Hey man! I recently bought the 14-30 and I think it’s a fantastic lens! And while it’s true that in most aspects (and to most observers) the comparison shots look pretty much identical, I did spot the usual difference between F/4 lenses and premium 2.8’s, which is that the highlights and shadows in the 14-24 have just that little bit more pop and depth that really push the images to that “Professional” look. However, this is easily overlooked when you compare the prices, plus the extra reach to 30mm is a bigger deal than you’d think.
The 1430 F4 lens is absolutely amazing and fantastic lens it will bring you years of satisfaction and enjoyment taking some the best pictures on planet earth 🌍! Mazel tov
Great review and comparison Vahagn. I have the 14-30, and especially after seeing your video, I just don't see enough difference overall to put the 14-24 on my shopping list. You did a great job at setting this up presenting the info. TY
I've had both. I say had because I sold the 14-30mm f/4 once I got my hands on the 14-24mm f/2.8. The 14-24mm is the most optically brilliant wide zoom I've ever owned. It eats the lunch of the F mount version for sure. I'm a Lee filter user and Nisi makes a wonderful adapter for my 100mm's. I'd invest in that long before shelling out for the rare 112 circulars. The 14-30mm is also a wonderful lens but I don't shoot wide often enough to justify having both and don't mind the little bit of size difference. Can't go wrong with either but you are right that extra stop of light does come in handy from time to time. Worth the extra money? That's a personal decision. My $.02 anyways. Great Video as always!
Hey Vahagan, I own both. Purchased the 14-30 first, then got the 14-24. I use the 14-30 more then the 14-24m. With decent light both lenses are excellent, if u do landscape just get the 14-30, if u use a flash just use get the 14-30. The 14-24 is better, but not worth the extra $1k in my opinion, and the 14-30 is lighter and smaller. The 14-24 filters are also much more expensive, cumbersome, and just annoying to use. The 14-24 is a bit shaper, especially on the corners, but it’s just slightly better. Your better off getting the 14-30 and the 24-120 for essentially the same price. The only issue with the 14-30m is that you have to rotate tye lens in order to use it, the 24-70 f4 does that too, its annoying but does allow the lens to pack up small so that's cool. Funny I’ve watch this video a few times now and I do see a difference the 14-24 is better & brighter at the same settings which is unexpected. Again I own both lenses and am using the 14-30 today at the pool. I use my iPhone 13 pro all the time for video, now when the light is good The iPhone makes more sense it also has an OLED display which is much better than the Nikon display so you can really see what you’re shooting why can’t you and use old lead displays as well.
Great video and comparisons. The first stills comparison at 4:25 makes me keep it simple looking at the blacks and shadows such as the engines, pole cone, and tops. The f4 has a slightly higher contrast which I like. The subtleties of the f2.8 give a good perspective as well. Not a fan of the external zoom type lens though as I'm in the internal zoom lens 2.8 camp. Weight and size isn't an issue for me. If I'm shelling out that kind of money I'm going after the F2.8 in my kit.
You have a better eye than me catching the differences with shadow and highlights. I guess one really needs to pixel peep. Thank you for your take here. this is exactly what I wanted.
I am looking for a wide angle lens for my Z6. After watching this video several times. I could not see that big of a difference to justify the extra 1,000 for the 2.8s.. Thanks Vahagan, Rock on!!!
I didn't have either one and I was planning on eventually getting the f/2.8 but it wasn't a priority since I currently don't use that focal range as much as I used to. However, Nikon USA had a refurbished one that with the 10% sale on refurbished gear was just under $1600. Too good to pass up. Hopefully on its way to me soon!
Difficult to pixel peep when you are watching on YT. I would need to see the files and compare them side by side. I have the 14-24 f2.8 and love it! Thanks....
