Happy to see you back Jimmy and thanks for share the info on the lens. I've been asking myself questions in regain with the new Nikon system and I'm happy to get a photographers review.
For those of us who like to hike and backpack to our scenes, that size and weight makes it very attractive compared to a f/2.8 lens. For astro I'd just toss in a small prime.
Nice review - thanks. As far as your question at the end - lots of folks don’t need 2.8 in an ultra wide, and don’t want to pay extra for it or have to carry such a big and heavy lens around. Plus the native 14-24 2.8 isn’t slated till sometime next year. This lens will make a fantastic super high quality, compact and easy to carry kit paired with the 24-70. I can’t wait to get it.
I agree 100%. To have a lightweight and optical very good ultra wide zoom is very important. I don't want to carry a beast like the 14-24/2.8 for a few days in the Alps. Every year it is going to feel heavier ;-)
I'm so happy to see some new content here! It's been a long while and your stuff is always excellent. You threw a bit of a carrot last time about new Raya Pro developments so that's exciting too. I went with the D850 last year, and I won't be getting rid of it or any of my beloved lenses for it any time soon. The 14-24 is still the legendary lens it always was. I might rethink that as I continue to age but for right now, he ain't heavy, he my camera gear.
Great review Jimmy! I recently purchased the Z6 and love it. I also purchased your Reya Pro and all your tutorials. I have to say that you put out an excellent product! Thank you!
Great review, Jimmy! This lens is a game-changer... I never expected it to perform so well. Also, those jpegs are amazing! Do you mind sharing the camera profile and active D-lighting settings you used?
Hey Jimmy- great overview of the lens. I’m sure you know, but for anyone else interested, the “dot light” performance is typically referred to as the lens having low coma. That’ll be a key term when comparing this lens to others, as that aspect of the lens looks great.
Yep coma, looks about as good as the tamron 15-30. The nikon looks a fun landscape lens, I tent to shoot my astro with a 45 prime anyhow, keen to see a canon R version
there are other lens aberrations than coma affecting dots of light, astigmatism, spherical aberration and longitudinal and sagittal chromatic aberration also shows up when a point of light is present in the image, so dot light performance makes sense, as it consideres more than one type of lens aberration when communicating with optical laymen.
Great review of the 14-30, nice to get an honest balanced review, most reviewers seem to shout about any negatives and gloss over the positives. Overall Nikon appear to have produced a stunning wide-angle zoom lens (unless you do astrophotography). Thanks for the review.
Great review thanks. I guess the main advantage of this f/4 lens over a new 14-24 f/2.8S is the size and weight and price. If you are a pro then the larger, faster lens will be your choice. But if you want to carry a light kit for more opportunistic shots then the f/4 version will be terrific. Besides it's really only astro-landsacape use that requires that bigger aperture, and maybe the Sigma 14mm f/1.8 ART is better for that, or even wait for the new Nikkor 20mm f/1.8S.
My guess is that he can't (no one can). If you look at the sky on the upper left side of the picture, behind the buildings, you'll see it's blown out. I agree that if you show someone this picture and don't say anything, I would have guessed it's been exposure-blended; but if he says it's unedited, then we can see what he means once we notice the blown out parts. He probably took that shot on an overcast day, so he could get the buildings in the back and some of the sky and sea on the right. The sun was clearly on the left, so that part is blown out.
Thanks for the video. I noticed you have a Sony 12-24 F2.8 on the desk next to you. I have that lens and it is very very sharp, but also heavy and big (although it's small compared to other brand wide angles). Was curious whether the Nikon 14-30 is AS SHARP as the Sony 12-24, would appreciate if you've done a comparison of the two. While I love the Sony, I agree with you 100%, the Nikon 14-30 is very interesting because of it's size and compactness...am considering for those times I am hiking in the back country of the Sierras, having a lighter kit is always nicer. Thanks!
Excellent review of what looks to be a really good lens. The f4 lens would be more attractive to me because it will be smaller, lighter and (probably) a lot cheaper than the forthcoming f2.8 model. I don't really need the extra stop of light, though it would be nice to have in some situations. I had the current 14-24 mm f2.8 but rarely used it because of its weight, and eventually sold it.
