I'll stick with the native F/4 Z lens on my Z6. Just because the 2.8's front element is huuuge and, like you said, its difficult to put a filter on the 2.8.
@@alexanderhartmann7950 www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/lens-mount-adapter/mount-adapter-ftz.html "...with up to 5 stops of 3-axis VR image stabilization."
Are you saying that any lens you use the adapter with, will cut down on the 5 axis stabilization? Hmmmm.... I am purchasing the Z camera because of the better stabilization and thought I would be using my lens.
Honestly after watching your video i bought 14-24 right away. I dont like experimenting much, i have a crush with 2.8 n i m Loving it the legend. It is tested tough at all conditions weather since 13 years around the globe. This lens took milions of happy pictures around the globe. So 2.8 is tried and tested 👍🏽
OK, Jared, you did it again. You once convinced me to buy Z6 (I bought it the next day after watching your video) and now I am finally convinced to trade-in my AF-S 16-35 f/4 and get this Z 14-30 f/4 to add to my Z 24-70 f/4 and Z 50mm f/1.8. Good job, thank you!
I agree, but a big lure is the video function. So the brighter lens has a higher usability for low light video with more range. At 6400, 1/60 f2.8, is the limit of soft lit scenarios. If it was for landscapes id take the f4 ultra wide.
I'd go with the f4. You have a full frame body, so low light isn't a huge concern, I'd personally get that lens if I wanted to wide angles and f2.8 for wide angles sounds a bit weird to me. I use wides for landscape and timelapses, so I usually have my aperture very narrow anyways. Plus, its lighter, more compact, should focus a tad faster and overall should be a workhorse! Im NOT a nikon shoooter, just analyzing the concept before watching the video! :D
It's in astrolandscapes that the 2.8 is a much better option. Going wide is nice for catching more of the milky way. The 14-24 has been so good that even canon users will adapt it for astro. Jared is still talking though, maybe he'll address this.
I already have the 2.8 as well as the Lee filter holder. One place where 2.8 makes a big difference is with Astro photography, you just capture more stars at 2.8, it's that simple. I'll probably stay with the 2.8 just for that.
I was worried about the folding mechanism in the 24-70 f4 S, but after using it for a few months I have not noticed any wear and tear on that mechanism. Also, I have become completely used to un-clicking the lens, and I love how much smaller it makes the lens. It honestly makes the 14-30 F4 S more attractive to me since it has incorporated this mechanism.
Jared, please answer the questions you yourself asked! 1) Does it actually apply corrections in the camera viewfinder? 2) Does it actually deliver 14mm at its widest with the auto corrections applied? By looking at the comparison between the 14-24 and 14-30 at least the 2nd question seems answered: Nikon actually considered the corrections when labeling the lens as 14mm, as you have the same FOV as with the 14-24 (it seems). Probably the 14-30 is actually a wider lens with a physically shorter focal lenght.
Thank you very much, I was about to trade in my af-s 14-24 f2.8 lens to replace it with the new z 14-30 f4. But thanks to your review I will keep my old lens with the FTZ adapter. I already knew that for the 24-200 z Nikon had adopted software adjustments and adaptations directly in the camera to compensate for some imperfections, but I did not imagine that the manufacturer did this even for more professional lenses. Thanks Jared Polin you saved me a lot of euros.
as a hint for any one looking at wide angle zooms for Nikon F mount the 10-24 f3.5-4.5 DX lens actually covers the FX sensor down to about 20mm (once the converted to FX sizes), this means that it is more budget friendly, it takes 72mm filters, its light and compact although its not as optically good as the officially compatible lens its handy to know P.S. i assume that the auto focus would still work on brand new cameras i haven't tested it on anything newer than a D800. P.S.S the Auto focus does work on my Nikon F6.
At 11:40 we can see that you are getting a field of view at 14mm on the 14-30 WITH auto lens corrections that matches extremely closely with the 14-24, where you lose a tiny sliver on the left and right but gain a sliver at the top and bottom and also get less barrel distortion. So yes, I’d say you DO get the 14mm wide end that you paid for on this new lens.
