Me. The Tamron is an F mount lens with all the compromises of a mirror in the light path built in.

Software costs nothing? Sure, a magical software fairy works on the lens production line tapping each lens with her magical lens correction wand. And another visits each software developer and taps their lead developer on the head with his magical software wand so that they automatically add the lens corrections to their software.

@ewelch software costs nothing relative to the hardware, this is dumbly obvious, i don't believe i have to explain this idioticy to anyone...

@Clayton1985 Please make a rational question? I can't even understand what you are trying to say.
I very clearly explained why, if you have any kind of dementia to understand it why should i keep talking to you?

Another undiscriminating sucker drinks the Z Koolaid. If soft, distorted sides and corners are good enough for you, I guess the 14-30 is your lens.

What coolaid?
I provided side by side samples in that link that completely disprove what you are claiming, but you obviously prefer to hear yourself talk than look at the link.
Also, Jim Kasson did a comparison between the new 14-30 vs. the venerable Sony 12-24 and this lens performed neck and neck against it.
Show me your samples or go troll somewhere else.

@Reilly Diefenbach The 14-24 got nothing on this lens. This lens is obviously super well corrected and sharper than most other wide zooms while being very light, compact and with filter ring.

@Reilly Diefenbach... you obviously don't know what you're talking about and I'm willing to bet that review after review comparing the 14-24 f2.8 and 14-30 f4 might as well conclude by saying once again we see that Reilly Diefenbach doesn't have a clue because it will be obvious which lens is better.

That would be really nice. I'm continuously pressing the "i" button to set on/off the EFCS...

Auto shutter is indeed an option in the 2.0 firmware release. EFCS < 1/250, mechanical above. Neat!

Since a lot of these galleries are created over weekends and between meetings, we inevitably tend to focus on a mile or two radius, but we do our best!

I'm not tired of images from Seattle. It's a city I've never visited and I appreciate the views.

Kinda - as Nikon made such a fuss of the large mount, I'm looking for the claimed advantages to manifest, and corner sharpness doesn't seem to be one.

I guess you're right Arcimboldo. In the end it seems a smaller mount is better for corner sharpness.
Who would have thought :P

I dont think we are seeing lenses leveraging that new mount with the F4 zooms aside from the potential of building different kind of lenses.
These are to me lenses for the enthusiast - light and sound to get consumers up and running. I am looking forward to this lense.

@CaPi Maybe, but at least the naïve idea (and possibly it's not that naïve after all) about what problems smaller mounts pose for lens design, acute incident angles towards the corners of the sensor as opposed to what a telecentric design would produce could cause smearing and vignetting. And this lens doesn't seem to be successful with using that supposed advantage of the larger mount.

Compared to what i ask you?
Corner sharpness looks pretty good to me on the highway shot...

@wasTF Compared to at 16 mm with the Sony FE 16-35 GM. Granted, 16 mm is not 14 mm, and the Sony is a more expensive lens. But despite its sitting on a smaller mount, corner sharpness on a Sony a7R III looks better to me than the Nikkor.

Not to talk about center sharpness, which is much better both with the GM and the 12-24 G on the a7R III, in the latter case both at 14 and at 12 mm. Actually, center sharpness impresses me even less than the corners with the Nikkor, but that shouldn't have much to do with the mount diameter.

To be perfectly clear, I want to like the Nikon Z system, simply because I'm not entirely happy with my 70-200 GM, while the new Nikkor F 70-200/2.8 seems to be stellar. I'd hope that Nikon would produce an equally great Z lens and, if I don't switch (70-200 is the range most important to me), Sony may be urged to do a Mk II. Competition is good and all that, you know?

Thanks!, yeah, you cant compare 14 to 16mm.
Also i just saw the test of the 50mm 1.8 S on dxomark.
It scored just closely behind the sony 1.4 which is double the price.
So all in all the Z-Mount is really great.. and plenty of sharp enough.
Ergonomics and interface i personally like better with nikon, so for me no question with system is better.

I believe those higher spec lenses to be compared with a Sony GM series will follow. Yet I also believe that its important to build lenses first that will be a fit for most buyers. I would not invest in a GM series UWA lense. Its not worth that much to me. Id be game for more primes and zooms.

And no doubt the "high spec" lenses will be F2.9 zooms. Why should an F4 lens be considered "low spec"? Why should we have to lug around F2.8 zooms to have a "high spec" lens?

