Great comparison. It's shocking how close the 14-30 performs compared to the 14-24. Obviously the 14-24 is better, but it's not by as much as the price would indicate. For professionals I think the 14-24 is worth it for that extra bit of sharpness on the edges and the extra stop when needed. For an amateur like myself who mainly takes pictures when traveling, the 14-30 is magnificent. Small, light, and has great image quality. I used the Tokina a 11-16mm for a long time and the 14-30 is noticeably better.
The 14-30mm is incredible. I am hoping to do a comparison between it and Canon's new 14-35mm f/4. It was a tough choice for sure. I think the sharpness is almost negligible...but I do like that the sun star is just a tad better. The poor sun star (in my opinion) is the only downside of both of these lenses. I just do not like the 14-30mm sun star at all.
Apologies as I don't want to sound rude but why you people always say "Professionals this, amateurs that"... Who is "Professional" anyway. It's filled with people using 10k cameras and do shit while others do marvelous photography with smartphones. You either want the best quality gear as per your point of view or not. I'm not professional, nor a rich guy but I'd never buy f4 if there is the same option of range with f2.8 or less as even as a hobbyist I want the better quality so I'll either give the money or won't buy a thing. My point of view is the light. I don't care about sharpness as I use mist filter anyway but f4 with 2.8 is huge amount of light in the most interesting situations for shooting - rainy weather, sunsets, night and dusk no matter if landscapes or street photography.
@@dicekolev5360 I've been thinking a lot about it too. But... do you really need an f2.8 for daytime landscapes? For other situations you have even cheaper f1.8 lenses. In short, we should consider how many times we shoot with such wide apertures.
@@eloyramos4648 well, I shoot at 1.8 99% of the time even when in forest as there are different types of landscapes too. I love to add perspective hence some oject in the front that's blurred out therefore I need the best possible DOF which is in the prime lenses. I've always dreamed about proper night time photography and yet again - prime lenses. I'd never be fully happy with apertures lower than 1.8 with an exception of the telephoto lenses, haha
I think that is false economy at this point. The faster lens allows you to get interior images in a way the F4 does not. Additionally, with higher resolution sensors of the Z7 range, upcoming 61 odd mpix for the prosumer bodies of the future and likely 100 mpx for the generation after that, it does not make sense to buy the 14-30. I would much rather buy the 20 Prime, or spend the extra for the 2.8 Zoom.
I have both of these lenses. I would recommend most people to go for the 14-30 f4. It’s fantastically sharp and gives you a more useful focal range. The screw on 112mm filters are incredibly expensive.
Hi Matt, Like you I have had the 14-30 for about eighteen months and love it, I have no doubt the 14-24 is slightly better in the far corners and it should be with the extra cost, but it is really negligible except when pixel peeping. I found as did many other photographers that the 14-30 is slightly better than the original F mount 14-24 2.8. This alone with the size and picture quality make me stick with the little 14-30, I have sold images right up to 60x40 inches and they look superb from the Z7II. All the best from Scotland.
Yeah, I honestly am still a little unsure about what to do. I do know that I'd take either over the old 14-24mm F-mount any day. The Z lenses are absolutely amazing. I mean switching to the Z7 and 14-30mm saved me so much weight and room in my pack vs. a D810, 14-24mm F, and the filter system.
Thanks for the side by side. I briefly owned both and returned the 14-24mm, primarily for the cost difference of the lenses plus the added cost of expensive filters. I already owned Kase 82mm filters so made sense to stay with 14-30. I'm not a pro but I didn't notice any real difference unless I went in 300% and that just isn't real life. The 14-24 was good for astro, but I have a 20mm 1.8 that will do just fine. (Actually, you can get 14-30 and the 20 1.8 prime for the cost of just the 14-24 and no additional filter cost.)
If you don't need wider than 20mm, the 20mm 1.8 is an insane lens for astro. And, for sure, Gerry. It's not an easy choice and I think the choice is very subjective, all of us have different needs and certain features/aspects are more important than others. I'm really excited to see what Nikon comes up with for future Z lenses.
One of the best things with the 14-30 82mm filter size is that it is the same size as the 24-70/2.8 and with a small step up adapter (77 => 82) the filters can also be used on the 70-200/2.8. Now, even cooler, the 112mm threaded filter hood works on the 14-24/2.8, the 24-70/2.8 and on the 70-200/2.8 - it may even fit the 100-400, but I haven't tried that one, it does have a 77mm filter thread, same as the 70-200, so it might actually work. I love this concept of one "filter hood" fitting ALL relevant landscape lenses for me. Pair this with a set of Kase magnetic filters and you have an INCREDIBLY easy to use filter kit. Blows the LEE kits completely out of the water. And no need for any adapters. For me it really boils down to two questions that'll make the decision: do you want/need lighter weight and smaller size (e.g. hiking with it a lot) => 14-30; do you want/need f/2.8 (e.g. for night/astronomy photography). All the rest is just so damn close, there is no reason to pick one over the other. I used to have the 14-30, sold it and now have the 14-24, which for its size is a really lightweight lens. I'm happy with my decision, mainly because of the ease of using the same "filter hood" on all my zoom lenses (the f/2.8 trinity), nothing beats that convenience for me.
In my 30 years of photography, I've never owned a super wide angle lens. I decided to change that. It took me a long time to decide, but finally made up my mind and bought the 14-24mm f/2.8 S...and it arrived today! In just the little bit of time I've been able to use it, it's obvious that it's going to be used a lot. It's opened up a whole new world.
I used and love the 14-30 for a couple years but now that i have the 14-24 I will never go back. The 14-24 is even replacing my 20mm astro lens, I am absolutely amazed by how good the 14-24mm is.
As a professional, the 14-24 is the desired lens. But I'm not. And while I like and use some so called "professional lenses, I've opted for the 14-30 f4S. It is in my "ready go bag," which includes the Z 24-70 f2.8S, and the MC 105 f2.8 VR S. the 14-30 hasn't disappointed.
Thanks for the great comparison. I have the same struggle. I have had the 14-30 for years and loved it. For landscape I use filters a lot. That 14-30 takes 82mm filters (I use Kase magnetic filters) make shooting much easier and much more fun. However, when it comes to milky way shooting, the 14-30 is not ideal as its max aperture is f/4. I tried it for astro for a few times and was not satisfied with the shooting experience and result. I tried to use combination of 14-30 and 20 f/1.8 to cover both landscape and astro, but the 20 f/1.8 while exceptionally sharp with minimum coma, can only provide one focal distance which doesn't satisfy me either. I may end up going with 14-24 f/2.8, with the compromise of using 112mm filters which are much more bulkier than the 82mm ones for 14-30.
Definitely, the 14-24mm should be great for astro. I'm hoping Nikon eventually released a super fast 12mm or 14mm prime too, like Sony's 14mm f/1.8. I have used the 14-30mm for Milky Way photography and I paired it with a star tracker, got good results. I think if you're doing any astro work, the 14-24mm is a no brainer though. Faster, better focusing, and I do like the OLED display too. The 112mm filters are definitely bulkier, but not by too much.
