Good video. Bought my 16-35 f4 for about 300 pounds last autumn, mint condition. It's my go to landscape lens. Using it with d750. As a nonprofessional, earning no money with photography, I think I don't need more than that. Maybe in the future though... but now, prices for z line glass are quite crazy. All the best!
Yeah absolutely, to be honest £300 for a used one is great value, I wouldn’t say the Z series are that overpriced, the RRP of the 16-35 F4 is £1000 - not that far off the 14-30mm 😉 I hope you enjoy your lens, I did for many years.
we can snag a used 16-35 for $350 at this point, it meets most people's needs just fine. the Z 14-30 is like four times the price, that's a lot. Dxo mark rated the 14-30 lower than the 16-35, granted different bodies, but still gives one pause.
At least in my personal experience having now used the 14-30 more, it’s far beyond the 16-35 in terms of IQ and sharpness. I loved my 16-35 but the 14-30 is proving far superior - especially on the Z8. That all being said, price to performance… it’s hard to knock the 16-35 at the moment!
Thanks ...something about the focus barrel not being internal....not sure what it is, but it just makes me shy away from it. Thanks for showing some close focus pieces, bokeh's good for artistic consideration. VR, that may seal the deal for this hybrid shooter. Well done
Thanks for your comment, I agree that the external zoom barrel is always off putting but it’s the same even for the 24-70 2.8 S... The Image Stabilisation in camera is immense and more than makes up for it not having internal lens VR
Excellent review topic. I’ve used both and find much less distortion in the Z lens. I liked the 16-35 but prefer the 14-30. For this one, the Z lens isn’t that much more. Other Z lenses are dramatically pricier so I’d love to see more AF-S vs. Z comparisons.
I'm looking at the 18-35. I have both a D750 and a Z6. Even though it does not have VR I think it will be the best choice for me considering cost and size. I may look at the 14-30 in the future when they start showing up in the used market.
The 18-35 is a good option if you want to save a bit vs the 16-35 though it’s distinctly less wide: I’d really save for the 14-30 if I were you. Some are popping up used now. So are a good option as the optical performance is far beyond the 18-35 and 16-35 plus it’s a lot wider
The 18-35 is a good option if you want to save a bit vs the 16-35 though it’s distinctly less wide: I’d really save for the 14-30 if I were you. Some are popping up used now. So are a good option as the optical performance is far beyond the 18-35 and 16-35 plus it’s a lot wider
The 18-35 is a good option if you want to save a bit vs the 16-35 though it’s distinctly less wide: I’d really save for the 14-30 if I were you. Some are popping up used now. So are a good option as the optical performance is far beyond the 18-35 and 16-35 plus it’s a lot wider
I'm in the same boat. I want a wide lens for my Z6. But the 14-30mm are going $950+ used. That's still a lot. Also 14 is wider, there's a very less ideal times to even use 14mm. If you watch and listen to real landscape photographers, they normally shoot 18 and up.
I've had a 16 - 35 for quite a while. I recently purchase a Z6 II. I do a lot of underwater photography., and am considering purchasing having a very expensive underwater housing for my Z6II. I'm concerned about the length of the 16-35 (6 5/8 inches with the Z adaptor. I think it will early fit in the dome port, but have top find out for sure. So I'm thinking of getting the 14-30 mostly for it's more compact size. I did see a review where someone complained about significant vignetting on the 145-30 at 14mm. Did you find a difference in vignetting at minimum focal length between these 2 lenses?
All these new Z lenses closely resemble third party lenses like Sigma or Tamron. The plastic contruction, large frontal elements etc, etc. The 16~35 is more of a digital Nikon lens. The Z lenses like many other mirrorless lenses, have horrensous distortion while maintaining high contrast and resolution, but the onboard computers correct for these. Only 10 years down the line we would know how these lenses stand up to constant use, but then again digital cameras have a shelf life of less than 6 months, so 10 years in the digital world is a very very long time.
The 16-35 F has worse build quality and is more plasticy than the 14-30 Z. My 16-35 has a very cheap feeling focus ring and the body is all plastic. The 14-30 is metal around the mount (where the "14-30 F4 S" writing is) and feels a lot tighter and better made.
Good video. Bought my 16-35 f4 for about 300 pounds last autumn, mint condition. It's my go to landscape lens. Using it with d750. As a nonprofessional, earning no money with photography, I think I don't need more than that. Maybe in the future though... but now, prices for z line glass are quite crazy. All the best!
Yeah absolutely, to be honest £300 for a used one is great value, I wouldn’t say the Z series are that overpriced, the RRP of the 16-35 F4 is £1000 - not that far off the 14-30mm 😉 I hope you enjoy your lens, I did for many years.
Just bought a secondhand 16-35mm looked at the 14-30 but couldn’t find one used I’m sure my Z7 will be fine with the 16-35
we can snag a used 16-35 for $350 at this point, it meets most people's needs just fine. the Z 14-30 is like four times the price, that's a lot. Dxo mark rated the 14-30 lower than the 16-35, granted different bodies, but still gives one pause.