I'm old fashioned and LOVE my 14-24 (both of them !). I shoot real estate and custom homes and shoot thousands of images a month. It's a real workin' dog !!
The 14-30mm makes a lot of sense and most people don't need f2.8 for the type of shooting they will be doing with this type of lens. However, I don't like the plasticy build of Nikon's new Z mount lenses. Good video BTW Jared.
14-24 is actually cheaper secondhand here, 14-30z is expensive as there is no second hand market yet. overall optical quality is probably similar but the the 14-24 is a pro lens and a result is far better built.
The Z lenses are looking quite nice. I think Nikon is going to be strong in the future when they get some pro bodies out and further their lens line up. I can also see at 9:50 that capture one rendered the file with a lot more detail. The Lightroom file looks blurry.
It's no contest, I will not be dictated to by machines that think they know best. I'd rather some wobbly lines than the weird stretching seen on Cliff by the auto correction. Raw means RAW, not stretched and chopped pixels, you'll need an uncorrecting filter to fix the force fed auto correct. The option should always remain with the end user.
The pre-applied correction in Lightroom is really something to think about. If it's cropping in that much, as you've already questioned, is the user really getting 14mm? If I'm paying for a 14mm lens, I want 14mm results. For ultra-wides, we can acknowledge that a 1mm difference is fairly significant. So, I'm glad that you've brought this point to the attention of potential buyers. Great work, Jared!
Given that the lens corrections are there by default, it's possible that optically the lens is a 13mm or 12mm, producing a 14mm field of view once corrections are applied. That's how Fuji approached things with their lenses that use profile based corrections on otherwise inferior lens designs (such as their f2 lenses vs 1.4) I'd HOPE Nikon went that route, but someone would have to do more research to make a determination about field of view. That said, even if they did build it so that the corrected image is 14mm, you're not getting quite as much use of the sensor and resolution. Though it's probably pretty negligible a difference.
Look at the comparison at 14mm with the 2.8, the images have the same FOV. My guess is the lens is wider and they are using the built-in corrections to bring it back to 14mm. Not a bad idea really.
I know this video is old, but just wanted to say, you can remove the corrections automatically applied in camera, IN lightroom. There is a lens correction tool with all the lens data. As you say the Z bodies automatically correct for this lens, others you can turn off corrections in body. But those corrections can be undone in lightroom via the tool, and I'm guessing you can even undue ALL lens corrections automatically via import settings. Databyter
As a long time Nikon photographer, I recently purchased a Z6II and Zfc to get into the mirrorless world. I still use a D750 and own the 14-24 2.8G along with a Lee filter system and several filters for the 14-24 2.8G so I'm heavily invested with this lens. I like the 2.8 aperture for light gathering ability and in some cases blowing out the background. My landscapes are generally shot at f/8 or better so it's very sharp. Will I go with the Z 14-30 f/4?...likely not. Also, there's something wonderful, I dare say magical in the size and weight of the 14-24 2.8. Great review Jared!
I'll stick with the F/4 on my Z6. I totally agree with what you said about it's difficult to put a filter on the F2.8 versus the F4. Seeing how big of the element is on the 2.8, I would always be extra careful. Your review has me sold on the 14-30 f/4. Thanks again. :D
12:05 I'll say the view angle seems very close to me, the 14-30 might be acting like a 14 mm after correction, will before correction, maybe it's more like 13.5 or something.