I have the 14-30 and love it. I recently shot an event that was in tight quarters… I never thought I’d use the 14-30 for portraits, but in this situation it was the right tool for the job. That’s run and gun for ya. I really appreciated the longer 30mm range in this situation rather than if it only went to 24mm.
Thanks Matt for the detailed review. Lots of tests and proof with results. I've pretty much decided to bring the Z 14-24 2.8 on my trip to the Dolomites in June with BCJ. The filter situation kind of has be in a dilema. Round filters or the big holder with rectangle large filters. Stay tuned. Thanks again.
I find sun rays on 14-30 more natural (light spread out of its source) especially in day-time landscape shots when shooting into the sun. Night time shots with all types of artificial lighting on the other hand look nicer with more "spiky" sunstars.
Loved the review. Great comparison. It is 14-24 is obviously the better performer but 14-30 kept up with it fairly well and considering the price and the size/weight. It is an interesting choice.
I currently shoot with a D850 and am looking at going to a Z9 within the next year or so. My two wide angle lenses now are my Sigma Art 14-24 and my Zeiss Milvus 15mm. Once I make the transition to mirrorless, i do know I will buy the S series 14-24, 24-70 and the 70-200. My delima is whether or not to part with my Zeiss 15mm. It is my main lens for night sky. Until I can see a comparison between the S 14-24 and the Zeiss 15mm, I doubt I give it up.
Good, practical video. Thanks for comparing the quality on a building and trees shot instead of a test chart. I have the 14-30, and this reassures me that it will be fine for me. Plus, the extra cost of 112mm filters is a factor. I can see the value of the 14-24 for some commercial work or really large prints.
It all boils down to one thing. Do you need to shoot at f/2.8? If you do, none of the other differences matter. You can only shoot at f/2.8 with one of these lenses. I don’t do a lot of wide landscapes so I am OK using my F mount 14-24/2.8 on my Z9 and the results are still amazingly sharp.
Nice video Matt! 1st time viewer here. Great comparison. I have the 14-30 and love it. I think for me, this lens is the winner overall. As a landscape photographer, most of our shots are going to be on a tripod, so the extra stop on the 14-24 isn’t really needed unless you want to go Astro. The additional 6mm reach plus the compactness/weight makes this stand out in my book. Optically, the elements within the 14-24 are superior and should be at that price. But not by much. I’ve been able to get very sharp edge to edge shots on the 14-30. So again, thanks for the comparison, and keep up great work!
14-30 for me Love it , I have a small back pack for on the go and it's in great 70-200 and filters, tripod and that's me set , All the best , Robert G. Scotland. PS and Z7.
It's been an amazing kit for me too Robert. I think I will pair the 14-24mm with the new 24-120 and 100-400. Although, I'd love a lightweight 100-400 that's a bit slower for us landscapers.
I went with the 14-30 mm f/4 S and got a 20 mm f/1.8 S for low light/astro photos. I hike a lot, and having a lightweight lens helps a lot. I am also now invested with the Kase Wolverine magnetic filters that works for all of my Z lenses. Moving to the 14-24 mm means I have to get the bigger filters and adapters $$$$.
@@BackcountryJourneys the F version of the 20 mm has a better sun star. However, the Z version is way sharper even edge-to-edge and has no comma. Hudson Henry has a comparisons of the two lenses. He is still keeping the 20 mm F version because of the sun star. The 20 mm Z is a better Astro lens, though.
If you apply super resolution in photoshop you will see that the resolution of nikon 14-30 will improve a lot. That's why i don't think it's worth spending a lot of money on the nikon 14-24, because it's more expensive and heavier. I like very much the 14-30 lens.
Really great comparison. My question was simple: What's the difference? This video answered that question perfectly. For me, I'm shooting real estate primarily for posting on the MLS websites. So, saving $1,100 by going with the 14-30mm makes perfect sense for me. If money was no object, I'd probably go with the better just by virtue of the fact that I like buying the best.
Nice review! Back in May 2021 I went through a bunch of reviews for these two lenses and I just went ahead and bought the 14-24 2.8. It's just a better lens overall. Yeah, the 14-30 is compact and all but the overall quality of the 14-24 wins! Yeah it's expensive but I think it's worth it, specially if you shoot at night with it ( 2.8 ).
I agree Ruben. The weight of these two lenses is impressive. I do a big backpacking trip every year or so, and weight does really matter on those, but for most of my shooting (from the car or hiking 5-10 miles), I don't mind carrying a little extra weight for the best possible quality. That's why I'm going with the 14-24mm from here on out.
They are both really good. If sharpness is the most important, then go with the 14 -24. If lighter weight and cost are more important, then go with the 14-30. :-)
thankyou sir you're so knowledgeable. when photoing landscape or your example comparison shots 9:57 where did you point your focus? what type of focus do you use for landscape? I have Nikon Z7ii with kit lens and still undecided to buy 20mm f1.8, 24mm f1.8, 14-30 f4, or 14-24 f2.8. thankyou sub
If you need the lighter weight lens for long multi day hiking or are on a budget, otherwise always get the better lens. Really, how often does someone shoot at a wider aperture than f4 with this type of lens. As far as quality usually, (not always the case but mostly) get the more expensive lens. A sharper more contrast showing image will render clearer photos &, color better also. IMHO. Pretty good comparison from a landscape point of view. I imagine real estate/Architectual Photographers would also be interested in the vertical lines end of it also. PS: $1100.00 difference. Not 1k. If $100 more doesn't make a difference, send me a $100.
Thank you for this review. I have not made up my mind yet but watching your video on my big screen tv, it looks obvious that the 14-24mm is sharper. But of course there is the cost...
Awesome review! Any chance you can make the raw images available for download so we can pixel peep on our machines? And what type of gloves are those? I’m actually looking for some gloves to shoot winter sports with! 😎
If I had to choose, I would pick the 14-30, just for STREET photography. And the F4 is perfect for that, with the maximum reach of 30mm I can use it like the 35mm.
If price doesn't matter and size and weight don't matter then the choice is obvious -14-24 2.8 S. That said, if one is at least price conscious at all, and/or you care about weight (maybe you hike your gear into locations and size and weight really matter, then it depends on use case. If you are a day time landscape photographer only get the 14-30 f/4 S - you are going to be shooting at f/8-16 anyway - you don'r really need the faster 2.8 glass, and the amount that it is sharper really only shows when pixel peeping. However, if you also are into any type of astro photography, then again the choice becomes obvious - get the 2.8 lens - that extra stop of light makes a world of difference in capturing the starts at night.
Hello, Thank you for this comparison video. Currently I have a 14-30 F4 with a Z72, and I would like to get into astro a bit, my goal is to be able to shoot the northern lights. I was thinking of changing it to a 14-24 F2.8 but it's a bit expensive for me (I'm not a pro) and the filters are overpriced. I have a set of HOYA PRO filters in 82mm which are going great. So I'm thinking of taking a 20 F1.8 in addition to the 14-30F.