At least in my personal experience having now used the 14-30 more, it’s far beyond the 16-35 in terms of IQ and sharpness. I loved my 16-35 but the 14-30 is proving far superior - especially on the Z8.
That all being said, price to performance… it’s hard to knock the 16-35 at the moment!
@@westpalmdoc logically, 9/10 people will agree
Your physical comparison leaps out a major factor. The extra length and weight of the FTZ adapter.
That's a fair point
Thanks ...something about the focus barrel not being internal....not sure what it is, but it just makes me shy away from it. Thanks for showing some close focus pieces, bokeh's good for artistic consideration. VR, that may seal the deal for this hybrid shooter. Well done
Thanks for your comment, I agree that the external zoom barrel is always off putting but it’s the same even for the 24-70 2.8 S...
The Image Stabilisation in camera is immense and more than makes up for it not having internal lens VR
Excellent review topic. I’ve used both and find much less distortion in the Z lens. I liked the 16-35 but prefer the 14-30. For this one, the Z lens isn’t that much more. Other Z lenses are dramatically pricier so I’d love to see more AF-S vs. Z comparisons.
I hope to do more in the future, I’m a little budget constrained at the moment but hopefully later in the year! Fingers crossed 🤞
Great video, very useful info. Thanks for sharing 👍 😀
I’m glad you found it useful and thanks for your comment! 🙂 please consider subscribing to support the channel, it really helps me out! 🙂
I think the 14-30 will be my real estate lens.
It’s a great choice, given you probably done need the 2.8 of the 14-24 I genuinely love the size and clarity of the 14-30
Looking at the size I would go for the native Z lens...
I’d agree with that 🙂
Very helpful. Thank you😀
I’m glad you thought so 🙂 please consider subscribing to support the channel - it really helps 🙂
Loved this video ❤️🔥👍
So glad! Thanks very much! Please consider subscribing to support the channel!
waiting for nikon to release 200-500 z mount version for my z6
Ha, I think there’s a 100-400 on the roadmap so far. I have to say I’m finding the 200-500 with FTZ very useable on the Z6
I'm looking at the 18-35. I have both a D750 and a Z6. Even though it does not have VR I think it will be the best choice for me considering cost and size. I may look at the 14-30 in the future when they start showing up in the used market.
The 18-35 is a good option if you want to save a bit vs the 16-35 though it’s distinctly less wide: I’d really save for the 14-30 if I were you. Some are popping up used now. So are a good option as the optical performance is far beyond the 18-35 and 16-35 plus it’s a lot wider
The 18-35 is a good option if you want to save a bit vs the 16-35 though it’s distinctly less wide: I’d really save for the 14-30 if I were you. Some are popping up used now. So are a good option as the optical performance is far beyond the 18-35 and 16-35 plus it’s a lot wider
The 18-35 is a good option if you want to save a bit vs the 16-35 though it’s distinctly less wide: I’d really save for the 14-30 if I were you. Some are popping up used now. So are a good option as the optical performance is far beyond the 18-35 and 16-35 plus it’s a lot wider
I'm in the same boat. I want a wide lens for my Z6. But the 14-30mm are going $950+ used. That's still a lot. Also 14 is wider, there's a very less ideal times to even use 14mm. If you watch and listen to real landscape photographers, they normally shoot 18 and up.
I've had a 16 - 35 for quite a while. I recently purchase a Z6 II. I do a lot of underwater photography., and am considering purchasing having a very expensive underwater housing for my Z6II. I'm concerned about the length of the 16-35 (6 5/8 inches with the Z adaptor. I think it will early fit in the dome port, but have top find out for sure. So I'm thinking of getting the 14-30 mostly for it's more compact size. I did see a review where someone complained about significant vignetting on the 145-30 at 14mm. Did you find a difference in vignetting at minimum focal length between these 2 lenses?
liked, left a comment lol no fo real, thanks for this
Thank you! Appreciate it!
All these new Z lenses closely resemble third party lenses like Sigma or Tamron. The plastic contruction, large frontal elements etc, etc. The 16~35 is more of a digital Nikon lens. The Z lenses like many other mirrorless lenses, have horrensous distortion while maintaining high contrast and resolution, but the onboard computers correct for these. Only 10 years down the line we would know how these lenses stand up to constant use, but then again digital cameras have a shelf life of less than 6 months, so 10 years in the digital world is a very very long time.
The 16-35 F has worse build quality and is more plasticy than the 14-30 Z. My 16-35 has a very cheap feeling focus ring and the body is all plastic. The 14-30 is metal around the mount (where the "14-30 F4 S" writing is) and feels a lot tighter and better made.
Poor audio quality i missed a lot of what you said.
Sounds fine to me, I’d check your headphones or speakers.
Audio was fine..his/her volume button must be lost..
S.m.d.h
Lot of blabla....
Thanks for the comment, probably best you don’t watch my content if you don’t enjoy it 🤷♂️