Very well explained, Kieran, I have had the 14-30 f4s since it came out and find it superb, at f8-11 the differences are minuscule. You don't have to think twice about taking it with you on a longer walk and great for using magnetic filters.
Hi Douglas, that's exactly it, considering the price and weight and size saving and then things like being able to use a standard 100mm filter holder and normal filters and a CPL it's crazy how good this lens is. The 14-24 F2.8 is ever so fractionally better but as you say at F8 it's only barely noticeable when you zoom in. It's a no brainer to have it in my bag at all times.
Have used the 14-30 for the past three years and not once have I wished for the 14-24. I bought prime lens for Astro photography and that fills the fast wide angle lens category in my bag. It’s the portability of the 14-30 that I love, and the range as well.
For architectural photography and landscapes I had a 14-24 Sigma on my previous Sony, and I was surprised how often I needed that extra few mm of zoom. So I chose the 14-30 when I switched to Nikon. Not only does the 30mm make it more useful everyday, but the flat front element for standard filters and the smaller, lighter package for ease of carrying around all day has also made an immense difference! Thinking back to my old 14-24, it’s just bad memories of a large heavy package with that huge bulbous front element that would attract lens flares and ghosting, rear gel filters which were a pain and attracted dust…. Much happier now. 😉
It really is a cracking lens and like you I also use it for exactly the same purposes and those extra 30mm has saved me changing lenses a load of times already. The 82mm filter threads were what sold it for me as being able to use 100mm filters is fantastic. Incidenatally I also use my Laowa 12mm Rectilinear lens on the Z8 and it's fantastic too and I have it working on 100mm filter also :-)
When I switched from my DSLR to mirrorless I went from my 14-24G lens to the 14-30 Z mount lens and they was no loss of quality. Better size, weight and filter threads.
The 14-30 is a great lens, for the money it's a steal and then having filter threads that work beautifully with a 100mm filter holder it's a joy to use.
This is an excellent video. I don't often use a wide-angle lens too often and bought the 14-30 for the occasional use. Occasionally, I wonder whether I should have opted for the 14-24 or the 17-28 2.8. However, I consistently come to the conclusion that the 14-30 is the best fit for me. It's a fantastic lens. I appreciate the slightly more reach on the longer end (30 vs 24). And I really like how the lens compacts down making it easier to bring along.
Hi Michael, there really is an awful lot to like about the 14-30 F4. It's one of my favourite Z series lenses, then again I have a good few favourites now at this stage :-) Credit where it's due to Nikon there isn't a single Z series lens I regret buying.
Hi Kieran. Thanks for the excellent comparison video! As a landscape, wildlife and product photographer, I went with the Nikkor Z 1403- f/4 S lens, mainly for the reasons you cited. Regarding the Laowa 12mm, that's an interesting lens too, and in fact, I have the Laowa 100 f/2.8 Ultra-Macro because of its 2:1 magnification ratio, and its stellar sharpness. My only "complaint" with that lens is its quite short focus throw, which makes manual focusing a bit more challenging than, say, my superb Irix 150 f/2.8 Z Macro lens, which is even a bit sharper than the Laowa 100 Macro.
Hi Steve, firstly thanks for watching and for the feedback, I appreciate it. Secondly great to meet another landscape and Product photographer :-) I couldn't call myself a wildlife photographer although I have started to do a bit more of it recently :-) Laowa have some amazing lenses to be fair, I was only playing with the Laowa 100mm F2.8 two months ago, I was always tempted to buy it. I use the Nikon Z 105mm instead and it's also a great lens. The fact it can double as a portrait lens was the swinging bonus point for me. I must try the Irix 150mm Macro Lens but I have heard good things about it.