I have been looking for videos comparing these two lenses and it happened to pop up as a suggestion this morning. I don't believe I heard which camera you are shooting with. I can assume it's either a z7 or z7 II. I have a z6 II. At 24 MP would I even be able to see that much difference in sharpness between these lenses compared to 45 MP on a z7? How large would I have to print before I could see the difference between these two lenses? At 24 MP you're limited to how large you can print compared to 45 MP. If I kept it at 16x24 and below, I probably wouldn't see a huge difference, right? These are the other things I would have to factor in other than the cost of new filters. I have 2 lenses with 82mm threads already so I have rings to fit the 14-30 without buying new filters.
These shots were taken with a Z7. I think the difference may be less noticeable on the Z6...but the 14-24mm S will still be better, especially in the corners. I've made big prints with the 14-30mm f/4 and they have turned out great.
@@BackcountryJourneys thank you for the reply. I'm just a hobbyist. Maybe some day I'll be able to sell my prints. The other thing I meant to ask about is focus breathing. I understand that there's very little if any focus breathing with the z lenses.
thanks for this nice video. I'm a hobby photographer and will never have the pleasure of owning one of those €2000 lenses. So I'm happy for you. Will get the 14-30 or the 20mm f1.8. Thank you and best light for you, Raule from Braunschweig in Germany
reach is more important than imperceptible image quality difference unless zoomed in a >200%.. I get more pixel density without cropping than being stuck at 24mm.. if the 14-24 was like canons 14-35f2.8.. then it will be a no brainer to go for that.. for me cost (less loss if stolen or damaged ) and reach ( less cropping and more versatile ) outweighs the psychological satisfaction of sharper lens ( subjective with time )
When you need absolute frame sharpness, the 14-24 is a beast. But for landscapers who travel and trek, the size/weight of the 14-30 is a hard one to pass up.
In Sun Star Comparison F22 has 1/60 shutter but when with 14-24 lens on F22 has 1/80 - does it really makes that much difference, you said sun star is radiating out... can you please clarify for me. but I like how you compare the lens and help to understand.
What are some 112mm polarizer options for the 14-24mm? In my quick and dirty search I only could find that Nikon sells one for $500 (which is outrageous!). I reached out to both Fotodiox and SinghRay teams and they indicated that they have no current plans of making 112 mm CPL. It is difficult to justify this lens without proper CPL options because in essence this is a landscape lens and without a polarizer it is useless at that. 14-30 is also not a good proxy with the sharpness issues and it being f/4 makes it less usable for astro work.
Part of the cost is the filters the large filters for the 14-24 are not made by many companies and most people would want a circular polarizer and at least (1) ND filter, Nikon charges $699 for the filters on the 14-24. With the 14-30 everyone makes the filters for that lens and you can get very good quality for 30% of the cost. I don't think the extra stop of light is a factor because I would be shooting f11 or higher for landscapes anyway. Right now just getting ready to get into Z mount and don't know what I would do.
I went with the 14-24. But sometimes regret it a bit. I chose top quality and aperture over weight and price in the end. Hopefully the lens last me many years.
It will definitely last years. I don't think it's something to regret. It is the best wide-angle made by Nikon right now. I really think the subtle difference in weight isn't a big deal...it's just a little longer and of course, 112mm v. 82mm filters.
the 14-24 seems to be obviously a better lens but the question would be, does the price difference justify getting it over the 14-30 which is still a great lens. I had the old F-mount 14-24 and I loved it but not being able to have a simple screw-on filter really drove me nuts. I had to spend heaps of money on a third-party filter system that never worked very well anyway. The addition of a screw-in filter makes the 14-24 an incredible tool for a serious landscape photographer, but if you're not a pro or not heavily into landscapes then, IMO, the 14-30 would still be a great choice.
Biggest difference I can see between the photo comparisons is the 14-30mm photos are slightly darker than the 14-24mm. Personally I do prefer the lighter shade but with a bit of colour correction I'm sure the 14-30mm would look just as good. Certainly given the price difference (which is even bigger in May 2024) if you paid the extra for the 14-24mm you'd want & expect it to blow away the 14-30mm which it clearly doesnt do. The money you would save on buying the 14-30mm you could put towards another lens.
If the money is not the problem, 14-24mm of course. But money apart, if you do not want to change lenses and prefer light packs when hiking, the 14-30mm fully sufficient for 95% of all photographers. A vast amount of youtoubers already tested out F-mount vs. Z-mount and proved that Z is far more better, with its new optical design. I personall have still a D800E with the 16-35mm F-mount. This lens falls down to the veteran 14-24mm F. The Z mount lenses are the next league generally. So it is a personal decision how much I will invest.
Yeah, the sunstar not being as defined as the Canon lenses' is one of the reasons I might just adapt a Sony 16-35 to my Z once the Z8 is released. It's really sad to see Nikon has still not caught up in this regard.
This is the first video I came across your channel and I really appreciate your effort to show the differences, I am definitely going with F4 considering not much of the output of the difference compare to F2.8, but F2.8 is much sharper than F4 I can't deny the fact. I see some spots on the photo at 16:15 how did you clean that, I heard the 14-30 F4 lens suck the dust while zooming in and out? is it true?. All the best for your channel.
Unless you're pixel peeking into the corners at 200% or more, they are virtually the same. The 14-24 has its advantages. It's faster, better built and has more features. Optically, there is very little to justify carrying the heavier one around. If you're shooting architectural interiors, the 14-24 is an easier choice. Other than that, I don't see much advantage. I don't shoot landscapes at 2.8 anyway.
I just think the F 4 is the better deal I opted for the 24-70 2.8 Z over the F4 version which I sold but for the wide angle I Just wouldn't spend the money.
It's easy to like both for their different strengths. I have the 14-30, but covet the 14-24 for times when the ultimate sharpness might be nice. I'm not keen to buy another expensive filter set though.
Yeah, I hear you. It's nice having 82mm traditional filters. I use step-up rings from Breakthrough and I only have one CPL and a couple NDs, can us them on all my lenses. The 112mm won't have that kind of integration. Although, it is compatible with other Z lenses via the hood mount, but it's still bulky.
In the beginning I had the Nikkor 14-30 mm. I was disappointed with the 14mm focal length. But turning the tube back annoyed me much more. I hated having to extend the lens every time.
I’ve seen people locking the lens after every shot and don’t understand why they would do that. 😂 Lens comes out of the bag and gets extended… then stays extended until it goes back in the bag. Who wouldn’t want a smaller lens for their bag? Also, who would keep collapsing their lens again and again while using it?
Hi Andy - I used the WonderPana system for the old F-mount. I found the filter quality to not be great and the attachment system made the lens huge. Switching to the 14-30mm and actually getting a quality improvement was amazing. I am going to stick with the new Z 14-24mm for the best possible quality though.
Awesome review. Were the pictures taken with a Z6(ii) or Z7(ii)? I read elsewhere sharpness between lens are more noticeable on 45Mpx than on the 24Mpx sensors.