Hello Vahagraphy, Yes they are very close in what they are producing in your video. But as an old chap thinking back to the F version of 14mm-24mm was a much bigger lens, and yes the 14mm-30mm is smaller, lighter and cheaper. It does become a use case. If like me you are doing a good number of interior image the F2.8 just make more sense. Now you can use normal sized filters rather that having to bye a complete new set for as for the F mount lens. I have the 14mm-24mm F2.8 Z mount and it is amazing for me. it gives me the quality, sharpness and ease of use that I am looking for. Do I need of or would I find the 14mm-30mm longer range and less light gathering capability of uses to me No, if I did videos and was on a tight budget then a bit and at that point I would wish I had the F2.8 just so I did not have to push my ISO. So I would save up for two or tree more mounts and get the F2.8 version every time. Keep well, keep safe and have fun.
You make some very interesting and good points. that 2.8 to f4 indoors is the difference for me. I feel like its not pushing the camera to work as hard when capturing light. btw I like the look of the 2.8 , I know thats a silly reason but I just like the way it looks and feels. that extra ring on the lens doesnt hurt as well.
Hey Vahagan, fantastic review! They both give great images. For me I really prefer the 2.8 with its internal zoom and being ready when turning on the camera. Of course it depends on one's budget. Though the f4 rocks it too! Greg
Very cool review and comparison between the Z 14-24mm f/2.8 and Z 14-30mm f/2.8 lens. The 14-24mm has great color, sharpness and focus. You got great lenses Vahagn, Rock'n'Roll.
Great review. They are definitely close in quality. A lot of people will choose the 14-30mm f4 lens for the difference in price and extra reach. As noted though, there are times where a f2.8 aperture is useful. I am surprised at how light (weight wise) the 14-24mm f2.8 lens was compared to say, the 24-70mm f2.8. Nikon has provided users with great choices.
I like that idea. Sure. if you were to ask me now, I think the Z 24-70 f2.8 is probably the best all arounder lens one can buy if money wasn't a factor.
@@Vahagraphy Appreciate your insight! At this point, I may just go all out and buy the entire f2.8 trio to be set with 96.9% of my photo and video needs. I also hear great things about the NIKKOR Z 24-120mm f/4 S Lens, especially for the price but I fear I would keep thinking about the f2.8 lens if I pulled the trigger on the f/4 instead. This NIKKOR Z 50mm f/1.2 S Lens also looks tasty so may have to add that to the f/2.8 trio and empty out my life savings :)
I just got rid of my F-mount 2.8 lenses and transitioned to the Nikon Z7 with the Z 24-70 f4 and the Z 14-30 f4 will be here tomorrow. The primary reason for my transition was the size of DSLR bodies and f2.8 lenses. And that is the brilliance of the 14-30 f4. It is incredibly compact for what it is. That's why I don't complain about the external zoom or the need to 'zoom' to activate the lens. Yes, both of those things can be a nuisance but they aren't flaws or design compromises in this case. Both of them enable the lens to be small and easy to carry. So I see both as a feature not a a flaw. Some see the external zoom to be a compromise in weather sealing. See Moose Peterson's review of the f4 to address that. I do believe edge sharpness is better in the f2.8. I do believe that one stop of difference can make a difference in very low light shooting. But those differences come at the cost of a staggering $1100 and a harder to carry lens. And to be honest, in my case the cost was not the issue. It was the size difference and the marginal quality difference that sold me on the f4.
Hi Vahagn: Can you provide the name of the bracket on your Z9 in the video? Thanks, Paul Connors BTW, will be testing the Z30 at UNIQUE PHOTO in Fairfield, NJ tomorrow - Nikon East Coast rep will be there with it and doing the 2.0 and 2.1 updates for the Z9 for FREE!
Nice video, thanks! In the same way you don’t want to hear the iPhone at night conversation, I’ve had it with the “you need to extend before it’s ready” conversation on the z 14-30mm...because you can leave it extended, duh! And extended it’s still shorter than the f2.8 lens! A nice comparison and I’m happy with my decision to buy the cheaper lens plus the z 20mm for low light requirements, because f1.8 lets in over twice the light of f2.8...
Fair enough. I can respect that. However, I don't know if its just me but when I leave the 14-30 extended like that. i feel like something might happen to it when its put aside or packed in a bag. I think its more me being careful for my gear than anything. the 20 1.8 Z good points on that too. however there gores another 1K on that lens. but yes you do get the 1.8 . you know that lens hardly gets talked about.
