mount hype.

The 14-30/4 lens doesn't take advantage of the wide mount diameter:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62158194

Whilst you may be correct, I am not sure that this tells the whole story. If it were the case that they didn't use the flexibility of the whole mount, then why is the 16-35 f4 VR so big in comparison to the tiny 14-30 f4S and it goes to 14mm, not the much easier to design 16mm. I really don't think VR would be the difference of it needing to be that big.

Looks to me that the reason that it's so big is that big negative front element.

Are we talking the 16-35 or the 14-30?

The 14-30. That's the lens I used for the diagram linked to above.

If it is the 14-30, then that must be why it is designed the way it is, and that they couldn't use the width at the mount end, not that it isn't of actual benefit.

If they didn't use it, it's not a benefit for that design. It might be for some other design.

I think it means that the front element needs to be that big due to the throat of the mount.

Makes no sense to me, even if the light went anywhere near the edges of the throat of the mount, which it doesn't.

Canon showed some examples where making the throat bigger allowed the front element to be smaller, but they weren't for zooms.

This seems to be the case with most zooms in this range I do believe. The Nikon 35 and 50 f1.8S lenses seem to have very small front elements as you say it is with Canon.

But let's assume your premise, which seems to be that a wider throat means a bigger front element. How can that be germane to the case of a lens design that doesn't go anywhere near the limits of the throat?

Good question, but not being a lens designer I can only speculate, but it must be for a reason me thinks.

So you're saying that the width of the throat is a benefit to a design that doesn't let light near the throat? I don't get it.

Maybe the large front element draws in more light and a wider angle and then is "steered" through other internal lens elements which don't need to be as big due to the large front element.

Yes, but that means the throat doesn't need to be as big.

More to do with light gathering rather than actual wide angle duties?

What's the difference?

Does the short FFD may play a role here?

The short FFD is indeed used.

Just speculating of course.

Jim

 

[Lance B]

Was really looking forward to this lens with Nikon and the whole internet claiming the large mount diameter will mean EXCELLENT (never before seen on small mounts) performance on WA lenses. But After reading Thom who in my eyes is a Nikon fan give it faint praises I’m having second thoughts to this whole large mount hype.

The 14-30/4 lens doesn't take advantage of the wide mount diameter:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62158194

Whilst you may be correct, I am not sure that this tells the whole story. If it were the case that they didn't use the flexibility of the whole mount, then why is the 16-35 f4 VR so big in comparison to the tiny 14-30 f4S and it goes to 14mm, not the much easier to design 16mm. I really don't think VR would be the difference of it needing to be that big.

Looks to me that the reason that it's so big is that big negative front element.

Are we talking the 16-35 or the 14-30?

The 14-30. That's the lens I used for the diagram linked to above.

If it is the 14-30, then that must be why it is designed the way it is, and that they couldn't use the width at the mount end, not that it isn't of actual benefit.

If they didn't use it, it's not a benefit for that design. It might be for some other design.

I think it means that the front element needs to be that big due to the throat of the mount.

Makes no sense to me, even if the light went anywhere near the edges of the throat of the mount, which it doesn't.

Canon showed some examples where making the throat bigger allowed the front element to be smaller, but they weren't for zooms.

This seems to be the case with most zooms in this range I do believe. The Nikon 35 and 50 f1.8S lenses seem to have very small front elements as you say it is with Canon.

But let's assume your premise, which seems to be that a wider throat means a bigger front element. How can that be germane to the case of a lens design that doesn't go anywhere near the limits of the throat?

Good question, but not being a lens designer I can only speculate, but it must be for a reason me thinks.

So you're saying that the width of the throat is a benefit to a design that doesn't let light near the throat? I don't get it.

Maybe the large front element draws in more light and a wider angle and then is "steered" through other internal lens elements which don't need to be as big due to the large front element.

Yes, but that means the throat doesn't need to be as big.

More to do with light gathering rather than actual wide angle duties?

What's the difference?

Does the short FFD may play a role here?

The short FFD is indeed used.

I was just speculating about the mount as a whole, not just the throat. It all works in conjunction with each aspect of the design and so, I just don't think we can use one aspect of the new mount and come to a conclusion as to how Nikon went about designing this lens.

The interesting thing is that the 16-35 seems to have an even larger rear element than this 14-30 which even throws more conjecture into overall lens design considering it is only 16mm at the wide end not 14mm. I would love to know the ins and outs of their design process and how it works here.

