I’m planning to go 14-30 mostly because I can use it on real estate shoots to offset the cost. I had the Tamron 17-28 for Sony and found that on smaller houses it just was not quite wide enough for what I needed. Also when I am shooting wide I don’t need f 2.8 as I’m usually shooting a group of people, real estate or landscape, making the the f4 perfectly suitable and I tend to prefer f 1.8 primes when low light is a concern.
I like the internal zoom of the 17-28, but that’s it. The wider, longer focal range, extra solid feel, a decent amount of metal in the construction, all lead to the 14-30 being a no-brainer for me. 99% of what I do is real estate/architectural/landscapes, so the aperture isn’t that important, but that few extra degrees of width is VERY important. 17mm just isn’t quite wide enough in a lot of situations.
Interesting comparison. I had a hard time choosing between the two but everyone's requirements differ. I already have a 12mm f/8.8 full-frame manual focus lens which does just fine for beyond 17mm. When comparing lens size, I look at the extended size as well as the stored size. The 17-28 f/2.8 is also cheaper than the 14-30mm where I live and the extra stop of light helps composing in low light. I have found the 17-28mm to be sharp enough on the edges and I am pleased I went with that. I do miss the manual focus switch and the extra control ring which I normally assign aperture - but neither are deal breakers.
Thank you very much for your comments, still a hard selection for me, probably I will go for light weight and the f/2.8 aperture without taking a tripod with me.
I had the 14-30, and sold it. I have the 17-28 now, to close out my trinity. I have the 24-70mm 2.8 S and the 70-200mm 2.8 S, but don't shoot wide as often as tele. I like the much smaller footprint in the camera bag of the 17-28, cheaper filters, and faster aperture. My absolute favorite lens is the 24-120mm f/4 S, which seems like it would be duplicative. That and the 40mm f/2 are my EDC on the Z7 II. The Z9 and 50mm 1.2 tend to stay home.
I just don't get it. Why are you shooting 2.8 at 17mm? I see you have a Z9, soo if it's for Astro, why wouldn't you have a dedicated 1.4? 1.8? If it's for portraits, you don't shoot under 30mm. I honestly done see a single use for this overpriced 17-28, unless video? The 14-30 used is the same price.
Recently purchased the 17-28 lens, much prefer it to my 14-30 for many reasons. Astro landscape shots are amazing on the 17-28. So my 14-30 is now redundant.
14-30mm my main go to lens with Z6 for my Real Estate photography. Best lens had for this. Way sharper corner to corner. Best wide angle ever used. No issue with low light with F4 with Z6.
Surprisingly, f4 is more than enough for low light situations. And being at 14mm means you can drop the shutter speed down even lower and still get sharp images
Not having used the 17-28, I can't say anything about it. As a 14-30 owner, I can say that although the corners could be a bit sharper, in most of the pictures I took with it that only becomes an issue when you start pixel peeping instead of concentrating on the overall image. And this is where the 14-30 shines. It has produced some of my favorite images on my Z6ii with pop, color rendition, and that intangible quality that transports you back into the moment in a way few other lenses I own can. Only issue I have is that although the lens is compact and light, the hood diameter is a bit of a pain so I usually take it off and store it in a side pouch of my shoulder bag.
I have the 14-30, and I love it, but I use it solely for landscape. If I had to shoot indoors, I would go for the 17-28 2.8. Assuming the wide end of the 17-28 would work for my use case.
I would love to own the 14-30mm, but I opted on saving a ton of money and buying a used older Tamron 17-35mm which optically is amazing but has an older focus motor. This 17-28mm is an overpriced Tamron. The 14-30 used is the same price.. no it's cheaper. But I paid $450 for mine, which I'll keep for a long time.
I recently bought the Nikon Z5 with the Nikon 24-70mm and now I want to buy a wide angle lens for landscapes. I had the Nikon D5200 and the Tokina 11-16mm 2.8f lens and was very impressed with its quality. I want now a similar quality lens for the Z5. Do you think the 17-28mm 2.8f is the right one?
Thanks for the review! How do you feel these two compare for real estate photography? I'm just starting to look into this area of photography, but I'm assuming the advantages of a wider aperture don't really come into play (similar to what you said about landscape photography). There's currently a $300 difference in price, where the f2.8 is cheaper
I’m trying to choose between the two lenses. I have the 12-24mm f4 DX f-mount and I’m pondering which lens might be a better z mount lens replacement. Could you share some more insight on the performance of these two lenses for taking portraits/interior spaces in indoor/low light situations?