Good comparison Vahagn. I really want to love the f4, but I can’t. I have the f4 24-70 and while it’s a decent lens, the external zoom and extension kills it for me. It’s the same for the 14-30. Besides, I want a wide angle that can double as an Astro lens, so the choice is easy with that in mind.
Great video review. This is proof that Nikon is making options for all situations at different price points. It's all about your need and budget. Thank you for showing the video comparison with the iphone, Case closed !!!! Rock and Roll
Glad you enjoyed the video James. Exactly. with f mount we really didnt have a lesser option for a wide zoom. the 16-35 was an f4 vr but wasn't a 14mm. Now with these 2 we have that and thats awesome.
I like using the 14-30 on my Z50. Yes it’s more like a 21-45M, but that’s totally fine it’s actually a very cool focal length to work with with video & stills.
Ive seen the same thing. The quicker Z lenses seem to be brighter at the same settings across the board. Letting in more light. Seems to be 1/3-2/3 stop. Seem about right to you too? I guess it lets you drop ISO slightly with the faster lenses.
Maybe someday I’ll get the 14 to 24 there’s more important things right now to get than that since I already have the 14 to 30. I can say since I’m often adding the filters to 1430 it’s much more easy and affordable to do so in the size itself when I’m hiking is it much more enjoyable to take with me. And since the size is much smaller I’m much more apt to bring two lenses on a long hike instead of just one because of that I’m not sure I would be doing that with the 14 to 24.
The edge of the 208 is clearly visible when you pixel peep; however, when you look at the samples on full screen not much difference is visible other than that very obvious brighter effective aperture of the 2.8. Is it worth $1100 of a difference? Sure, only if you need that brighter aperture but definitely not for any of the other subtle differences IMHO.
These 2 lenses are perfect options for users. 1 at a less price point that pretty much does everything the big brother does. Almost. Like you said, that 2.8 dif indoors makes a bit of a difference. Has some convinance features people could use. I like them both but I will sell the 14-30 only because now owning the 14-24 , that lens will not get used much.
I don't really get the whole "phones will outperform system cameras" crowd either. Sure, the iPhone is good in good light and if you don't zoom (much). Otherwise it's no comparison. As for which one I'd chose, it would have to be the 14-30. It's a much better option for travel, with more reach and a smaller size and weight. But I do have to say that I don't like that you have to extend it before you can shoot. Reminds me of my Pentax Q 06 telezoom lens. Plus the closely focused f/2.8 shot looked very nice and you simply can't do that with the 14-30. Still the price difference alone is enough to keep me away from the 14-24.
For landscape, the 14-30 makes more sense. The difference is negligible. Unless you’re doing heavy pixel peeping, you can’t tell the difference. It’s more valuable, and how many times does one shoot wide open for landscape? However, if astrophotography or weddings are your things where low light performance is critical then the 14-24 2.8 should be your pick.
Good point. the 14-30 is good enough for most. I love the feel of the 2.8 lens. the shape, the handling. the balance. The way it feels in the hand and the fast that its ready to shoot without setting it to position. you get more reach with the 30 and it costs much less. Used you see them for 900-1000 if you do see one. I sold the one in this video last week for $900 US.
I economized my Holy Trinity on the super wide end (14-30/4), if you consider 1300 bucks “economizing, but mainly because it’s my least used focal length (14mm I mean really). Even so, I’ve been more than happy with the lens. 📷😃👍
I do see the slight advantage with the 14-24 but not twice the price advantage. I'll take the 1 stop hit and pocket the $1200.00 difference and put it towards my next lens purchase.