Just speculating of course.

Jim

 

[Jay A]

Interesting review of the 14-30. I've been wondering if I just have a bad copy but I just don't think it's a great lens, especially at 14mm where I think it's not very good at all.

 

[JimKasson]

Was really looking forward to this lens with Nikon and the whole internet claiming the large mount diameter will mean EXCELLENT (never before seen on small mounts) performance on WA lenses. But After reading Thom who in my eyes is a Nikon fan give it faint praises I’m having second thoughts to this whole large mount hype.

The 14-30/4 lens doesn't take advantage of the wide mount diameter:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62158194

Whilst you may be correct, I am not sure that this tells the whole story. If it were the case that they didn't use the flexibility of the whole mount, then why is the 16-35 f4 VR so big in comparison to the tiny 14-30 f4S and it goes to 14mm, not the much easier to design 16mm. I really don't think VR would be the difference of it needing to be that big.

Looks to me that the reason that it's so big is that big negative front element.

Are we talking the 16-35 or the 14-30?

The 14-30. That's the lens I used for the diagram linked to above.

If it is the 14-30, then that must be why it is designed the way it is, and that they couldn't use the width at the mount end, not that it isn't of actual benefit.

If they didn't use it, it's not a benefit for that design. It might be for some other design.

I think it means that the front element needs to be that big due to the throat of the mount.

Makes no sense to me, even if the light went anywhere near the edges of the throat of the mount, which it doesn't.

Canon showed some examples where making the throat bigger allowed the front element to be smaller, but they weren't for zooms.

This seems to be the case with most zooms in this range I do believe. The Nikon 35 and 50 f1.8S lenses seem to have very small front elements as you say it is with Canon.

But let's assume your premise, which seems to be that a wider throat means a bigger front element. How can that be germane to the case of a lens design that doesn't go anywhere near the limits of the throat?

Good question, but not being a lens designer I can only speculate, but it must be for a reason me thinks.

So you're saying that the width of the throat is a benefit to a design that doesn't let light near the throat? I don't get it.

Maybe the large front element draws in more light and a wider angle and then is "steered" through other internal lens elements which don't need to be as big due to the large front element.

Yes, but that means the throat doesn't need to be as big.

More to do with light gathering rather than actual wide angle duties?

What's the difference?

Does the short FFD may play a role here?

The short FFD is indeed used.

I was just speculating about the mount as a whole, not just the throat. It all works in conjunction with each aspect of the design and so, I just don't think we can use one aspect of the new mount and come to a conclusion as to how Nikon went about designing this lens.

The interesting thing is that the 16-35 seems to have an even larger rear element than this 14-30 which even throws more conjecture into overall lens design considering it is only 16mm at the wide end not 14mm. I would love to know the ins and outs of their design process and how it works here.

I am not a lens designer. I am not an optics expert. I do know enough about both to appreciate that modern CAD-based lens design in an age where the available glasses are shrinking in some ways and expanding in others, where the elements need not be spherical, where the relationship of the elements need no longer be fixed, and where the coatings have gotten ever more complex is not something that can be explained easily or without a lot of math.

Jim

 

[Lance B]

Was really looking forward to this lens with Nikon and the whole internet claiming the large mount diameter will mean EXCELLENT (never before seen on small mounts) performance on WA lenses. But After reading Thom who in my eyes is a Nikon fan give it faint praises I’m having second thoughts to this whole large mount hype.

The 14-30/4 lens doesn't take advantage of the wide mount diameter:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62158194

Whilst you may be correct, I am not sure that this tells the whole story. If it were the case that they didn't use the flexibility of the whole mount, then why is the 16-35 f4 VR so big in comparison to the tiny 14-30 f4S and it goes to 14mm, not the much easier to design 16mm. I really don't think VR would be the difference of it needing to be that big.

Looks to me that the reason that it's so big is that big negative front element.

Are we talking the 16-35 or the 14-30?

The 14-30. That's the lens I used for the diagram linked to above.

If it is the 14-30, then that must be why it is designed the way it is, and that they couldn't use the width at the mount end, not that it isn't of actual benefit.

If they didn't use it, it's not a benefit for that design. It might be for some other design.

I think it means that the front element needs to be that big due to the throat of the mount.

Makes no sense to me, even if the light went anywhere near the edges of the throat of the mount, which it doesn't.