Making faster lenses optically excellent is harder than making slower ones optically excellent and the former end up being huge.

Slower lenses, regardless of the width of the mount, should be optically excellent these days. They can still be cheaper and lighter than faster lenses and people buying these lenses should not have to buy the fast F2.8 lens to get the best sharpness and corners at F4 and F5.6

@arcimboldo... you are making it up as you go along. You can't make the judgments you're making by viewing a few dpr images and you can't reasonably compare the 14-30 f4 to a lens that costs 70% more simply because the Nikon mount is supposed to have an advantage. The mount isn't the only thing that determines overall IQ, there are many other things that have to be considered and many of those are directly impacted by the cost.

@Dave Oddie... can you share with us the full frame f4 UWA zoom covering 14-30mm (or at least 16-35) that you're using as a point of reference to tell us what a lens should be these days? I believe the Nikon 14-30 is similar to the Sony 12-24 f4 and 16-35 f4, better than the Nikon 16-35 f4,

@Archimboldo,
Another insecure Sony apostle spouting nonsense on a Nikon thread.

More like another Sony troll overwhelmed by the quality and affordability of a Nikon Z lens.

shutter related? this is a 14mm lens - objects near the extreme edges of the frame get a bit stretched, that's all. You'll see the same effect from any ultra-wide.

This is to me a highly portable standard lense for a light enthusiast kit. I will check it out as soon as its in stock.
Size and weight are great and i dont Need f2.8 on an UWA lense

Also don't forget that this Nikon has a filter thread. For people like me that's an important factor.

@artnaz -- OP didn't think any zoom that wide (10mm) exists, which was the reason for my post, not to compare with the Nikkor.

wow I did not know I could do this.

this is cool

If you read the comments of many on this site it is clear they have no filter? ;-)

James Stirling - /architecture joke/ I liked you better as a brutalist but no 10 Poultry is a bit fun/ architecture joke/

My point is only that reviews should help compare products. Using ACR as a benchmarking tool doesn't work as evidenced in the Nikon Pentax comparison. I have no beef with using corrections for my photos nor making compromises in lens design. I myself quite like small, slow prime lenses.

Surely that is No 1 Poultry? :)

Poultry is a rather challenging bit of design :-) I think it is a swings and roundabout thing take a look at what an optically corrected lens costs and size and weight
Sony 12-24mm F/4 compared to Canon 11-24mm , the Canon weighs almost twice as much , and here in the UK costs £1250 more . Is it a technically better designed lens , yes but from an end user perspective maybe not so much . Before accepting that this is how mirrorless lens design works I to rallied against it

https://camerasize.com/compact/#724.662,716.449,ha,t

A Pelleplutt (swe?) in London? Knowing the correct address of a Stirling Building... There can't be many of us.

26 years in London... TBH, maybe that's more than enough. (And they may throw us all out anyway, of course. I got my indefinite leave to remain last month, but I don't trust the home office as far as I can throw them).

I narrowly escaped after 12 years. Felt it was my last chance, another year and it would be permanent!

Sharpness looks fine on Safari

@IdM photography.... that is a simplistic and outdated point of view. You can't remove optical corrections from your raw images so why do you think you should have the option to remove software corrections that were not intended to be optional?

By having the unprocessed sensor data stored in the RAW file, you can still, one or 10 years later, process it better with a more advanced software in your PC... That's not outdated, that's future proof :D
On the other hand, once the image data has been processed in the camera, you can't undo that...

@idm, the raw data is still there, it only contains additional information how it can be interpreted. Have you ever opened a raw image and looked at the original data? Every camera software that is on the market will process it for you and apply demosaicing, gamma curve, white balance, cut off pixels on the side, remove hot pixels, ... . You didn't want to see a RAW image.

There are a number of sample images out there showing 14-30 f4 images without software corrections so if you really need to do that you can but I'd argue that all you're going to do is correct the image anyway just like the software is doing for you. And I don't know why you wouldn't be able to take advantage of better software in 10 years if you wanted to. What you're leaving out is the downside of making it easy for the average photographer to view images without intended corrections. You can find plenty of examples from recent years of some genius waxing on about the uncorrected images from a lens that was designed to be corrected by software. It creates headaches for the manufacturer and if I were making that decision I would make it difficult to see the images without corrections for these reasons and others. This will only get worse as software advances.