While their may be a slight difference in quality it’s not worth 1000 dollars . I spent the extra 1000 for the 24-70 Z but I won’t for the wide angle which I don’t think I’ll use that much
Hudson Henry did a comparison video of the old 14-24, the new 14-24 and the 14-30. The 14-30 sits right in the middle in terms of sharpness. I went with the 14-30 for several reasons. First is the cost. I'm not a pro and I don't sell my prints at this time. Most of my work will be seen on social media. And I'm also using a z6 II. I'm not sure if I would see as much difference between the 14-30 and the 14-24 z lenses on a 24 MP sensor like I would on a 45 MP sensor. Second, the filter threads. I already have a ring that fits on the 14-30. I didn't want to have to buy a whole new set of nd filters or have to carry around 2 different sets. And the last thing is the weight. The 14-30 is really lightweight in comparison. Its main weakness is low light. But the z6 II performs well in low light situations. I can bump the keep up with no problem. And there's a lot of software out there that is good for removing noise. At some point I would love to have the complete holy trinity of lenses but that may take years. By the way, Hudson is all Nikon. You should try to get him on one of your talks. I think he might would do it. I believe he's in California too. Good informative video.
Hey man! I recently bought the 14-30 and I think it’s a fantastic lens! And while it’s true that in most aspects (and to most observers) the comparison shots look pretty much identical, I did spot the usual difference between F/4 lenses and premium 2.8’s, which is that the highlights and shadows in the 14-24 have just that little bit more pop and depth that really push the images to that “Professional” look. However, this is easily overlooked when you compare the prices, plus the extra reach to 30mm is a bigger deal than you’d think.
The 1430 F4 lens is absolutely amazing and fantastic lens it will bring you years of satisfaction and enjoyment taking some the best pictures on planet earth 🌍! Mazel tov
Great review and comparison Vahagn. I have the 14-30, and especially after seeing your video, I just don't see enough difference overall to put the 14-24 on my shopping list. You did a great job at setting this up presenting the info. TY
I've had both. I say had because I sold the 14-30mm f/4 once I got my hands on the 14-24mm f/2.8. The 14-24mm is the most optically brilliant wide zoom I've ever owned. It eats the lunch of the F mount version for sure. I'm a Lee filter user and Nisi makes a wonderful adapter for my 100mm's. I'd invest in that long before shelling out for the rare 112 circulars. The 14-30mm is also a wonderful lens but I don't shoot wide often enough to justify having both and don't mind the little bit of size difference. Can't go wrong with either but you are right that extra stop of light does come in handy from time to time. Worth the extra money? That's a personal decision. My $.02 anyways. Great Video as always!
Hey Vahagan, I own both. Purchased the 14-30 first, then got the 14-24. I use the 14-30 more then the 14-24m. With decent light both lenses are excellent, if u do landscape just get the 14-30, if u use a flash just use get the 14-30. The 14-24 is better, but not worth the extra $1k in my opinion, and the 14-30 is lighter and smaller. The 14-24 filters are also much more expensive, cumbersome, and just annoying to use. The 14-24 is a bit shaper, especially on the corners, but it’s just slightly better. Your better off getting the 14-30 and the 24-120 for essentially the same price. The only issue with the 14-30m is that you have to rotate tye lens in order to use it, the 24-70 f4 does that too, its annoying but does allow the lens to pack up small so that's cool. Funny I’ve watch this video a few times now and I do see a difference the 14-24 is better & brighter at the same settings which is unexpected. Again I own both lenses and am using the 14-30 today at the pool. I use my iPhone 13 pro all the time for video, now when the light is good The iPhone makes more sense it also has an OLED display which is much better than the Nikon display so you can really see what you’re shooting why can’t you and use old lead displays as well.
Absolutely love your no-nonsense style! I got the 14-24 f2.8. No looking back!
Thank you Kevin. Both are great. I prefer the 14-24 if the budget allows that is.
Great video and informative
Glad you found this helpful NIKCan. Appreciate it.
On F mount it was always 2.8. Now with modern cameras I'm glad I have the F4 option for some of the less used lens I personally use.
Makes sense. The f4 lenses are great for travel and packing. They do not take much room up in the bag and are of great quality. Also have the price.
I love my 14-30. I don’t often use anything below 24mm anyway. Great comparison Vahagn. Definitely help someone make a decision.