I own both 12-24mm and 14-30 Z, and let me say that the former is my favorite DX lens before I switched to full frame in late 2019. First off, these two will blow the 12-24 any day of the week, so whichever you decide to go for will make you happy. Second, if you switched to full frame with either you won't loose what you had with your 12-24 since 12mm is 18mm in real field of view. If you do mostly architectural and tripod work then I'd go for the 14-30 for its superior image quality (also build quality - it's an S lens) but for general photography and video I would go with the 17-28 (compact and also internal zoom so easier to use on a gimbal). I love Tamron and still own many F-Mount lenses including the 15-30mm G2, so I'm not a Nikon snob. My last advice, if you love the 12-24mm form factor and you prefer to use crop sensors then I'd wait for the 12-28mm DX (yes, 4mm more range), which is on the roadmap and will also be a power zoom (PZ). I suspect that will be an f/4 but no one knows at this point. Personally since I own a Z30 and like the small form factor I will purchase this upcoming lens but sell my 12-24 first, before it loses even more value after Nikon releases the 12-28 Z. I hope it helps.
@@Willymaze thank you for sharing you insights, I used to go out more, and have more opportunities to do landscapes, but now do more casual family photos...I forgot to mention that I just got a z5 coming from a d90 (RIP), and I'm looking to buy one of these lenses, because it seems like a shame to use a DX lens on an FX body. It would be great though if Nikon would allow us to manually select the FX mode on the z5, and maybe I wouldn't feel the need to buy one of these lenses so soon.
@@bryanong7754 The Z5 is a great camera, congratulations! I have it as well, for me it's the true mirrorless D750 from which I upgraded from and is legendary to this point. You are also super lucky that Nikon just released a really important firmware that improves the camera dramatically. I just tried the 12-24 on the Z5 and you only get 10.3 MP, not much, and soft compared to the Z lenses, also note that this is a really old lens design dating back from when Nikon didn't even have a full frame option yet (pre D3-D700), exactly 20 years ago. If you say that nowadays you take family pictures then I wouldn't get either option and would get the 28-75 2.8; I have the Sony G2 version with me and a Sony A7RV which is 61MP, and let me tell you, it's really sharp and both video and stills will have nice out of focus backgrounds. The reason why I got the 14-30 was because the Z5 has a 1.7x crop with 4K video and 14, 20 and 30 will be 24, 35 and 50mm with this crop factor.
@@Willymaze funny you bring up the 28-75mm lens, I'm waiting for it to arrive. I guess it would be better to use that lens first before I pull the trigger on a wider zoom lens. As for video, that's a rabbit hole I'm not ready to explore at the moment, but you make a valid point on the video crop for the z5 - it is important for picking lenses. When the time comes, maybe an extra wide prime might work well for video.
@@bryanong7754 That's awesome! You did the work already. I don't mean to be a bad influence but I would shoot to get that trinity together in the future when they release the 70-180 2.8. 😇
Mmm definitely depends if you need the f1.8 aperture. The 20mm focal length is personally one of my favorites for landscape photography as it can still capture plenty into the frame but doesn't have any distortion at the edges, while the 14-30mm is definitely wider and will provide more flexibility in terms of focal length. But if you need a lens for astro photography the 20mm will be your best bet, definitely can't go wrong with either as they'll both boast great image quality.
14-30 punches above ots weiaght in Landscape photography >> you dont nreed faster than F8 anyway > For Astro I use 20mm f1.8 S as F2.8 is Toooo slow >> sorry Nikon 14-24 F2.8 S
I had the 20 and 14-30 now only have the 14-24 2.8 and the 35mm 1.8 for Astro. Also heavily disliked the 14-30 was never instantly ready to shoot. Could just never get used to that.
@@lancebryson9013 the lens can be put in travel position, meaning you have to turn it in order to get to the 14mm position. Same mechanism as 24-70 f/4 lens. I just can’t get used to it.
the 17-28 should have been in their budget line of lenses, not being an S lens and what hell Nikon? why no gold ring or something to differentiate between the top of the range lenses and the budget ones? cmon. paying a lot of money I want my gold badge ffs
I’m planning to go 14-30 mostly because I can use it on real estate shoots to offset the cost. I had the Tamron 17-28 for Sony and found that on smaller houses it just was not quite wide enough for what I needed. Also when I am shooting wide I don’t need f 2.8 as I’m usually shooting a group of people, real estate or landscape, making the the f4 perfectly suitable and I tend to prefer f 1.8 primes when low light is a concern.
I like the internal zoom of the 17-28, but that’s it. The wider, longer focal range, extra solid feel, a decent amount of metal in the construction, all lead to the 14-30 being a no-brainer for me.
99% of what I do is real estate/architectural/landscapes, so the aperture isn’t that important, but that few extra degrees of width is VERY important.
17mm just isn’t quite wide enough in a lot of situations.