I would go for the 14-30mm/F4. Why ? Nobody may sea any difference at the printed photographes if watched at the reading distance.... ok, if you put your nose on the pic.... 🙂 (photpgraphers habit). Thx for the good video !
There is no doubt 14-30mm my days of spending too much money with photographic equipment are over. For 99.8 % of the photographers out there the 14-30 will do it.
For me, a lens to heavy/bulky for travelling is useless. And then, sunstars, why do we care about that? It does not exist in reality, we could as well insert a photoshop sunstar. The best lens and camera is the one you carry with you. Sometime the cell phone.
In this case obviously the F2.8 will have a 1 stop advantage, and slightly sharper corners. As many have done though you can get the 14-30 f4 and Z 20mm f1.8 for Astro and shoot it at f2.2 for example.
Both the Z 14-30 and Z 14-24 need to be stopped down to around f5.6 for astro to get rid of coma, etc. There is actually a zero stop advantage between the two for the astro use case. I have shot the Z 20 f1.8 at f2.8 with essentially zero coma, etc., which is incredible. If astro is on your mind, do not waste your money on the Z 14-24. The best ultra wide to wide, day and night, fast or slow, is the Z 14-30 and Z 20 combo. If you have been shooting a while, then you would know that there are basically two exclusive use cases for an ultra wide to wide lens. These two cases never occur at the same time. Therefore, there is never a need to have one single lens that bridges the gap between the two. Its just not a thing like it can be for the 24-70 and 70-200 ranges. IMO, its a big miss for Nikon on the Z 14-24. Too pricy, too big, too heavy, exotic and expensive filters, not good for astro, only slightly better IQ than the Z 14-30. That lens just doesn't make sense.
I think the 14-24mm is the choice for astro. It will just outperform the 14-30mm in almost every way at night. A star tracker is a great solution too. I used a tracker with the 14-30mm with great results. But, coma, focusing, sharpness, and of course speed all go in the 14-24mm's favor.
You must be young - the slightest difference is "a lot of detail" in your view. You should have seen the differences 15 years ago. At f/11 the difference is absolutely negligible.
Hi Tony - those are Valleret gloves (Markhof Pro). I definitely recommend, you can use the coupon 'BCJ10' for a discount: photographygloves.com/collections/photography-glove
Talking about sun stars, both produce pretty ugly sun stars when compare to Zeiss, Voigtlander lenses or even the Canon counterpart. i love the size and weight of the 14-30 but the built quality of that lens is just like cheap plastic kit lens, one thing I really love about that lens is the easy filter attachment, that's a very big deal for me as I use filter a lot.
Yeah, the sun stars are definitely the weakest aspect of both these lenses. I also agree on the build quality, but you can't deny the optical performance of the 14-30mm. I have used the 14-24mm f/2.8 the past 6 months and have been very happy with it.
It's not much more sharpness - it slightly sharper. This would be impossible to notice in essentially any context, aside from pixel peeping in direct comparison.
Better is better period. It's all in what you want and I want the best available. If you're a pro the quality is the number 1 concern. If you are more concerned with saving a few bucks you're competitors will kick your ass in the quality department. Are you willing to do less than the best? Hmm...
Great comparison. You looked at everything I care about. My back (and wallet) is telling me to go with the lighter one and make my peace with the slightly degraded quality. Other factor for me is those 112 filters are damn expensive and huge. Thx for taking the time to put this together. Cheers.
Thanks for the comparison, Matt. In addition to your review, I recommend those that are considering both to look at DXO Mark's in-depth technical comparisons. The 14-30 is tempting because of price, size and weight, but not in the same league as 14-24 technical performance. In addition, all of the F lens, the 14-24 (yes a beast, but still excellent), the 16-35, and the 18-35 are all sharper and better rated than the 14-30 S. The huge appeal of the new 14-24 S per your point is the new filter options at 112mm (Kase makes a great package for this lens, although expensive). This a big departure from the old F14-24, which requires Lee's bulky SW150 filter system (great system, but large to fit in an ICU) to get over the bulbous front. The other case for the 14-24 2.8 is that it is more flexible wide open, giving a much more pleasing bokeh when looking for image isolation.
Sorry but dxo are the joke. The 14-30 is sharper than all the F mount wide zooms, smaller, and requires no FTZ. Pick between the two in this video only
@@kjltube I have to agree, the 16-35 and the 18-35 are like bottle ends compared to the Z 14-30, I had both for many years, In the real world from f8 to f11 the difference is negligable.
Some (quite a few) on Nikon cameras on fb said that Nikon's S 24-70 f4 is as good as the 2.8 version, I can only say ... get a life. This is in the same category.
Yeah, I would not recommend buying Nikon's. I use Breakthrough filters, amazing glass. They have a specialized 112mm CPL and NDs, that's what I'll be using.
If that half pound difference between the lenses makes that big of a difference to someone, they need to spend their money on a gym membership not another lens…
Because both lenses are just so good - I also left the decision far too long. My eventual choice was the 14-24mm only because i've always been seduced by fast glass. Nikons' Z glass continues to impress me. I dont think any Z lens would be less than excellent...🦘
Great comparison. It's shocking how close the 14-30 performs compared to the 14-24. Obviously the 14-24 is better, but it's not by as much as the price would indicate. For professionals I think the 14-24 is worth it for that extra bit of sharpness on the edges and the extra stop when needed. For an amateur like myself who mainly takes pictures when traveling, the 14-30 is magnificent. Small, light, and has great image quality. I used the Tokina a 11-16mm for a long time and the 14-30 is noticeably better.
The 14-30mm is incredible. I am hoping to do a comparison between it and Canon's new 14-35mm f/4. It was a tough choice for sure. I think the sharpness is almost negligible...but I do like that the sun star is just a tad better. The poor sun star (in my opinion) is the only downside of both of these lenses. I just do not like the 14-30mm sun star at all.
Apologies as I don't want to sound rude but why you people always say "Professionals this, amateurs that"... Who is "Professional" anyway. It's filled with people using 10k cameras and do shit while others do marvelous photography with smartphones. You either want the best quality gear as per your point of view or not. I'm not professional, nor a rich guy but I'd never buy f4 if there is the same option of range with f2.8 or less as even as a hobbyist I want the better quality so I'll either give the money or won't buy a thing. My point of view is the light. I don't care about sharpness as I use mist filter anyway but f4 with 2.8 is huge amount of light in the most interesting situations for shooting - rainy weather, sunsets, night and dusk no matter if landscapes or street photography.
@@dicekolev5360 I've been thinking a lot about it too. But... do you really need an f2.8 for daytime landscapes? For other situations you have even cheaper f1.8 lenses. In short, we should consider how many times we shoot with such wide apertures.