Thanks Kieran. I appreciate your efforts. I too would like to see a side by side comparison when comparing the lens. Definitely would love to see that 12mm lens for seascape photography. I have the 14-24 f2.8 lens. I love it. If I need extra reach my 24-70 f2.8 lens does the trick 😊
Hi and thanks for watching, hopefully I can get the 14-24 F2.8 fairly soon for a side by side review. The 14-24 F2.8 is an incredible lens don't get me wrong it's all about what you need though and hence my video. It's something funnily I get asked a lot which one is better and why? I did the same with the Z6ii and Z7ii and also with the Z7ii and Z8. It's a lot easier to say hey if you want to know exactly what I think then here is a video on it :-) Saves me a lot of talking or typing :-) The 24-70 F2.8 is my workhorse along with the 70-200 F2.8 I can't live without those lenses. I will probably get around to posting a video one of these days on the 12mm F2.8 for seascape photography as it's a pure beast for that. Thanks again for the feedback and more importantly enjoy the lens.
Have had a very, very good sample of the 14-30 f4S. I recently switched to the 14-24 f2.8S as I am doing nightscaping etc. It's still a different league (and price).....
The 14-24 F2.8 is a stunning lens for astro and architecture. The 14-30 F4 has some huge advantages also for filter and weight and travelling around with. At the end of the day they both have their distinct places and fairplay to Nikon for designing both lenses so perfectly to keep us all happy. It's great people can debate pros and cons for both.
Hi Alastair, you are dead right. For some stupid reason I was thinking of my old 16-35 there. I had originally included the f-mount 16-35 in this video also for people thinking about upgrading to a Z lens. I am an idiot, I need to see if I can take that out of the video now 😂
There‘s not a lot of substance in this video. Where are the comparison shots? Where’s the evidence and the proof of all that what your saying? I also use the 14-30 but I don’t like the distortion it applies to people who happen to be in picture. So would the 14-24 be any better?
Hi, this isn't a side by side comparison as I didn't have both lenses at the same time. I will ask Nikon if they will send out the 14-24 F2.8 to me so I can do a real comparrison between the two of them. A lot of what I am saying is from personal experience and also facts that you can find on the Nikon website and also there are loads of reviews out there that say the same thing. As regards distortion the distortion I am talking about here is Barrel and pincushion distortion and the 14-24 handles both slightly better but with profiles correction the 14-30 F4 looks every bit as good. The distortion you are talking about is objects getting stretched which are not in the centre of the frame. This distortion is very common in all lenses and starts to creep in generally once you hit 24mm and lower it starts to become more noticeable. The further you go towards the corners the more the image is stretched. Even at 20mm if you photograph 5 plated with one in the centre and the other 4 in the corners you will see they are not as round. The shorter your focal length the more pronounced this effect becomes.
Hello, I have the Nikon 24mm f1.8 and the Iris 15mm f2,4. and would like to only have 1 lens. Do you think the Nikon Z 14-30 will have same quality image ? because in general prime lens are always better. thanks David
Hey David, with a zoom there are always going to be compromises sadly no matter what one you get, either in the shape of you aperture or image sharpness. As the 14-30 only goes to F4 that could be a slight issue for you, also it wouldn't be as sharp as a prime but in saying that it is still exceptionally good. The huge advantages are of course weight and having the entire 14-30mm focal length in one lens. Do you shoot a lot in lowlight situations? If so then you will se a nice difference here. If you shoot mainly landscapes then there is very little between them unless you really pixel peep.
@@kieranhayesphotography I usually only take pictures of landscapes, I see in dxomark site that the Nikon 24mm get a score of 44 points and the Nikon Z 14-30 get 23 points...thanks for your answer
Great Video! I also went with the Z14-30 and never looked back!
Thanks a million Carey, ya, you gotta love the 14-30 F4, it's great at everything.
Very well explained, Kieran, I have had the 14-30 f4s since it came out and find it superb, at f8-11 the differences are minuscule.
You don't have to think twice about taking it with you on a longer walk and great for using magnetic filters.