Interesting comparison. I had a hard time choosing between the two but everyone's requirements differ. I already have a 12mm f/8.8 full-frame manual focus lens which does just fine for beyond 17mm. When comparing lens size, I look at the extended size as well as the stored size. The 17-28 f/2.8 is also cheaper than the 14-30mm where I live and the extra stop of light helps composing in low light. I have found the 17-28mm to be sharp enough on the edges and I am pleased I went with that. I do miss the manual focus switch and the extra control ring which I normally assign aperture - but neither are deal breakers.
Very well done Review and I could not decide between the 2 and after watching your excellent video, i am going with the 14-30mm!
Thank you! I think you will enjoy the lens allot
Thank you very much for your comments, still a hard selection for me, probably I will go for light weight and the f/2.8 aperture without taking a tripod with me.
I had the 14-30, and sold it. I have the 17-28 now, to close out my trinity. I have the 24-70mm 2.8 S and the 70-200mm 2.8 S, but don't shoot wide as often as tele. I like the much smaller footprint in the camera bag of the 17-28, cheaper filters, and faster aperture. My absolute favorite lens is the 24-120mm f/4 S, which seems like it would be duplicative. That and the 40mm f/2 are my EDC on the Z7 II. The Z9 and 50mm 1.2 tend to stay home.
I just don't get it. Why are you shooting 2.8 at 17mm? I see you have a Z9, soo if it's for Astro, why wouldn't you have a dedicated 1.4? 1.8?
If it's for portraits, you don't shoot under 30mm. I honestly done see a single use for this overpriced 17-28, unless video?
The 14-30 used is the same price.
Recently purchased the 17-28 lens, much prefer it to my 14-30 for many reasons. Astro landscape shots are amazing on the 17-28. So my 14-30 is now redundant.
good review. i was on the fence between the two lenses. now i know i want the 14-30 f/4. thanks!
14-30mm my main go to lens with Z6 for my Real Estate photography. Best lens had for this. Way sharper corner to corner. Best wide angle ever used. No issue with low light with F4 with Z6.
Surprisingly, f4 is more than enough for low light situations. And being at 14mm means you can drop the shutter speed down even lower and still get sharp images
Not having used the 17-28, I can't say anything about it. As a 14-30 owner, I can say that although the corners could be a bit sharper, in most of the pictures I took with it that only becomes an issue when you start pixel peeping instead of concentrating on the overall image. And this is where the 14-30 shines. It has produced some of my favorite images on my Z6ii with pop, color rendition, and that intangible quality that transports you back into the moment in a way few other lenses I own can. Only issue I have is that although the lens is compact and light, the hood diameter is a bit of a pain so I usually take it off and store it in a side pouch of my shoulder bag.
I’m about to buy back into the full frame nikon line so this is real helpful.
I'm glad I could help!
Really helpful, touching on all the key points. Thanks!
I had the 14-30 and rarely used it below 16mm because of vignetting with filters.
I have the 14-30, and I love it, but I use it solely for landscape. If I had to shoot indoors, I would go for the 17-28 2.8. Assuming the wide end of the 17-28 would work for my use case.
And what are you shooting for indoors? 2.8 v f4 isn't that big, and these Z bodies deal great w higher iso.
Spot on sir. I own the 14-30 as well and love it. Subscribed and Liked.
Confused by the 2. But I'm leaning towards the 17-28 because I plan to use it much more of street than landscape.
I would love to own the 14-30mm, but I opted on saving a ton of money and buying a used older Tamron 17-35mm which optically is amazing but has an older focus motor.
This 17-28mm is an overpriced Tamron. The 14-30 used is the same price.. no it's cheaper. But I paid $450 for mine, which I'll keep for a long time.
I recently bought the Nikon Z5 with the Nikon 24-70mm and now I want to buy a wide angle lens for landscapes. I had the Nikon D5200 and the Tokina 11-16mm 2.8f lens and was very impressed with its quality. I want now a similar quality lens for the Z5. Do you think the 17-28mm 2.8f is the right one?
Very good video. Well explained.
Thank you!
Thanks for the review! How do you feel these two compare for real estate photography? I'm just starting to look into this area of photography, but I'm assuming the advantages of a wider aperture don't really come into play (similar to what you said about landscape photography). There's currently a $300 difference in price, where the f2.8 is cheaper
I’m trying to choose between the two lenses. I have the 12-24mm f4 DX f-mount and I’m pondering which lens might be a better z mount lens replacement.
Could you share some more insight on the performance of these two lenses for taking portraits/interior spaces in indoor/low light situations?
I own both 12-24mm and 14-30 Z, and let me say that the former is my favorite DX lens before I switched to full frame in late 2019.
First off, these two will blow the 12-24 any day of the week, so whichever you decide to go for will make you happy. Second, if you switched to full frame with either you won't loose what you had with your 12-24 since 12mm is 18mm in real field of view.