@@eloyramos4648 well, I shoot at 1.8 99% of the time even when in forest as there are different types of landscapes too. I love to add perspective hence some oject in the front that's blurred out therefore I need the best possible DOF which is in the prime lenses. I've always dreamed about proper night time photography and yet again - prime lenses. I'd never be fully happy with apertures lower than 1.8 with an exception of the telephoto lenses, haha
I think that is false economy at this point. The faster lens allows you to get interior images in a way the F4 does not. Additionally, with higher resolution sensors of the Z7 range, upcoming 61 odd mpix for the prosumer bodies of the future and likely 100 mpx for the generation after that, it does not make sense to buy the 14-30. I would much rather buy the 20 Prime, or spend the extra for the 2.8 Zoom.
I have both of these lenses. I would recommend most people to go for the 14-30 f4. It’s fantastically sharp and gives you a more useful focal range. The screw on 112mm filters are incredibly expensive.
Hi Matt, Like you I have had the 14-30 for about eighteen months and love it, I have no doubt the 14-24 is slightly better in the far corners and it should be
with the extra cost, but it is really negligible except when pixel peeping. I found as did many other photographers that the 14-30 is slightly better than the original F mount 14-24 2.8.
This alone with the size and picture quality make me stick with the little 14-30, I have sold images right up to 60x40 inches and they look superb from the Z7II.
All the best from Scotland.
Yeah, I honestly am still a little unsure about what to do. I do know that I'd take either over the old 14-24mm F-mount any day. The Z lenses are absolutely amazing. I mean switching to the Z7 and 14-30mm saved me so much weight and room in my pack vs. a D810, 14-24mm F, and the filter system.
Thanks for the side by side. I briefly owned both and returned the 14-24mm, primarily for the cost difference of the lenses plus the added cost of expensive filters. I already owned Kase 82mm filters so made sense to stay with 14-30. I'm not a pro but I didn't notice any real difference unless I went in 300% and that just isn't real life. The 14-24 was good for astro, but I have a 20mm 1.8 that will do just fine. (Actually, you can get 14-30 and the 20 1.8 prime for the cost of just the 14-24 and no additional filter cost.)
If you don't need wider than 20mm, the 20mm 1.8 is an insane lens for astro. And, for sure, Gerry. It's not an easy choice and I think the choice is very subjective, all of us have different needs and certain features/aspects are more important than others. I'm really excited to see what Nikon comes up with for future Z lenses.
One of the best things with the 14-30 82mm filter size is that it is the same size as the 24-70/2.8 and with a small step up adapter (77 => 82) the filters can also be used on the 70-200/2.8. Now, even cooler, the 112mm threaded filter hood works on the 14-24/2.8, the 24-70/2.8 and on the 70-200/2.8 - it may even fit the 100-400, but I haven't tried that one, it does have a 77mm filter thread, same as the 70-200, so it might actually work. I love this concept of one "filter hood" fitting ALL relevant landscape lenses for me. Pair this with a set of Kase magnetic filters and you have an INCREDIBLY easy to use filter kit. Blows the LEE kits completely out of the water. And no need for any adapters.
For me it really boils down to two questions that'll make the decision: do you want/need lighter weight and smaller size (e.g. hiking with it a lot) => 14-30; do you want/need f/2.8 (e.g. for night/astronomy photography). All the rest is just so damn close, there is no reason to pick one over the other. I used to have the 14-30, sold it and now have the 14-24, which for its size is a really lightweight lens. I'm happy with my decision, mainly because of the ease of using the same "filter hood" on all my zoom lenses (the f/2.8 trinity), nothing beats that convenience for me.
My go to travel lens.. 14-30 f4, 24-120 f4 and a 35 1.8 for travel portrait’s and family photos with nice mid wide and bokeh
In my 30 years of photography, I've never owned a super wide angle lens. I decided to change that. It took me a long time to decide, but finally made up my mind and bought the 14-24mm f/2.8 S...and it arrived today!
In just the little bit of time I've been able to use it, it's obvious that it's going to be used a lot. It's opened up a whole new world.
I used and love the 14-30 for a couple years but now that i have the 14-24 I will never go back. The 14-24 is even replacing my 20mm astro lens, I am absolutely amazed by how good the 14-24mm is.
As a professional, the 14-24 is the desired lens. But I'm not. And while I like and use some so called "professional lenses, I've opted for the 14-30 f4S. It is in my "ready go bag," which includes the Z 24-70 f2.8S, and the MC 105 f2.8 VR S. the 14-30 hasn't disappointed.
Thanks for the great comparison. I have the same struggle. I have had the 14-30 for years and loved it. For landscape I use filters a lot. That 14-30 takes 82mm filters (I use Kase magnetic filters) make shooting much easier and much more fun. However, when it comes to milky way shooting, the 14-30 is not ideal as its max aperture is f/4. I tried it for astro for a few times and was not satisfied with the shooting experience and result. I tried to use combination of 14-30 and 20 f/1.8 to cover both landscape and astro, but the 20 f/1.8 while exceptionally sharp with minimum coma, can only provide one focal distance which doesn't satisfy me either. I may end up going with 14-24 f/2.8, with the compromise of using 112mm filters which are much more bulkier than the 82mm ones for 14-30.
Definitely, the 14-24mm should be great for astro. I'm hoping Nikon eventually released a super fast 12mm or 14mm prime too, like Sony's 14mm f/1.8. I have used the 14-30mm for Milky Way photography and I paired it with a star tracker, got good results. I think if you're doing any astro work, the 14-24mm is a no brainer though. Faster, better focusing, and I do like the OLED display too. The 112mm filters are definitely bulkier, but not by too much.
I have the 14-30 and love it. I recently shot an event that was in tight quarters… I never thought I’d use the 14-30 for portraits, but in this situation it was the right tool for the job. That’s run and gun for ya. I really appreciated the longer 30mm range in this situation rather than if it only went to 24mm.
Hello, can you post sample portrait shots of 14-30 ..thanks!
Thanks Matt for the detailed review. Lots of tests and proof with results. I've pretty much decided to bring the Z 14-24 2.8 on my trip to the Dolomites in June with BCJ. The filter situation kind of has be in a dilema. Round filters or the big holder with rectangle large filters. Stay tuned. Thanks again.
I find sun rays on 14-30 more natural (light spread out of its source) especially in day-time landscape shots when shooting into the sun. Night time shots with all types of artificial lighting on the other hand look nicer with more "spiky" sunstars.
Loved the review. Great comparison. It is 14-24 is obviously the better performer but 14-30 kept up with it fairly well and considering the price and the size/weight. It is an interesting choice.
I currently shoot with a D850 and am looking at going to a Z9 within the next year or so. My two wide angle lenses now are my Sigma Art 14-24 and my Zeiss Milvus 15mm. Once I make the transition to mirrorless, i do know I will buy the S series 14-24, 24-70 and the 70-200. My delima is whether or not to part with my Zeiss 15mm. It is my main lens for night sky. Until I can see a comparison between the S 14-24 and the Zeiss 15mm, I doubt I give it up.
Good, practical video. Thanks for comparing the quality on a building and trees shot instead of a test chart. I have the 14-30, and this reassures me that it will be fine for me. Plus, the extra cost of 112mm filters is a factor. I can see the value of the 14-24 for some commercial work or really large prints.