Hi Douglas, that's exactly it, considering the price and weight and size saving and then things like being able to use a standard 100mm filter holder and normal filters and a CPL it's crazy how good this lens is. The 14-24 F2.8 is ever so fractionally better but as you say at F8 it's only barely noticeable when you zoom in. It's a no brainer to have it in my bag at all times.
@@kieranhayesphotography This observation resolved my doubt. My goal is for F8, so it will suit me very well.
@@sandrokich Enjoy every minute of it, it's an exceptional lens especially for the price. Nikon seem to be doing a lot right these days.
Have used the 14-30 for the past three years and not once have I wished for the 14-24. I bought prime lens for Astro photography and that fills the fast wide angle lens category in my bag.
It’s the portability of the 14-30 that I love, and the range as well.
Ya, it's a truly epic lens to be fair.
For architectural photography and landscapes I had a 14-24 Sigma on my previous Sony, and I was surprised how often I needed that extra few mm of zoom.
So I chose the 14-30 when I switched to Nikon.
Not only does the 30mm make it more useful everyday, but the flat front element for standard filters and the smaller, lighter package for ease of carrying around all day has also made an immense difference!
Thinking back to my old 14-24, it’s just bad memories of a large heavy package with that huge bulbous front element that would attract lens flares and ghosting, rear gel filters which were a pain and attracted dust….
Much happier now. 😉
It really is a cracking lens and like you I also use it for exactly the same purposes and those extra 30mm has saved me changing lenses a load of times already. The 82mm filter threads were what sold it for me as being able to use 100mm filters is fantastic. Incidenatally I also use my Laowa 12mm Rectilinear lens on the Z8 and it's fantastic too and I have it working on 100mm filter also :-)
When I switched from my DSLR to mirrorless I went from my 14-24G lens to the 14-30 Z mount lens and they was no loss of quality. Better size, weight and filter threads.
The 14-30 is a great lens, for the money it's a steal and then having filter threads that work beautifully with a 100mm filter holder it's a joy to use.
This is an excellent video. I don't often use a wide-angle lens too often and bought the 14-30 for the occasional use. Occasionally, I wonder whether I should have opted for the 14-24 or the 17-28 2.8. However, I consistently come to the conclusion that the 14-30 is the best fit for me. It's a fantastic lens. I appreciate the slightly more reach on the longer end (30 vs 24). And I really like how the lens compacts down making it easier to bring along.
Hi Michael, there really is an awful lot to like about the 14-30 F4. It's one of my favourite Z series lenses, then again I have a good few favourites now at this stage :-) Credit where it's due to Nikon there isn't a single Z series lens I regret buying.
Hi Kieran. Thanks for the excellent comparison video! As a landscape, wildlife and product photographer, I went with the Nikkor Z 1403- f/4 S lens, mainly for the reasons you cited. Regarding the Laowa 12mm, that's an interesting lens too, and in fact, I have the Laowa 100 f/2.8 Ultra-Macro because of its 2:1 magnification ratio, and its stellar sharpness. My only "complaint" with that lens is its quite short focus throw, which makes manual focusing a bit more challenging than, say, my superb Irix 150 f/2.8 Z Macro lens, which is even a bit sharper than the Laowa 100 Macro.
Hi Steve, firstly thanks for watching and for the feedback, I appreciate it. Secondly great to meet another landscape and Product photographer :-) I couldn't call myself a wildlife photographer although I have started to do a bit more of it recently :-)
Laowa have some amazing lenses to be fair, I was only playing with the Laowa 100mm F2.8 two months ago, I was always tempted to buy it. I use the Nikon Z 105mm instead and it's also a great lens. The fact it can double as a portrait lens was the swinging bonus point for me.
I must try the Irix 150mm Macro Lens but I have heard good things about it.
The choice was easy for me, 14-30 in my bag.
Hi Leon, yes, it certainly is very hard to look past the 14-30 F4. It's a truly amazing lens for the price.