The issue is about being able to compare lenses. New lenses will appear better than old ones because the former are reviewed with corrections the latter without. You are able to correct old lenses just as well but you have to turn it on in software. People will be fooled into buying inferior new lenses based on poor quality reviews.

With your line of reasoning you should only really review sooc jpegs at default settings. This would be a mistake imho.

I would be very happy too if the price came down with it afterall is not about hardware evolution, mostly the other way.

@Lessiter Completely agreed. I can't beleive guys like the OP are serious, it must be bought or under hipnose. People will pay more for the same lens or worse lens...BUT SOFTWARE CORRECTED...

@Lessiter You can't be serious. Think about what you wrote and then think about it again. "Inferior new lenses"? Oh silly me I thought it was the final image which mattered. Modern imaging systems create more realistic looking images. That's a fact. How they get there doesn't matter. People like you were upset when lens coatings where introduced, somehow the image was "less pure". The 14-30 F4S is superior to the already legendary 14-24 f2.8 while being a lot smaller, a lot lighter and a lot cheaper. That's a big deal.

A useful analogy to help some to get their heads around this. Did you know that most western jet fighters are aerodynamically unstable since the 1970's? They need constant software correction in order to stay airborne. Computers are interpreting fly-by-wire (yep thats' were the term comes from) inputs from the pilot which are calculated along with the instability of the aircraft in order to produce the desired flight.
The benefits of an unstable aircraft is that you can trade stability for performance. So by having an unstable aircraft you can have, for example, superior manoeuvring capability.
It's the same with digital images. By sacrificing, for example, geometry you can gain resolution that would be impossible with an analogue system.

For some commenters to demand only analogue corrections in a digital system is stupid.

@Einride.... You're right. So many people are willing to place a completely disproportionate amount of emphasis on a couple of areas while forgetting about all of the other benefits of the 14-30 f4 and even worse ignoring the end results.

Amazingly you are still missing the point. I have nothing against applying corrections is software.

Your fighter jet analogy would work IF it was a fighter jet review site for dubious dictatorships looking to cement their power in a cost effective way. AND old/all jets could by pressing an existing button (at no cost) become "unstable".

Thing is it would *not* be a useful review if the site compared new jets with button pressed and old jets without... All dictators would go hmm I really need to buy this new unstable jet rather than just use my old and press this existing " unstable" button that no one told me would enable my old jet to perform much better.

Logic failure.
Old design lens + software corretion in post = X dollars
Old design lens (or reduced lens design complexity and materials)with embbeded software correction = more than X dollars
both with equal results...
"THE END RESULT IS WHAT MATTERS!!! YOU DUMB IDIOTS!!!"
PS: If you don't know the true uncooked results you can't even acknowledge if the lens sample variation is at the same level as before, so less strict QC.

Why the cost cut is not translated to the costumer?
Anyway, people seems unable to understand even the basics...

Einride - "I have nothing against applying corrections is software." was said by me above. Make note of that and understand that I mean it.

^ let it sink in

^^ make sure you read it again and understand it

Ok? Now lets move on to the issue. **Review**. Thats the issue. We are talking about comparative reviews and how to make them meaningful across systems and lenses.

Taking a few lenses from the dpreview front page you'll find that some are reviewed with corrections on and some with corrections off. The review will point out the terrible CA in the lens where the correction is off and praise the lack of CA where the correction is on. By clicking a button both would be praised for a lack of CA.

If the former lens is tiny and the latter huge and they perform equally *with the same settings* the advantages of the former should be obvious to many users.

Please read the first paragraph again to make sure you're not strawmanning my argument before responding.

Please don't encourage optical engineers to see how much bad optics they can sweep under the rug!

The more you correct with a profile, the worse the image quality gets. You can only correct so much vignetting and distortion before it starts to show up as corner softness and/or noise.

The Z 24-70 f/4 S has some weird color vignetting issues. On this 14-30, the corners are bad even at f/8, which is a shame since the now "ancient" (and tiny by today's standards) Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 UMC is ridiculously sharp right to the extreme corners by f/8, with our without its insane distortion profile-corrected.

Don't make excuses for a lens that cuts too many corners. Yes, it's great that they're including a lens correction profile now; we don't have to wait for them to arrive later in Adobe. But let's call a spade a spade- the way I'm interpreting the sample images here, this lens is a step backward in terms of corner image quality compared to almost every prior (recent) 14mm prime/zoom. Sad.

Lighten up, Ash.
The worst critics are those who will never even touch the lense.