Agreed. Interestingly, this is the second review where I've seen a Z body + Z lens combo that appears to be slightly wider than advertised when viewed without the algorithm correction. (ruclips.net/video/CrjP8l8njc8/видео.html - Z6 + 35 1.8S, shown at about 13:05)
At 15:24 the concerns of stretching done by auto correction, that’s simply correcting the barrel distortion to make the image more recti-linear - similar to if you wanted to convert a fisheye image to rectilinear (barrel distortion is basically a less severe version of fisheye). And the result of correcting severe barrel or fisheye effect is that closer objects and objects in the peripheries will be stretched. A “perfect” wide angle rectilinear lens with no barrel distortion would cause that degree of stretching too! If you compare the shapes (esp looking at the bricks on the ground) at 11:40, you can see there’s not that much difference between the “uncorrected” 14-24 image and the “corrected” 14-30 image. But I agree, giving photographers the ability to toggle off corrections baked into RAW files is useful, since there may be instances (eg landscapes without obvious straight lines) could benefit from a little extra content in the peripheries
Only with an ultra wide can you compare an F4 vs F2.8 lenses as close equals, apples to apples, for most all use..... In many situations, with less wide lenses, that extra stop has some big advantages despite the extra size and weight.
The fact that the completed image from the older lens is pretty much as good as the newer, slower lens speaks volumes about abilities of the original... plus you get extra stops if needed!
S Tra Hi S Tra. Thanks for your note. I shoot film in low light and use Cinestill 800T. Depending on your lens focal length, f/2.8 would be the minimum.
If much of your work is hand held, I’d go with the s-mount lens instantly. If you often have a need for tripods and L-brackets, you will need to bear with the frustration of moving your L-bracket from the camera to the FTZ adapter and back as you switch lenses. Over time that frustration will go away.
I wouldn't sell a 14-24 for the new Z lens, unless filter use was a priority. I looked at the raw files, sure the new lens is sharper, but in real life it's not going to make a difference. Seeing the horrendous distortion in the viewfinder might make precise composition impossible (I don't own a Z, but I'm assuming it would not fix the distortion in real time), 2.8 might make a difference, the hugely better build quality is also a fact to consider.
just bought the 14-30/4 and going to test it in my upcoming travel trip. As a hobbilist who mostly shoot travel photos, I love the size and weight of 2470/4 and 1430/4. these two are super light and small that I can travel with less weight in my pack which is nice. Now I wish Nikon introduce a 70200/4 so I can have the perfect trio for travel photography.
Just moved to the Zf. Apart from buying a new z50mm 1.8s, I’ll be staying with my F Mount 14-24f2.8, F 24-70mmf2.8 and my F 85mm1.4G. I think the z mounted zoom lenses are a little fragile and I’m not sure if they’ll last the distance whereas my F lenses are bulletproof.
I understand what your saying about the cropping, but if you were to make the correction for the bowing on the 14-24 f/2.8, it would also crop the the image.
I just sold my Tamron 15-30mm F2.8, which optically corrected the distortions better than the Nikon, because I almost never used it. If I wanted to shoot wide now, I’d probably go with a prime lens and save the weight of a zoom. 24-70mm is my sweet spot, as I almost never went wider than 24mm, even on the 15-30mm zoom.
I thing a linear Wide angle MUST deform the angles, if you want a not stratching lens, you must buy a fisheye. I've used it a lot, you can also transform a fisheye image in a normal wide angle (losig obviously a bit of definition vs a noative linear wide angle).
No doubt that the auto correction can be useful, but I still strongly feel that it should be an option you can turn on or off in-camera. They can sell slightly inferior lenses but throw autocorrect on it to make it artificially "better" for the consumer, but that's still them selling something less than perfect. I don't think they're doing it with malicious intent, but it would still be nice to have an opt out because you're still loosing some control and bits of the image.
What about adding a correction profile to the 14-24 as well - isnt the fringing gone and some sharpening applied? Since that can be automated as well the advantage of the Z is only weight and size.
correcting a barrel distortion is not doing a crop. The barrel distortion consists in capturing a wider angle than wished for example the angle of a 12° insread of a 14°. The correction consists in « flatening » the image and removing the part which is out of the wished angle of view. Correcting a pincushion distortion is a real crop.
If one already owns the 14-24, I'm not sure it makes any sense to get rid of it for another wide angle. Now if you're in the market for one, the winner is clear here.