If you do mostly architectural and tripod work then I'd go for the 14-30 for its superior image quality (also build quality - it's an S lens) but for general photography and video I would go with the 17-28 (compact and also internal zoom so easier to use on a gimbal). I love Tamron and still own many F-Mount lenses including the 15-30mm G2, so I'm not a Nikon snob.
My last advice, if you love the 12-24mm form factor and you prefer to use crop sensors then I'd wait for the 12-28mm DX (yes, 4mm more range), which is on the roadmap and will also be a power zoom (PZ). I suspect that will be an f/4 but no one knows at this point. Personally since I own a Z30 and like the small form factor I will purchase this upcoming lens but sell my 12-24 first, before it loses even more value after Nikon releases the 12-28 Z.
I hope it helps.
@@Willymaze thank you for sharing you insights, I used to go out more, and have more opportunities to do landscapes, but now do more casual family photos...I forgot to mention that I just got a z5 coming from a d90 (RIP), and I'm looking to buy one of these lenses, because it seems like a shame to use a DX lens on an FX body. It would be great though if Nikon would allow us to manually select the FX mode on the z5, and maybe I wouldn't feel the need to buy one of these lenses so soon.
@@bryanong7754 The Z5 is a great camera, congratulations! I have it as well, for me it's the true mirrorless D750 from which I upgraded from and is legendary to this point. You are also super lucky that Nikon just released a really important firmware that improves the camera dramatically.
I just tried the 12-24 on the Z5 and you only get 10.3 MP, not much, and soft compared to the Z lenses, also note that this is a really old lens design dating back from when Nikon didn't even have a full frame option yet (pre D3-D700), exactly 20 years ago.
If you say that nowadays you take family pictures then I wouldn't get either option and would get the 28-75 2.8; I have the Sony G2 version with me and a Sony A7RV which is 61MP, and let me tell you, it's really sharp and both video and stills will have nice out of focus backgrounds.
The reason why I got the 14-30 was because the Z5 has a 1.7x crop with 4K video and 14, 20 and 30 will be 24, 35 and 50mm with this crop factor.
@@Willymaze funny you bring up the 28-75mm lens, I'm waiting for it to arrive. I guess it would be better to use that lens first before I pull the trigger on a wider zoom lens. As for video, that's a rabbit hole I'm not ready to explore at the moment, but you make a valid point on the video crop for the z5 - it is important for picking lenses. When the time comes, maybe an extra wide prime might work well for video.
@@bryanong7754 That's awesome! You did the work already. I don't mean to be a bad influence but I would shoot to get that trinity together in the future when they release the 70-180 2.8. 😇
14-30mm f/4 or 20mm f/1.8?
Mmm definitely depends if you need the f1.8 aperture. The 20mm focal length is personally one of my favorites for landscape photography as it can still capture plenty into the frame but doesn't have any distortion at the edges, while the 14-30mm is definitely wider and will provide more flexibility in terms of focal length. But if you need a lens for astro photography the 20mm will be your best bet, definitely can't go wrong with either as they'll both boast great image quality.
@@TheProjectPhotography thank you!
I think the 14-30 it the better choice, only because it’s wider
Also it an S lens
The only disadvantage is aperture
The 17-28 is a Tamron lens though, hence it doesnt have the "S" on it. But the Tamron has great reviews on the Sony mount.
@@leonardlevine1254 Huh? It's made by Nikon.
@@lancebryson9013 No its made by Tamron. Nikon has just licensed it (along with the 28-75 and the new 70-180 f2.8s).
The 17-28 is more for video and gimble work, thats were it shines, the internal zoom doesn’t throw off the balance.
Concordo in pieno con le tutte valutazioni il 14-30 è superiore al 17-28
14-30 punches above ots weiaght in Landscape photography >> you dont nreed faster than F8 anyway > For Astro I use 20mm f1.8 S as F2.8 is Toooo slow >> sorry Nikon 14-24 F2.8 S
I had the 20 and 14-30 now only have the 14-24 2.8 and the 35mm 1.8 for Astro. Also heavily disliked the 14-30 was never instantly ready to shoot. Could just never get used to that.
@@koenpijpersphotography What do you mean the 14-30 f4 S was never instantly ready to shoot? Please elaborate.
@@lancebryson9013 the lens can be put in travel position, meaning you have to turn it in order to get to the 14mm position. Same mechanism as 24-70 f/4 lens. I just can’t get used to it.
the 17-28 should have been in their budget line of lenses, not being an S lens and what hell Nikon? why no gold ring or something to differentiate between the top of the range lenses and the budget ones? cmon. paying a lot of money I want my gold badge ffs
😂😂 The difference is 150 dollars