Thanks Kieran. I appreciate your efforts. I too would like to see a side by side comparison when comparing the lens. Definitely would love to see that 12mm lens for seascape photography. I have the 14-24 f2.8 lens. I love it. If I need extra reach my 24-70 f2.8 lens does the trick 😊
Hi and thanks for watching, hopefully I can get the 14-24 F2.8 fairly soon for a side by side review. The 14-24 F2.8 is an incredible lens don't get me wrong it's all about what you need though and hence my video. It's something funnily I get asked a lot which one is better and why? I did the same with the Z6ii and Z7ii and also with the Z7ii and Z8. It's a lot easier to say hey if you want to know exactly what I think then here is a video on it :-) Saves me a lot of talking or typing :-)
The 24-70 F2.8 is my workhorse along with the 70-200 F2.8 I can't live without those lenses.
I will probably get around to posting a video one of these days on the 12mm F2.8 for seascape photography as it's a pure beast for that.
Thanks again for the feedback and more importantly enjoy the lens.
Have had a very, very good sample of the 14-30 f4S. I recently switched to the 14-24 f2.8S as I am doing nightscaping etc. It's still a different league (and price).....
The 14-24 F2.8 is a stunning lens for astro and architecture. The 14-30 F4 has some huge advantages also for filter and weight and travelling around with.
At the end of the day they both have their distinct places and fairplay to Nikon for designing both lenses so perfectly to keep us all happy.
It's great people can debate pros and cons for both.
I'm pretty sure the 14-24 does not have image stabilisation. At least mine doesn't. Did they update it?
Hi Alastair, you are dead right. For some stupid reason I was thinking of my old 16-35 there. I had originally included the f-mount 16-35 in this video also for people thinking about upgrading to a Z lens.
I am an idiot, I need to see if I can take that out of the video now 😂
I have the 14-30 but I miss the option for astro.
You can always go down the route of using a prime lens for astro. That would be even better then 👍
There‘s not a lot of substance in this video. Where are the comparison shots? Where’s the evidence and the proof of all that what your saying?
I also use the 14-30 but I don’t like the distortion it applies to people who happen to be in picture. So would the 14-24 be any better?
Hi, this isn't a side by side comparison as I didn't have both lenses at the same time.
I will ask Nikon if they will send out the 14-24 F2.8 to me so I can do a real comparrison between the two of them.
A lot of what I am saying is from personal experience and also facts that you can find on the Nikon website and also there are loads of reviews out there that say the same thing.
As regards distortion the distortion I am talking about here is Barrel and pincushion distortion and the 14-24 handles both slightly better but with profiles correction the 14-30 F4 looks every bit as good.
The distortion you are talking about is objects getting stretched which are not in the centre of the frame.
This distortion is very common in all lenses and starts to creep in generally once you hit 24mm and lower it starts to become more noticeable.
The further you go towards the corners the more the image is stretched.
Even at 20mm if you photograph 5 plated with one in the centre and the other 4 in the corners you will see they are not as round.
The shorter your focal length the more pronounced this effect becomes.
Hello, I have the Nikon 24mm f1.8 and the Iris 15mm f2,4. and would like to only have 1 lens. Do you think the Nikon Z 14-30 will have same quality image ? because in general prime lens are always better. thanks David
Hey David, with a zoom there are always going to be compromises sadly no matter what one you get, either in the shape of you aperture or image sharpness. As the 14-30 only goes to F4 that could be a slight issue for you, also it wouldn't be as sharp as a prime but in saying that it is still exceptionally good. The huge advantages are of course weight and having the entire 14-30mm focal length in one lens.
Do you shoot a lot in lowlight situations? If so then you will se a nice difference here.
If you shoot mainly landscapes then there is very little between them unless you really pixel peep.
@@kieranhayesphotography I usually only take pictures of landscapes, I see in dxomark site that the Nikon 24mm get a score of 44 points and the Nikon Z 14-30 get 23 points...thanks for your answer
Oi loike the forteen to tirty too😂
Lol, Yes, I have a thick Irish accent, what can I say.