5:44 Are you kidding? Cheapest 112mm filter is around $100, original Nikon neutral filter is $400, more specialized $600+
It all boils down to one thing. Do you need to shoot at f/2.8? If you do, none of the other differences matter. You can only shoot at f/2.8 with one of these lenses. I don’t do a lot of wide landscapes so I am OK using my F mount 14-24/2.8 on my Z9 and the results are still amazingly sharp.
Nice video Matt! 1st time viewer here. Great comparison. I have the 14-30 and love it. I think for me, this lens is the winner overall. As a landscape photographer, most of our shots are going to be on a tripod, so the extra stop on the 14-24 isn’t really needed unless you want to go Astro. The additional 6mm reach plus the compactness/weight makes this stand out in my book. Optically, the elements within the 14-24 are superior and should be at that price. But not by much. I’ve been able to get very sharp edge to edge shots on the 14-30. So again, thanks for the comparison, and keep up great work!
14-30 for me Love it , I have a small back pack for on the go and it's in great 70-200 and filters, tripod and that's me set , All the best , Robert G. Scotland. PS and Z7.
It's been an amazing kit for me too Robert. I think I will pair the 14-24mm with the new 24-120 and 100-400. Although, I'd love a lightweight 100-400 that's a bit slower for us landscapers.
I went with the 14-30 mm f/4 S and got a 20 mm f/1.8 S for low light/astro photos. I hike a lot, and having a lightweight lens helps a lot. I am also now invested with the Kase Wolverine magnetic filters that works for all of my Z lenses. Moving to the 14-24 mm means I have to get the bigger filters and adapters $$$$.
This is exactly my thinking as well; the 20 mm for astro is the best way to go especially with the sharpness of the S version and even the older G.
I haven't used it, but I've heard the 20mm Z is amazing. The old 20mm was one of my favorites...one of the best sun stars ever from a Nikon lens too.
@@BackcountryJourneys the F version of the 20 mm has a better sun star. However, the Z version is way sharper even edge-to-edge and has no comma. Hudson Henry has a comparisons of the two lenses. He is still keeping the 20 mm F version because of the sun star. The 20 mm Z is a better Astro lens, though.
If you apply super resolution in photoshop you will see that the resolution of nikon 14-30 will improve a lot. That's why i don't think it's worth spending a lot of money on the nikon 14-24, because it's more expensive and heavier. I like very much the 14-30 lens.
Really great comparison. My question was simple: What's the difference? This video answered that question perfectly. For me, I'm shooting real estate primarily for posting on the MLS websites. So, saving $1,100 by going with the 14-30mm makes perfect sense for me. If money was no object, I'd probably go with the better just by virtue of the fact that I like buying the best.
Nice review! Back in May 2021 I went through a bunch of reviews for these two lenses and I just went ahead and bought the 14-24 2.8. It's just a better lens overall. Yeah, the 14-30 is compact and all but the overall quality of the 14-24 wins! Yeah it's expensive but I think it's worth it, specially if you shoot at night with it ( 2.8 ).
I agree Ruben. The weight of these two lenses is impressive. I do a big backpacking trip every year or so, and weight does really matter on those, but for most of my shooting (from the car or hiking 5-10 miles), I don't mind carrying a little extra weight for the best possible quality. That's why I'm going with the 14-24mm from here on out.
They are both really good. If sharpness is the most important, then go with the 14 -24. If lighter weight and cost are more important, then go with the 14-30. :-)
Simple as that! Well, sort of...both are great.
Like minded photographer 🤝. I miss the days with my Canon system which even the cheap 17-40L could produce nice sun stars, even at F8.
thankyou sir you're so knowledgeable. when photoing landscape or your example comparison shots 9:57 where did you point your focus? what type of focus do you use for landscape? I have Nikon Z7ii with kit lens and still undecided to buy 20mm f1.8, 24mm f1.8, 14-30 f4, or 14-24 f2.8. thankyou sub
If you need the lighter weight lens for long multi day hiking or are on a budget, otherwise always get the better lens. Really, how often does someone shoot at a wider aperture than f4 with this type of lens. As far as quality usually, (not always the case but mostly) get the more expensive lens. A sharper more contrast showing image will render clearer photos &, color better also. IMHO. Pretty good comparison from a landscape point of view. I imagine real estate/Architectual Photographers would also be interested in the vertical lines end of it also.
PS: $1100.00 difference. Not 1k. If $100 more doesn't make a difference, send me a $100.
Thank you for this review. I have not made up my mind yet but watching your video on my big screen tv, it looks obvious that the 14-24mm is sharper. But of course there is the cost...
Awesome review! Any chance you can make the raw images available for download so we can pixel peep on our machines?
And what type of gloves are those? I’m actually looking for some gloves to shoot winter sports with! 😎
If I had to choose, I would pick the 14-30, just for STREET photography.
And the F4 is perfect for that,
with the maximum reach of 30mm
I can use it like the 35mm.
If price doesn't matter and size and weight don't matter then the choice is obvious -14-24 2.8 S.
That said, if one is at least price conscious at all, and/or you care about weight (maybe you hike your gear into locations and size and weight really matter, then it depends on use case. If you are a day time landscape photographer only get the 14-30 f/4 S - you are going to be shooting at f/8-16 anyway - you don'r really need the faster 2.8 glass, and the amount that it is sharper really only shows when pixel peeping.
However, if you also are into any type of astro photography, then again the choice becomes obvious - get the 2.8 lens - that extra stop of light makes a world of difference in capturing the starts at night.
Hello,
Thank you for this comparison video. Currently I have a 14-30 F4 with a Z72, and I would like to get into astro a bit, my goal is to be able to shoot the northern lights. I was thinking of changing it to a 14-24 F2.8 but it's a bit expensive for me (I'm not a pro) and the filters are overpriced. I have a set of HOYA PRO filters in 82mm which are going great. So I'm thinking of taking a 20 F1.8 in addition to the 14-30F.
Thanks for the great comparison. thanks for the tip when shooting a sun star, too. Cheers!
The 14-30mm is an excellent choice, even though the 14-24 is better.
I have been looking for videos comparing these two lenses and it happened to pop up as a suggestion this morning. I don't believe I heard which camera you are shooting with. I can assume it's either a z7 or z7 II. I have a z6 II. At 24 MP would I even be able to see that much difference in sharpness between these lenses compared to 45 MP on a z7? How large would I have to print before I could see the difference between these two lenses? At 24 MP you're limited to how large you can print compared to 45 MP. If I kept it at 16x24 and below, I probably wouldn't see a huge difference, right? These are the other things I would have to factor in other than the cost of new filters. I have 2 lenses with 82mm threads already so I have rings to fit the 14-30 without buying new filters.
These shots were taken with a Z7. I think the difference may be less noticeable on the Z6...but the 14-24mm S will still be better, especially in the corners. I've made big prints with the 14-30mm f/4 and they have turned out great.