Great video and comparisons. The first stills comparison at 4:25 makes me keep it simple looking at the blacks and shadows such as the engines, pole cone, and tops. The f4 has a slightly higher contrast which I like. The subtleties of the f2.8 give a good perspective as well. Not a fan of the external zoom type lens though as I'm in the internal zoom lens 2.8 camp. Weight and size isn't an issue for me. If I'm shelling out that kind of money I'm going after the F2.8 in my kit.
You have a better eye than me catching the differences with shadow and highlights. I guess one really needs to pixel peep. Thank you for your take here. this is exactly what I wanted.
Thanks for the comparison!
You are very welcome.
I am looking for a wide angle lens for my Z6. After watching this video several times. I could not see that big of a difference to justify the extra 1,000 for the 2.8s.. Thanks Vahagan, Rock on!!!
I didn't have either one and I was planning on eventually getting the f/2.8 but it wasn't a priority since I currently don't use that focal range as much as I used to. However, Nikon USA had a refurbished one that with the 10% sale on refurbished gear was just under $1600. Too good to pass up. Hopefully on its way to me soon!
Difficult to pixel peep when you are watching on YT. I would need to see the files and compare them side by side.
I have the 14-24 f2.8 and love it!
Thanks....
Awesome ❤🙌
Glad you enjoyed it Azeem. Thanks
Hello Vahagraphy, Yes they are very close in what they are producing in your video. But as an old chap thinking back to the F version of 14mm-24mm was a much bigger lens, and yes the 14mm-30mm is smaller, lighter and cheaper. It does become a use case. If like me you are doing a good number of interior image the F2.8 just make more sense. Now you can use normal sized filters rather that having to bye a complete new set for as for the F mount lens. I have the 14mm-24mm F2.8 Z mount and it is amazing for me. it gives me the quality, sharpness and ease of use that I am looking for. Do I need of or would I find the 14mm-30mm longer range and less light gathering capability of uses to me No, if I did videos and was on a tight budget then a bit and at that point I would wish I had the F2.8 just so I did not have to push my ISO. So I would save up for two or tree more mounts and get the F2.8 version every time. Keep well, keep safe and have fun.
You make some very interesting and good points. that 2.8 to f4 indoors is the difference for me. I feel like its not pushing the camera to work as hard when capturing light. btw I like the look of the 2.8 , I know thats a silly reason but I just like the way it looks and feels. that extra ring on the lens doesnt hurt as well.
Hey Vahagan, fantastic review! They both give great images. For me I really prefer the 2.8 with its internal zoom and being ready when turning on the camera. Of course it depends on one's budget. Though the f4 rocks it too! Greg
Very cool review and comparison between the Z 14-24mm f/2.8 and Z 14-30mm f/2.8 lens. The 14-24mm has great color, sharpness and focus. You got great lenses Vahagn, Rock'n'Roll.
Thx a lot. I go with the 14-30mm Zoom. Don't really need the 2.8. Both zooms are excellent anyway...
Glad this reviews was of some help. Yes, Both lenses are excellent.
Great review. They are definitely close in quality. A lot of people will choose the 14-30mm f4 lens for the difference in price and extra reach. As noted though, there are times where a f2.8 aperture is useful. I am surprised at how light (weight wise) the 14-24mm f2.8 lens was compared to say, the 24-70mm f2.8. Nikon has provided users with great choices.
You should do a video on best video lenses one could buy for Nikon Z9
I like that idea. Sure. if you were to ask me now, I think the Z 24-70 f2.8 is probably the best all arounder lens one can buy if money wasn't a factor.
@@Vahagraphy Appreciate your insight! At this point, I may just go all out and buy the entire f2.8 trio to be set with 96.9% of my photo and video needs. I also hear great things about the NIKKOR Z 24-120mm f/4 S Lens, especially for the price but I fear I would keep thinking about the f2.8 lens if I pulled the trigger on the f/4 instead. This NIKKOR Z 50mm f/1.2 S Lens also looks tasty so may have to add that to the f/2.8 trio and empty out my life savings :)
I just got rid of my F-mount 2.8 lenses and transitioned to the Nikon Z7 with the Z 24-70 f4 and the Z 14-30 f4 will be here tomorrow.