Canon showed some examples where making the throat bigger allowed the front element to be smaller, but they weren't for zooms.

This seems to be the case with most zooms in this range I do believe. The Nikon 35 and 50 f1.8S lenses seem to have very small front elements as you say it is with Canon.

But let's assume your premise, which seems to be that a wider throat means a bigger front element. How can that be germane to the case of a lens design that doesn't go anywhere near the limits of the throat?

Good question, but not being a lens designer I can only speculate, but it must be for a reason me thinks.

So you're saying that the width of the throat is a benefit to a design that doesn't let light near the throat? I don't get it.

Maybe the large front element draws in more light and a wider angle and then is "steered" through other internal lens elements which don't need to be as big due to the large front element.

Yes, but that means the throat doesn't need to be as big.

More to do with light gathering rather than actual wide angle duties?

What's the difference?

Does the short FFD may play a role here?

The short FFD is indeed used.

I was just speculating about the mount as a whole, not just the throat. It all works in conjunction with each aspect of the design and so, I just don't think we can use one aspect of the new mount and come to a conclusion as to how Nikon went about designing this lens.

The interesting thing is that the 16-35 seems to have an even larger rear element than this 14-30 which even throws more conjecture into overall lens design considering it is only 16mm at the wide end not 14mm. I would love to know the ins and outs of their design process and how it works here.

I am not a lens designer. I am not an optics expert. I do know enough about both to appreciate that modern CAD-based lens design in an age where the available glasses are shrinking in some ways and expanding in others, where the elements need not be spherical, where the relationship of the elements need no longer be fixed, and where the coatings have gotten ever more complex is not something that can be explained easily or without a lot of math.

Jim

Jim, I definitely am not questioning your knowledge as it is highly respected by me and it seems by many others here. Your posts and information is greatly appreciated and I take my hat off to your greater knowledge on many things here. My thoughts are just speculation as I am definitely not a lens designer either, but I do think I have a good grasp of things and I am sure there are reasons for Nikon to design this lens the way they did. On the face of it, it also seems to me that the mount does play a role in the 14-30's diminutive size and excellent performance given it's size. As I say above, it would be great to know whether or how the new mount has played a part in the design of the 14-30.

 

[Lance B]

Interesting review of the 14-30. I've been wondering if I just have a bad copy but I just don't think it's a great lens, especially at 14mm where I think it's not very good at all.

Or different expectations?

 

[JimKasson]

Interesting review of the 14-30. I've been wondering if I just have a bad copy but I just don't think it's a great lens, especially at 14mm where I think it's not very good at all.

Run this test on your lens:

https://blog.kasson.com/lens-screening-testing/

Send me the raws.

I'll tell you if you have a good copy or not.

Jim

 

[Jay A]

I was able to get m hands on some RAW files that were done with the Loxia 21 and an adapter for the Z7. I compared those images wth some that I shot with the 14-30 at 21mm. While I saw little difference at that length, images shot at 14mm were noticeably unacceptable to me. Not just in the corners but in the entire frame. I decided to just look at this lens as a 16 (or better yet, 18) - 30.

I too owned the Nikon 16-35 at one point. I thought that lens was a dog. The 14-24 is terrific

I think the 14-30 is a decent lens...the higher you go in focal length. Just not as good as I had hoped. But as you say, one's own expectations are a huge factor in all of this.

 

[Jay A]

Interesting review of the 14-30. I've been wondering if I just have a bad copy but I just don't think it's a great lens, especially at 14mm where I think it's not very good at all.

Run this test on your lens:

https://blog.kasson.com/lens-screening-testing/

Send me the raws.

I'll tell you if you have a good copy or not.

Jim

Appreciate the offer Jim and I will definitely consider it but I am on the verge of putting the lens up for sale and getting myself a Loxia and adapter. While your evaluation may indeed tell me if it's a defective lens or not, the bottom line is that I don't consider it as useful as I had hoped based on my own shooting with it. If I am not going to shoot with it under 18mm, and don't really need to over 21mm (because I also have the 24-70 which I am very happy with), it thus becomes a 21 for me, and an F4, bigger and bulkier than the Loxia. So what then is the point?

Again, thanks for the offer. I will let you know if I do decide to run the tests.

And btw, I find Thom's assessment of this lens very interesting. I pretty much agree with everything he said about it.