Thanks for the review Jimmy, interesting insight. Like you have my Dinasour d850, filters, lenses etc. Would wait for a while the mirrorless market has some.very good established cameras and followers. Let's see how Nikon go
About the price. It is cheaper than the 16-35 F4 F-mount lens when that one was new. And still today the price of the S-lens in Sweden is just 1000 SEK (100USD) more than the new 16-35 F4 F-mount in stores today.
Would this be usable in taking milky way shots, does lens with f2.8 can be used? I am checking this lens and the tamron 17-35 f2.8-4, which one would be a better choice if i also shoot astro occasionally , thanks
I don't think the difference between f/4 and f/2.8 is that great. f/2.8 is only 1-stop more of light . An f/1.8 prime would be better for maximum light collection. The following video is a in depth review by Ricci Talks : th-cam.com/video/yE0mSDIw0xs/w-d-xo.html
Great review thank you. I think Nikon has concentrated on just getting a wide selection of basic easy to make lenses for the new system. They all look ok but you just wanted a f1.2 to put it on the map. But I still think in a couple of years time this system will be amazing.
great video. Thank you so much for sharing. I was impressed by the lack of barrel distortion and by the way I recognized one of the pictures, it was among the samples on the Nikon web site, so now I know who captured that shot. ;-) now I *really* want to know how did they avoid the distortion -- is it an optical feature of the lens OR it is a digital "post-processing" inside the camera? Thank you
If your main need for a 2.8 ultrawide lens is astrophotography, wouldn't the use of a sky tracker solve your problem? I imagine the 14-30MM f/4 and sky tracker would be cheaper than whatever the 14-24 f/2.8 costs, and probably be about the same mass. It would also make attaching light pollution filter easier. Or would this be solution be suboptimal for any reason?
Jimmy, why would we buy this over the 2.8? Two words: Real Estate. Don't need f2.8. Also, the extra focal length on the long end gives more compositional options, and if it turns out that the corner sharpness and distortion are better on this lens, and if it's also cheaper than the f2.8 version, then it would be a complete no brainer.
Mark Hazeldine The same for me, I never do astro photography so f4 is just fine for my needs. (Landscapes, architecture, streetphotography) The weight is perfect, sharpness too, filter size😀... it’s really a no brainer😉
Diffidently not sharp across the frame, very soft in the corners, have the 24-70s and the 35s two fantastic Lenses, I'm sorry to say the 14-30 will be getting returned just feel the cost doesn't balance with the performance,
Hi Jimmy, I just got this lens and am pretty disappointed by the SEVERE vignetting in the corners at 14mm. There is AT LEAST 3 eV dropoff in the raw file, which Nikon attempts to cover up by the built-in corrections in LR and PS. In good light at low ISO with well exposed images the patching works fine.... but... if you underexpose the image significantly (for example because you shoot into the sun and need to control blowout) and then attempt to recover the shadows the corners go to hell pretty quickly. Can you comment on this? I am seriously contemplating sending this lens back.
The reason, and its a big one for the people who are choosing the Z 14-30 S for Landscapes over the Z 14-24 S is because of the 100mm Nisi which is way better, or Lee filter kits which will fit the Z 14-30 s unlike on the the Z 14-24 S and when shooting at f:8 or f:11 which is what most landscapers do, the Z14-30 S is exactly as sharp as the Z 14-24 S so why get the f:2 its a no brainer really!
I'd buy it in f-mount for my "dinosaur D800" which is totally fine as far as the sensor goes. With that $3.5K body? No thanks, outrageous. And yeah, I would get it over the 14-24 f/2.8 because of the filter convenience all day.
I feel like if you don't do astrophotography then the f4 is fine. It's also much lighter and will be much cheaper than the 14-24f2.8 when it comes out.
When you watch TH-cam reviews you will hate what is good and have an inordinate affection for what you don't need. F2.8 to f4 is a stop difference. Is it noticeable?, not to the normal user. If you are serious about astro, the f2.8 is not a going fit, you're better off with a prime nikon 20mm f1.8 etc... you can get better results with the f4 and a star tracker than the 14-24f2.8... the 14-30F4 checks the box for everything you need for a wide angle lens.