The primary reason for my transition was the size of DSLR bodies and f2.8 lenses.
And that is the brilliance of the 14-30 f4. It is incredibly compact for what it is. That's why I don't complain about the external zoom or the need to 'zoom' to activate the lens. Yes, both of those things can be a nuisance but they aren't flaws or design compromises in this case. Both of them enable the lens to be small and easy to carry. So I see both as a feature not a a flaw.
Some see the external zoom to be a compromise in weather sealing. See Moose Peterson's review of the f4 to address that.
I do believe edge sharpness is better in the f2.8. I do believe that one stop of difference can make a difference in very low light shooting.
But those differences come at the cost of a staggering $1100 and a harder to carry lens. And to be honest, in my case the cost was not the issue. It was the size difference and the marginal quality difference that sold me on the f4.
Hi Vahagn: Can you provide the name of the bracket on your Z9 in the video? Thanks, Paul Connors BTW, will be testing the Z30 at UNIQUE PHOTO in Fairfield, NJ tomorrow - Nikon East Coast rep will be there with it and doing the 2.0 and 2.1 updates for the Z9 for FREE!
Nice video, thanks! In the same way you don’t want to hear the iPhone at night conversation, I’ve had it with the “you need to extend before it’s ready” conversation on the z 14-30mm...because you can leave it extended, duh! And extended it’s still shorter than the f2.8 lens! A nice comparison and I’m happy with my decision to buy the cheaper lens plus the z 20mm for low light requirements, because f1.8 lets in over twice the light of f2.8...
Fair enough. I can respect that. However, I don't know if its just me but when I leave the 14-30 extended like that. i feel like something might happen to it when its put aside or packed in a bag. I think its more me being careful for my gear than anything. the 20 1.8 Z good points on that too. however there gores another 1K on that lens. but yes you do get the 1.8 . you know that lens hardly gets talked about.
Good comparison Vahagn. I really want to love the f4, but I can’t. I have the f4 24-70 and while it’s a decent lens, the external zoom and extension kills it for me. It’s the same for the 14-30. Besides, I want a wide angle that can double as an Astro lens, so the choice is easy with that in mind.
Great video review. This is proof that Nikon is making options for all situations at different price points. It's all about your need and budget. Thank you for showing the video comparison with the iphone, Case closed !!!! Rock and Roll
Glad you enjoyed the video James. Exactly. with f mount we really didnt have a lesser option for a wide zoom. the 16-35 was an f4 vr but wasn't a 14mm. Now with these 2 we have that and thats awesome.
I like using the 14-30 on my Z50. Yes it’s more like a 21-45M, but that’s totally fine it’s actually a very cool focal length to work with with video & stills.
Ive seen the same thing. The quicker Z lenses seem to be brighter at the same settings across the board. Letting in more light. Seems to be 1/3-2/3 stop. Seem about right to you too? I guess it lets you drop ISO slightly with the faster lenses.
Maybe someday I’ll get the 14 to 24 there’s more important things right now to get than that since I already have the 14 to 30. I can say since I’m often adding the filters to 1430 it’s much more easy and affordable to do so in the size itself when I’m hiking is it much more enjoyable to take with me. And since the size is much smaller I’m much more apt to bring two lenses on a long hike instead of just one because of that I’m not sure I would be doing that with the 14 to 24.
Great points. Use case has allot to do with it like you say. Not only price. In your case, filters, hikes, packing, size.
The edge of the 208 is clearly visible when you pixel peep; however, when you look at the samples on full screen not much difference is visible other than that very obvious brighter effective aperture of the 2.8. Is it worth $1100 of a difference? Sure, only if you need that brighter aperture but definitely not for any of the other subtle differences IMHO.
These 2 lenses are perfect options for users. 1 at a less price point that pretty much does everything the big brother does. Almost. Like you said, that 2.8 dif indoors makes a bit of a difference. Has some convinance features people could use. I like them both but I will sell the 14-30 only because now owning the 14-24 , that lens will not get used much.