I am using the f4 between the two, but I am waiting for the new 2.8 before I spend any money. Jared honestly just use the 12-24 for now, when you have had a chance compare all three then make the choice.
I don’t like that the image is auto corrected there may be a time when I want the bowing for artistic reasons - but that would just make me switch to capture 1 to process files. I shouldn’t have to do that though.
Based on some of the comparison images the CORRECTED 14-30 seems to have the same field of view as the UNCORRECTED 14-24 at 14mm so your comment around 16:40 may not be correct. Its possible the lens is SLIGHTLY wider than 14mm and that you get a true 14mm field of view post correction. Even if that's not true, its not like no other lens produced has ever not quite been the FOV the focal length suggests.
Looks like Nikon knew what they were doing after all 😂 great review Jared. I love my 14-24 2.8 mainly shot it at f8 for landscapes but as a wedding photographer I used a lot for venue details like table set ups, it gave a lovely background separation at f2.8 up close not sure if the f4 would be as pleasing? Love that it has filters though
I have glases with dioptry -10, was scared I got eye cancer, but than I saw 360p horror, was relived regarding my eyes.....but Mr Fro NOTHING LOOKS SHARP....
The Z lens because of Z mount/lens enhancement in image quality and lightweight and filter thread - but I will wait for the 2.8 and of course the results of wind tunnel and smell test 😜
super tuto about LR correction and 14-30 F/4. I first looked the tuto comparing it with new Z F/2.8 and it seemed really bad so here, I am more confident to have something at least beter than the old one everybody was using on D800... You don't mention FTZ which is tedious to use and adds size and weight to the old 14-24 F/2.8,... happy to see you are using Polar pro VND. I was hesitating with the new freewell magnetic kit we see on lot of tutorials now. For 14mm landscapes however, round VND seems not advised and I have read that we need to use Nisi V6 100x100mm or similar.
Owned the 2.8 for 9 months and the focus ring stoped working. Best Buy couldn’t fix it so they gave me a refund for it 😒 Anywho, looking forward to purchasing the F4. We need that 24-70 2.8/F4 review sir!!!
The lens like most mirrorless lenses is specifically designed to be used with the lens profile . It is something in the past that I have complained about but it is what it is, I think by allowing software to fix what it can allows for the designers to give us sharper lenses . My Sony 24-105mm g for example has a whopping 5.4 stops vignette wide open at 24mm ! the uncorrected corners are literally black . If you want to see just how much a profile can "improve " a mirrorless lens take a look at uncorrected files form the , In my opinion rather ironically named Olympus pro 7-14mm
I like the Z cameras which are relatively much lighter than the F DSLRs, and the Nikkor Z 14-30 f4 S is a good price and weight for traveling and landscape photography.
I feel that the 14-30 F4 meets all my primarily landscape and travel photography needs. I do like the end-to-end sharpness of the lens, as well as it’s size and weight. I would think a nightscape or astro photographer would go with the F2.8 lens (old or new). For those occasional times when I do nightscape or astro photography, I carry a prime 20mm F1.8 lens. I expect to trade in my Nikon16-35mm when the new 14-30mm lens is available.
Thank you so much for making this. The 14-24 2.8 is my workhorse for shooting real estate and I use the nisi s5 filter system on it for cp etc. I’m currently on the d850 tethering to capture one. This review has seriously made me consider the swap to the z system. Hopefully there are no issues with the pce lenses with the adapter? Anyway thanks so much Jared and team this was a proper excellent and highly useful look at both the lenses. From mark waking his dog in the English hills (I really am I was watching whilst walking)
I have the 14-24mm and will be moving to the Z (zed) system at some time in the near future, but I will be keeping my existing Nikon SLR, so will stick with the 14-24.