@@BackcountryJourneys thank you for the reply. I'm just a hobbyist. Maybe some day I'll be able to sell my prints. The other thing I meant to ask about is focus breathing. I understand that there's very little if any focus breathing with the z lenses.
thanks for this nice video. I'm a hobby photographer and will never have the pleasure of owning one of those €2000 lenses. So I'm happy for you. Will get the 14-30 or the 20mm f1.8.
Thank you and best light for you, Raule from Braunschweig in Germany
reach is more important than imperceptible image quality difference unless zoomed in a >200%.. I get more pixel density without cropping than being stuck at 24mm.. if the 14-24 was like canons 14-35f2.8.. then it will be a no brainer to go for that.. for me cost (less loss if stolen or damaged ) and reach ( less cropping and more versatile ) outweighs the psychological satisfaction of sharper lens ( subjective with time )
Really great video. Even-handed and informative. Helped me make my decision (14-30 for me!)
When you need absolute frame sharpness, the 14-24 is a beast. But for landscapers who travel and trek, the size/weight of the 14-30 is a hard one to pass up.
In Sun Star Comparison F22 has 1/60 shutter but when with 14-24 lens on F22 has 1/80 - does it really makes that much difference, you said sun star is radiating out... can you please clarify for me. but I like how you compare the lens and help to understand.
What are some 112mm polarizer options for the 14-24mm? In my quick and dirty search I only could find that Nikon sells one for $500 (which is outrageous!). I reached out to both Fotodiox and SinghRay teams and they indicated that they have no current plans of making 112 mm CPL. It is difficult to justify this lens without proper CPL options because in essence this is a landscape lens and without a polarizer it is useless at that.
14-30 is also not a good proxy with the sharpness issues and it being f/4 makes it less usable for astro work.
Part of the cost is the filters the large filters for the 14-24 are not made by many companies and most people would want a circular polarizer and at least (1) ND filter, Nikon charges $699 for the filters on the 14-24. With the 14-30 everyone makes the filters for that lens and you can get very good quality for 30% of the cost. I don't think the extra stop of light is a factor because I would be shooting f11 or higher for landscapes anyway. Right now just getting ready to get into Z mount and don't know what I would do.
I went with the 14-24. But sometimes regret it a bit. I chose top quality and aperture over weight and price in the end. Hopefully the lens last me many years.
It will definitely last years. I don't think it's something to regret. It is the best wide-angle made by Nikon right now. I really think the subtle difference in weight isn't a big deal...it's just a little longer and of course, 112mm v. 82mm filters.
the 14-24 seems to be obviously a better lens but the question would be, does the price difference justify getting it over the 14-30 which is still a great lens. I had the old F-mount 14-24 and I loved it but not being able to have a simple screw-on filter really drove me nuts. I had to spend heaps of money on a third-party filter system that never worked very well anyway. The addition of a screw-in filter makes the 14-24 an incredible tool for a serious landscape photographer, but if you're not a pro or not heavily into landscapes then, IMO, the 14-30 would still be a great choice.
Such a great video!!! I’m in the middle of this decision, are you loving the 14-24?
Biggest difference I can see between the photo comparisons is the 14-30mm photos are slightly darker than the 14-24mm. Personally I do prefer the lighter shade but with a bit of colour correction I'm sure the 14-30mm would look just as good. Certainly given the price difference (which is even bigger in May 2024) if you paid the extra for the 14-24mm you'd want & expect it to blow away the 14-30mm which it clearly doesnt do. The money you would save on buying the 14-30mm you could put towards another lens.
If the money is not the problem, 14-24mm of course. But money apart, if you do not want to change lenses and prefer light packs when hiking, the 14-30mm fully sufficient for 95% of all photographers.
A vast amount of youtoubers already tested out F-mount vs. Z-mount and proved that Z is far more better, with its new optical design.
I personall have still a D800E with the 16-35mm F-mount. This lens falls down to the veteran 14-24mm F.
The Z mount lenses are the next league generally.
So it is a personal decision how much I will invest.
Yeah, the sunstar not being as defined as the Canon lenses' is one of the reasons I might just adapt a Sony 16-35 to my Z once the Z8 is released. It's really sad to see Nikon has still not caught up in this regard.
The F 4 , 14- 30 can focus much closer is another great feature .
Great comparison. Both lenses look to be great for landscape.....keep you the good work!!
This is the first video I came across your channel and I really appreciate your effort to show the differences, I am definitely going with F4 considering not much of the output of the difference compare to F2.8, but F2.8 is much sharper than F4 I can't deny the fact.
I see some spots on the photo at 16:15 how did you clean that, I heard the 14-30 F4 lens suck the dust while zooming in and out? is it true?. All the best for your channel.
Unless you're pixel peeking into the corners at 200% or more, they are virtually the same. The 14-24 has its advantages. It's faster, better built and has more features. Optically, there is very little to justify carrying the heavier one around. If you're shooting architectural interiors, the 14-24 is an easier choice. Other than that, I don't see much advantage. I don't shoot landscapes at 2.8 anyway.
I just think the F 4 is the better deal I opted for the 24-70 2.8 Z over the F4 version which I sold but for the wide angle I Just wouldn't spend the money.
It's easy to like both for their different strengths. I have the 14-30, but covet the 14-24 for times when the ultimate sharpness might be nice. I'm not keen to buy another expensive filter set though.
Yeah, I hear you. It's nice having 82mm traditional filters. I use step-up rings from Breakthrough and I only have one CPL and a couple NDs, can us them on all my lenses. The 112mm won't have that kind of integration. Although, it is compatible with other Z lenses via the hood mount, but it's still bulky.
In the beginning I had the Nikkor 14-30 mm. I was disappointed with the 14mm focal length. But turning the tube back annoyed me much more. I hated having to extend the lens every time.
I’ve seen people locking the lens after every shot and don’t understand why they would do that. 😂 Lens comes out of the bag and gets extended… then stays extended until it goes back in the bag. Who wouldn’t want a smaller lens for their bag? Also, who would keep collapsing their lens again and again while using it?
It would be interesting also a comparison with the 20mm and 24mm primes against the zooms. Good job!
Yeah, definitely. I will see if I can get my hands on them.
I and many others bought the lee filters system for the 14-24 f mount.
Hi Andy - I used the WonderPana system for the old F-mount. I found the filter quality to not be great and the attachment system made the lens huge. Switching to the 14-30mm and actually getting a quality improvement was amazing. I am going to stick with the new Z 14-24mm for the best possible quality though.
Have you used it for video? How is it? Get a lot of jelly effect. Subscribed
I have used both for video a little, definitely get warping, but I think that's an artifact of the wide-angle focal lengths.
Awesome review. Were the pictures taken with a Z6(ii) or Z7(ii)? I read elsewhere sharpness between lens are more noticeable on 45Mpx than on the 24Mpx sensors.
All these images were taken with a Z7. I would expect the Z7 to show more quality differences between the two with the larger sensor.
@@BackcountryJourneys Great feedback. This aligns with other articles I read. Thanks.