It's as much as a Sony camera as using Kodak in film days made all cameras a Kodak. The sensor is only the starting point. I do like the Sony sensors in my Nikon cameras, but if anything goes wrong with them, I have to deal with Nikon customer service, not Sony, which is a huge plus.
We miss you, Jimmy! Hope you're happy with whatever you're up to these days.
Happy to see you back Jimmy and thanks for share the info on the lens. I've been asking myself questions in regain with the new Nikon system and I'm happy to get a photographers review.
For those of us who like to hike and backpack to our scenes, that size and weight makes it very attractive compared to a f/2.8 lens. For astro I'd just toss in a small prime.
Way to go and problem solved. See my post above.
Absolutely the right way to go about it. Probably won’t even cost any more.
Nice review - thanks.
As far as your question at the end - lots of folks don’t need 2.8 in an ultra wide, and don’t want to pay extra for it or have to carry such a big and heavy lens around. Plus the native 14-24 2.8 isn’t slated till sometime next year. This lens will make a fantastic super high quality, compact and easy to carry kit paired with the 24-70. I can’t wait to get it.
I agree 100%. To have a lightweight and optical very good ultra wide zoom is very important. I don't want to carry a beast like the 14-24/2.8 for a few days in the Alps. Every year it is going to feel heavier ;-)
I love the f4 lens. Just got mine today. Hope to use it this weekend.
The lens does have distortion but Nikon applies correction with software and bakes it into the raw file.
I'm so happy to see some new content here! It's been a long while and your stuff is always excellent. You threw a bit of a carrot last time about new Raya Pro developments so that's exciting too. I went with the D850 last year, and I won't be getting rid of it or any of my beloved lenses for it any time soon. The 14-24 is still the legendary lens it always was. I might rethink that as I continue to age but for right now, he ain't heavy, he my camera gear.
Great review Jimmy! I recently purchased the Z6 and love it. I also purchased your Reya Pro and all your tutorials. I have to say that you put out an excellent product! Thank you!
Great review, Jimmy! This lens is a game-changer... I never expected it to perform so well. Also, those jpegs are amazing! Do you mind sharing the camera profile and active D-lighting settings you used?
Hey Jimmy- great overview of the lens.
I’m sure you know, but for anyone else interested, the “dot light” performance is typically referred to as the lens having low coma. That’ll be a key term when comparing this lens to others, as that aspect of the lens looks great.
Thank you for the explanation, Alex.
Yep coma, looks about as good as the tamron 15-30.
The nikon looks a fun landscape lens, I tent to shoot my astro with a 45 prime anyhow, keen to see a canon R version
there are other lens aberrations than coma affecting dots of light, astigmatism, spherical aberration and longitudinal and sagittal chromatic aberration also shows up when a point of light is present in the image, so dot light performance makes sense, as it consideres more than one type of lens aberration when communicating with optical laymen.
Great review of the 14-30, nice to get an honest balanced review, most reviewers seem to shout about any negatives and gloss over the positives. Overall Nikon appear to have produced a stunning wide-angle zoom lens (unless you do astrophotography). Thanks for the review.
Great review thanks. I guess the main advantage of this f/4 lens over a new 14-24 f/2.8S is the size and weight and price. If you are a pro then the larger, faster lens will be your choice. But if you want to carry a light kit for more opportunistic shots then the f/4 version will be terrific. Besides it's really only astro-landsacape use that requires that bigger aperture, and maybe the Sigma 14mm f/1.8 ART is better for that, or even wait for the new Nikkor 20mm f/1.8S.
When Sigma is going to make for this mount lenses just wait for there Answer a lot I start to like about Z series but not 100% convinced yet.
@@edwardphilipmarianafzger9800 I use the F-mount Sigma 14mm with FTZ adapter. I already had this lens when I shot on DSLR.
And i really love each and every video of yours. Thank you alot Jimmy i owe you for helping me out in improving my photography skills.