Not terrible. But yes, they are not in the same league. The 16-35 doesn't have that much of vignetting. It doesn't crop so much after the lens correction. It's not as sharp as the 14-30 I agree. About Colors, well, they don't matter much cuz both of these aren't terrible at producing good Colors. Maybe the 14-30 is better. But since I only shoot interiors with it, we anyway manipulate Colors on set using lighting or in post. About the size, 14-30 looks smaller. Distortion is heavier on 16-35. Overall, they both are pretty comparable apart from the sharpness. Now, we all know both of these lenses are the starter package. The 16-35 (where I live) can be bought for about $800 new (but since I already own the 16-35, upgrading to 14-30 seems dumb. Cuz I won't get more than $500 after selling my 16-35) and the 14-30 is $1300 new... you see what I mean? It's better for people in my situation (buying Z6 as a secondary body - can become primary - to my D750) to just wait for the 14-24 update. Yes the 14-30 is better, but is it $800 better than the 16-35 (cuz I already own one)? Nope.
14-30 f4 is the reason I ordered a Z6, I have waited so long for someone to make a wide zoom witch can take 100mm filters. Though I think it's a bit on pricier side. Should have been just under $1000 for an f4 lens.
Such a nice range with filter option on the 14-30, but love the 2.8 of the 14-24 of course. The FTZ adapter does add bulk to it when using a non Z lenses on the Z bodies though.
I’m watching back this review again, after DxO has updated their lens database recently. From the video it is obviously that 14-40mm is sharper than 14-24mm, however in DxO, the score (both total and sharpness) is lower than the later (24 vs 31). Any explanation Jared?
I still think it's the wrong comparison, the 16-35mm is the lens that it replaced not 14-24mm f2. 8 you can see that by looking at the roadmap. But for me it's the 14-24mm sline lens they will release next year and some other sline primes
We own the 14 2.8 and the 14-24 2.8. I use both very frequently. I especially like shooting live bands while on-stage. I prefer to shoot f/8 when possible to get very close features and features up to 10-12 feet all tack sharp. Do you have a feel for how the 14-30 compares to my 2 lenses at f/8 or 5.6?
14-30 f4 all day, light, filter capabilities and compact. I don’t see it being cheap or like it’s gonna break unless your a brute and twist the hell out of it but that would be any lens then.
So once LR auto corrects the lens distortion the 14mm widest field of view is reduced. So Nikon should call this lens a 15 or 16 - 30 focal range perhaps given you loose width due to the crop?
The automatic corrections are ridiculous, there should be a way to turn it off, the reason some people get this kind of gear is to have control, auto corrections are for smartphones
Maybe it's me but the corrected photos look like other things get distorted to straighten out the bowed aspects. The steps get straightened out but the photographer on the steps looks stretched to me.
It’s still actual RAW, the correction data is just there in addition to give the developer a hint on how to correct the lens. It’s a profile and not applied to the actual pixel data, otherwise you wouldn’t get the full image in C1.
Which would you go with? F4 or F2.8 in this case and why?
f2.8.......why 2.8 😂😂😂😂
F4, who needs bokeh at Ultra-Wide angles? You won't get it anyway. With the F4 you get to use grads and shave a huge amount of weight.
F4 (landscapes)
I'll stick with the native F/4 Z lens on my Z6. Just because the 2.8's front element is huuuge and, like you said, its difficult to put a filter on the 2.8.
F
F4 for all the reasons mentioned plus one: Native lens is 5 axis stabilized, adapted is 3.
Adapter is 5, too.
@@alexanderhartmann7950 www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/lens-mount-adapter/mount-adapter-ftz.html
"...with up to 5 stops of 3-axis VR image stabilization."
Are you saying that any lens you use the adapter with, will cut down on the 5 axis stabilization? Hmmmm.... I am purchasing the Z camera because of the better stabilization and thought I would be using my lens.
I thought Boeing only happened at certain focal lengths: 707, 737, 747, 777 for example.
Then I found out I wasn't the first one to think of this.
underrated comment xD
I wonder what Diane Airbus would have made of software correction?
LMAO
@michael I'm glad someone had enough sense to see it's not funny.