I find if the equipment is lighter and more compact I just use it more.
I would go for the 14-30mm/F4. Why ? Nobody may sea any difference at the printed photographes if watched at the reading distance.... ok, if you put your nose on the pic.... 🙂 (photpgraphers habit). Thx for the good video !
if you want to shoot astrophotography, then f2.8.. but if just fun landscape the f4 would be my choice.. plus the price difference
There is no doubt 14-30mm my days of spending too much money with photographic equipment are over. For 99.8 % of the photographers out there the 14-30 will do it.
I agree Celso. You can get a 14-30mm used for such a great price too...and Nikon offers rebates on new versions now all the time.
For me, a lens to heavy/bulky for travelling is useless. And then, sunstars, why do we care about that? It does not exist in reality, we could as well insert a photoshop sunstar. The best lens and camera is the one you carry with you. Sometime the cell phone.
Hey,
Great review, although I am interested about astro as well. Would be nice to hear your thoughts on that.
In this case obviously the F2.8 will have a 1 stop advantage, and slightly sharper corners.
As many have done though you can get the 14-30 f4 and Z 20mm f1.8 for Astro and shoot it at f2.2 for example.
Both the Z 14-30 and Z 14-24 need to be stopped down to around f5.6 for astro to get rid of coma, etc. There is actually a zero stop advantage between the two for the astro use case. I have shot the Z 20 f1.8 at f2.8 with essentially zero coma, etc., which is incredible. If astro is on your mind, do not waste your money on the Z 14-24. The best ultra wide to wide, day and night, fast or slow, is the Z 14-30 and Z 20 combo. If you have been shooting a while, then you would know that there are basically two exclusive use cases for an ultra wide to wide lens. These two cases never occur at the same time. Therefore, there is never a need to have one single lens that bridges the gap between the two. Its just not a thing like it can be for the 24-70 and 70-200 ranges. IMO, its a big miss for Nikon on the Z 14-24. Too pricy, too big, too heavy, exotic and expensive filters, not good for astro, only slightly better IQ than the Z 14-30. That lens just doesn't make sense.
I think the 14-24mm is the choice for astro. It will just outperform the 14-30mm in almost every way at night. A star tracker is a great solution too. I used a tracker with the 14-30mm with great results. But, coma, focusing, sharpness, and of course speed all go in the 14-24mm's favor.
Thank you!
You must be young - the slightest difference is "a lot of detail" in your view. You should have seen the differences 15 years ago. At f/11 the difference is absolutely negligible.
what kinda gloves you wearing in this video mate?
Hi Tony - those are Valleret gloves (Markhof Pro). I definitely recommend, you can use the coupon 'BCJ10' for a discount: photographygloves.com/collections/photography-glove
Is it me or does the 14-24 seem to be just a little bit wider at all focal lengths tested?
Yes, 14-24 is a little wider if lens correction is deactvated. I have test it.
Thank You👏💯👊
Talking about sun stars, both produce pretty ugly sun stars when compare to Zeiss, Voigtlander lenses or even the Canon counterpart. i love the size and weight of the 14-30 but the built quality of that lens is just like cheap plastic kit lens, one thing I really love about that lens is the easy filter attachment, that's a very big deal for me as I use filter a lot.
Yeah, the sun stars are definitely the weakest aspect of both these lenses. I also agree on the build quality, but you can't deny the optical performance of the 14-30mm. I have used the 14-24mm f/2.8 the past 6 months and have been very happy with it.
It's not much more sharpness - it slightly sharper. This would be impossible to notice in essentially any context, aside from pixel peeping in direct comparison.
I am happy with my Z 14-30
You can see that the 14-24 is wider in the 2 pics your comparing
Better is better period. It's all in what you want and I want the best available. If you're a pro the quality is the number 1 concern. If you are more concerned with saving a few bucks you're competitors will kick your ass in the quality department. Are you willing to do less than the best? Hmm...
Great comparison. You looked at everything I care about. My back (and wallet) is telling me to go with the lighter one and make my peace with the slightly degraded quality. Other factor for me is those 112 filters are damn expensive and huge. Thx for taking the time to put this together. Cheers.
2:40 Sony Fe PZ 16-35mm F4 G is lighter and better for video
love my 14-30 😎
I skipped to the end to see which was the winner and found that you didn't choose. 😞
Thanks for the comparison, Matt. In addition to your review, I recommend those that are considering both to look at DXO Mark's in-depth technical comparisons. The 14-30 is tempting because of price, size and weight, but not in the same league as 14-24 technical performance. In addition, all of the F lens, the 14-24 (yes a beast, but still excellent), the 16-35, and the 18-35 are all sharper and better rated than the 14-30 S. The huge appeal of the new 14-24 S per your point is the new filter options at 112mm (Kase makes a great package for this lens, although expensive). This a big departure from the old F14-24, which requires Lee's bulky SW150 filter system (great system, but large to fit in an ICU) to get over the bulbous front. The other case for the 14-24 2.8 is that it is more flexible wide open, giving a much more pleasing bokeh when looking for image isolation.
Sorry but dxo are the joke. The 14-30 is sharper than all the F mount wide zooms, smaller, and requires no FTZ.
Pick between the two in this video only
DXO Mark score takes into account performance in low light, so faster lenses will always have an advantage in scoring.
@@kjltube I have to agree, the 16-35 and the 18-35 are like bottle ends compared to the Z 14-30, I had both for many years, In the real world from f8 to f11 the difference is negligable.
@@Calibr21 interesting, but not especially helpful for most landscape scenarios, compared to sharpness, and other lens characteristics
@@kjltube exactly. That’s why judging a lens based on DxO score isnt a good idea.
Some (quite a few) on Nikon cameras on fb said that Nikon's S 24-70 f4 is as good as the 2.8 version, I can only say ... get a life. This is in the same category.
I have a Z9, I have to buy everything 2.8 lol!!
The 112mm filers by nikon are $500 plus
Yeah, that‘s just ridiculous. But Kase and NiSi have much cheaper filters in that size
Yeah, I would not recommend buying Nikon's. I use Breakthrough filters, amazing glass. They have a specialized 112mm CPL and NDs, that's what I'll be using.
f/11 and f/16 are absurd choices, given diffraction limitations.
If you print? You will not notice any difference. Don't waste your money and buy F4. For landscape nobody needs F 2.8.
"esspecialee", not "exspeciallee"
If that half pound difference between the lenses makes that big of a difference to someone, they need to spend their money on a gym membership not another lens…
It makes a difference when you are 70 years old. Get off my lawn you young whippersnapper!
112mm filter NO thank you.
This video is a silly JOKE...!!!!!!!
Because both lenses are just so good - I also left the decision far too long.
My eventual choice was the 14-24mm only because i've always been seduced by fast glass.
Nikons' Z glass continues to impress me. I dont think any Z lens would be less than excellent...🦘
Definitely Roy. Early looks at the 24-120mm are proving it to be a fantastic addition too. I'm sure the new 100-400mm will also follow suit.