Finally Jimmy your back miss all your videos, lovely new home also :)
Very interesting to hear your thoughts, thanks.
Wow really loved the bridge in Madrid image!
Sorry for my english and my question. How do you get that correct exposure in that situation with a straight Jpeg?? 4:25
My guess is that he can't (no one can). If you look at the sky on the upper left side of the picture, behind the buildings, you'll see it's blown out. I agree that if you show someone this picture and don't say anything, I would have guessed it's been exposure-blended; but if he says it's unedited, then we can see what he means once we notice the blown out parts. He probably took that shot on an overcast day, so he could get the buildings in the back and some of the sky and sea on the right. The sun was clearly on the left, so that part is blown out.
Thanks for the video. I noticed you have a Sony 12-24 F2.8 on the desk next to you. I have that lens and it is very very sharp, but also heavy and big (although it's small compared to other brand wide angles). Was curious whether the Nikon 14-30 is AS SHARP as the Sony 12-24, would appreciate if you've done a comparison of the two. While I love the Sony, I agree with you 100%, the Nikon 14-30 is very interesting because of it's size and compactness...am considering for those times I am hiking in the back country of the Sierras, having a lighter kit is always nicer. Thanks!
Super nice pictures!
Good & sincere... Thanks Jimmy
Excellent review of what looks to be a really good lens. The f4 lens would be more attractive to me because it will be smaller, lighter and (probably) a lot cheaper than the forthcoming f2.8 model. I don't really need the extra stop of light, though it would be nice to have in some situations. I had the current 14-24 mm f2.8 but rarely used it because of its weight, and eventually sold it.
Thanks for the review Jimmy, interesting insight. Like you have my Dinasour d850, filters, lenses etc. Would wait for a while the mirrorless market has some.very good established cameras and followers. Let's see how Nikon go
Hey Jimmy , I just bought this lens . Can you please suggest a good carbon fibre laptop for a combination bof Nikon z6 and this lens
About the price.
It is cheaper than the 16-35 F4 F-mount lens when that one was new. And still today the price of the S-lens in Sweden is just 1000 SEK (100USD) more than the new 16-35 F4 F-mount in stores today.
Very nice tutorial
Hello, did you put electronic first curtain shutter on in the menu?
Greetings
Would this be usable in taking milky way shots, does lens with f2.8 can be used? I am checking this lens and the tamron 17-35 f2.8-4, which one would be a better choice if i also shoot astro occasionally , thanks
I don't think the difference between f/4 and f/2.8 is that great. f/2.8 is only 1-stop more of light . An f/1.8 prime would be better for maximum light collection. The following video is a in depth review by Ricci Talks
: th-cam.com/video/yE0mSDIw0xs/w-d-xo.html
@@ITTechHead Thank you for the link. That's an excellent review!
Great review thank you. I think Nikon has concentrated on just getting a wide selection of basic easy to make lenses for the new system. They all look ok but you just wanted a f1.2 to put it on the map. But I still think in a couple of years time this system will be amazing.
great video. Thank you so much for sharing. I was impressed by the lack of barrel distortion and by the way I recognized one of the pictures, it was among the samples on the Nikon web site, so now I know who captured that shot. ;-)
now I *really* want to know how did they avoid the distortion -- is it an optical feature of the lens OR it is a digital "post-processing" inside the camera?
Thank you
If your main need for a 2.8 ultrawide lens is astrophotography, wouldn't the use of a sky tracker solve your problem? I imagine the 14-30MM f/4 and sky tracker would be cheaper than whatever the 14-24 f/2.8 costs, and probably be about the same mass. It would also make attaching light pollution filter easier. Or would this be solution be suboptimal for any reason?
In which case I'd need two pieces of equipment rather than one, not mention the difficulty of capturing a good foreground.
@@JimmyMcIntyre Thank you for your perspective! Great video.
I would imagine the F2.8 is going to be a lot more expensive and heavier and larger and will need the 150 filter systems hence the cheaper F4 version
I've been told it will be smaller, but those are just rumours at the minute. Fingers crossed, though.