@@Vahagraphy well said, Sir!
I don't really get the whole "phones will outperform system cameras" crowd either. Sure, the iPhone is good in good light and if you don't zoom (much). Otherwise it's no comparison.
As for which one I'd chose, it would have to be the 14-30. It's a much better option for travel, with more reach and a smaller size and weight. But I do have to say that I don't like that you have to extend it before you can shoot. Reminds me of my Pentax Q 06 telezoom lens. Plus the closely focused f/2.8 shot looked very nice and you simply can't do that with the 14-30. Still the price difference alone is enough to keep me away from the 14-24.
I have the 14-30 F4 inw of the S great Lens
Its a super fine lens. I highly recommend it to anyone. For the price and results. Look the results are almost the same.
For landscape, the 14-30 makes more sense. The difference is negligible. Unless you’re doing heavy pixel peeping, you can’t tell the difference. It’s more valuable, and how many times does one shoot wide open for landscape? However, if astrophotography or weddings are your things where low light performance is critical then the 14-24 2.8 should be your pick.
Good point. the 14-30 is good enough for most. I love the feel of the 2.8 lens. the shape, the handling. the balance. The way it feels in the hand and the fast that its ready to shoot without setting it to position. you get more reach with the 30 and it costs much less. Used you see them for 900-1000 if you do see one. I sold the one in this video last week for $900 US.
@@Vahagraphy That’s a reasonable price.
The F4 has a little bit wider angle at 14mm as the F2.8
Yes, Im thinking maybe the lens is shorter?
🤘
Thank you :)
@@Vahagraphy You're welcome! :)
the 14-24 seemed a little more "warpie" (is that a word) at the edge during video panning. According to. your video they seemed pretty darn close
Interesting take. humm I have to take a look closer.
I economized my Holy Trinity on the super wide end (14-30/4), if you consider 1300 bucks “economizing, but mainly because it’s my least used focal length (14mm I mean really). Even so, I’ve been more than happy with the lens.
📷😃👍
Hi V
14-24 2.8 is the best and excellent in all around.👌🏻👍🏻
I do see the slight advantage with the 14-24 but not twice the price advantage. I'll take the 1 stop hit and pocket the $1200.00 difference and put it towards my next lens purchase.
i need the 14-24mm for indoor volleyball since gym i take photo from poor lite
yup 2.8 does make a difference indoors for sure without you having to crank up ISO to0 much. Both great options.
While their may be a slight difference in quality it’s not worth 1000 dollars . I spent the extra 1000 for the 24-70 Z but I won’t for the wide angle which I don’t think I’ll use that much
The 14-30 mm is soft at the edges. The 14-24 mm is sharp edge-to-edge.
Interesting take. I have to take a closer look. Thanks for that.
I’m so pissed I slept on buying the F4 and now it went up 200 dollars
Im selling mine. Are you in the US?
@@Vahagraphy yes Yonkers NY
@@welles2002 $1000 bucks with shipping and insurance if you eant it, box and everything, mint , USA lens . Let me know
Hudson Henry did a comparison video of the old 14-24, the new 14-24 and the 14-30. The 14-30 sits right in the middle in terms of sharpness. I went with the 14-30 for several reasons. First is the cost. I'm not a pro and I don't sell my prints at this time. Most of my work will be seen on social media. And I'm also using a z6 II. I'm not sure if I would see as much difference between the 14-30 and the 14-24 z lenses on a 24 MP sensor like I would on a 45 MP sensor. Second, the filter threads. I already have a ring that fits on the 14-30. I didn't want to have to buy a whole new set of nd filters or have to carry around 2 different sets. And the last thing is the weight. The 14-30 is really lightweight in comparison. Its main weakness is low light. But the z6 II performs well in low light situations. I can bump the keep up with no problem. And there's a lot of software out there that is good for removing noise. At some point I would love to have the complete holy trinity of lenses but that may take years. By the way, Hudson is all Nikon. You should try to get him on one of your talks. I think he might would do it. I believe he's in California too. Good informative video.