Jimmy, why would we buy this over the 2.8? Two words: Real Estate. Don't need f2.8. Also, the extra focal length on the long end gives more compositional options, and if it turns out that the corner sharpness and distortion are better on this lens, and if it's also cheaper than the f2.8 version, then it would be a complete no brainer.
Mark Hazeldine The same for me, I never do astro photography so f4 is just fine for my needs. (Landscapes, architecture, streetphotography) The weight is perfect, sharpness too, filter size😀... it’s really a no brainer😉
Smaller Size and lower weight, too.
I have the Nikon cx6.7-13mm attach on my V1 and its perfect for architectural shots so this z lens would be a good in general used
Jimmy, those canvas look great. Are they done on matt or gloss canvas? And how are they glazed/sprayed?
Diffidently not sharp across the frame, very soft in the corners, have the 24-70s and the 35s two fantastic Lenses, I'm sorry to say the 14-30 will be getting returned just feel the cost doesn't balance with the performance,
eastbelfast Belfast it’s definitely sharper than the 14 to 24.
Given the price of the f/4 the f/2.8 is going to be even more expensive, maybe around 2k usd.....Hey why don't you have an instagram?
I deleted it. Not a big fan of social media.
Hi Jimmy, I just got this lens and am pretty disappointed by the SEVERE vignetting in the corners at 14mm. There is AT LEAST 3 eV dropoff in the raw file, which Nikon attempts to cover up by the built-in corrections in LR and PS. In good light at low ISO with well exposed images the patching works fine.... but... if you underexpose the image significantly (for example because you shoot into the sun and need to control blowout) and then attempt to recover the shadows the corners go to hell pretty quickly. Can you comment on this? I am seriously contemplating sending this lens back.
@GroovyGreek how about when you bracket? How does it perform?
The reason, and its a big one for the people who are choosing the Z 14-30 S for Landscapes over the Z 14-24 S is because of the 100mm Nisi which is way better, or Lee filter kits which will fit the Z 14-30 s unlike on the the Z 14-24 S and when shooting at f:8 or f:11 which is what most landscapers do, the Z14-30 S is exactly as sharp as the Z 14-24 S so why get the f:2 its a no brainer really!
I'd buy it in f-mount for my "dinosaur D800" which is totally fine as far as the sensor goes. With that $3.5K body? No thanks, outrageous.
And yeah, I would get it over the 14-24 f/2.8 because of the filter convenience all day.
IvanAndreevich I recently Made a video about the D800, its great, use is for years and years 👌🏻
I feel like if you don't do astrophotography then the f4 is fine. It's also much lighter and will be much cheaper than the 14-24f2.8 when it comes out.
When you watch TH-cam reviews you will hate what is good and have an inordinate affection for what you don't need. F2.8 to f4 is a stop difference. Is it noticeable?, not to the normal user. If you are serious about astro, the f2.8 is not a going fit, you're better off with a prime nikon 20mm f1.8 etc... you can get better results with the f4 and a star tracker than the 14-24f2.8... the 14-30F4 checks the box for everything you need for a wide angle lens.
Thanks - for an F4 lens it way over priced.
The price is really stupid.
It is about the same price of all the other lenses in this class and clearly outperforms them all so the price is very good.
It’s image sensor is probably still made by Sony, essentially making it a Sony camera 😆
Carl Cosby well the d850 doesnt have a Sony sensor. So many the z cameras dont have it aswell
It's as much as a Sony camera as using Kodak in film days made all cameras a Kodak. The sensor is only the starting point. I do like the Sony sensors in my Nikon cameras, but if anything goes wrong with them, I have to deal with Nikon customer service, not Sony, which is a huge plus.
Manufactured by Sony, designed by Nikon. I suppose you also think a Bentley is 'essentially' a Volkswagen.
Same sony fab makes the sensor to sony cameras as well but they are not same sensors.
The fiat Dino Is not a Ferrari.
Z is pronounced Zee in English, not Zed.
No, it's not. It depends where you're from. www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2012/10/why-do-the-british-pronounce-z-as-zed/
What a snotty American response. The rest of the world pronounces it "Zed", including the original English speaking country - England itself
Ignorant response