Honestly after watching your video i bought 14-24 right away. I dont like experimenting much, i have a crush with 2.8 n i m Loving it the legend. It is tested tough at all conditions weather since 13 years around the globe. This lens took milions of happy pictures around the globe. So 2.8 is tried and tested 👍🏽
I also think so
I got a Z7, and paid the extra for the 14-30. It seems like a cracking lens. The kit lens is also fab.
Nikon off to a great start with this new stuff!
OK, Jared, you did it again. You once convinced me to buy Z6 (I bought it the next day after watching your video) and now I am finally convinced to trade-in my AF-S 16-35 f/4 and get this Z 14-30 f/4 to add to my Z 24-70 f/4 and Z 50mm f/1.8. Good job, thank you!
that 50mm 1.8 is so damn good
Given the use is probably landscape and architecture, I think f2.8 isn't really necessary.
Astrophotography would be the one reason for the 2.8 or faster. I shoot aurora and 1.4 vs 4 is a huge difference.
I agree, but a big lure is the video function. So the brighter lens has a higher usability for low light video with more range. At 6400, 1/60 f2.8, is the limit of soft lit scenarios. If it was for landscapes id take the f4 ultra wide.
When you get here to watch it at the optimal quality of 360p, the only true way to measure these photos quality!
Lol, I'm at 240p atm. 😃😞
You can view the video up to 4k , though the linked RAW files are a better source for your viewing pleasure :-)
I'd go with the f4. You have a full frame body, so low light isn't a huge concern, I'd personally get that lens if I wanted to wide angles and f2.8 for wide angles sounds a bit weird to me. I use wides for landscape and timelapses, so I usually have my aperture very narrow anyways. Plus, its lighter, more compact, should focus a tad faster and overall should be a workhorse! Im NOT a nikon shoooter, just analyzing the concept before watching the video! :D
I think the same as you. The only ones who like fast glass are landscape/milktway shooters
@@djvincon Concert/Event photographers (waiving)
It's in astrolandscapes that the 2.8 is a much better option. Going wide is nice for catching more of the milky way. The 14-24 has been so good that even canon users will adapt it for astro. Jared is still talking though, maybe he'll address this.
@@morbly Yup you're right, I dont really do astro so I don't need it that badly! :D
@@tr_murf4399 Oeps your correct....
f-4 for me- love the smaller size Thanks for another outstanding video!
I already have the 2.8 as well as the Lee filter holder. One place where 2.8 makes a big difference is with Astro photography, you just capture more stars at 2.8, it's that simple. I'll probably stay with the 2.8 just for that.
Ay that peter McKinnon variable ND
Id go for the f4. Price on that one is king. Thanks for the video!!
Hey here’s a thing: if you don’t like to unclick it from collapsed, you can just NOT CLICK IT COLLAPSED in the first place. Nothing is forcing you to.
my holy trinity for the new Z system is 14-30 f/4, 24-70 f/2.8, and 70-200 f/2.8. all three 82mm filter size... streamlined. yep. :)
70-200 f2.8 is probably going to be 77mm otherwise I would be right there with you...
I was worried about the folding mechanism in the 24-70 f4 S, but after using it for a few months I have not noticed any wear and tear on that mechanism. Also, I have become completely used to un-clicking the lens, and I love how much smaller it makes the lens. It honestly makes the 14-30 F4 S more attractive to me since it has incorporated this mechanism.
Jared, please answer the questions you yourself asked! 1) Does it actually apply corrections in the camera viewfinder? 2) Does it actually deliver 14mm at its widest with the auto corrections applied?
By looking at the comparison between the 14-24 and 14-30 at least the 2nd question seems answered: Nikon actually considered the corrections when labeling the lens as 14mm, as you have the same FOV as with the 14-24 (it seems). Probably the 14-30 is actually a wider lens with a physically shorter focal lenght.
Thank you very much, I was about to trade in my af-s 14-24 f2.8 lens to replace it with the new z 14-30 f4. But thanks to your review I will keep my old lens with the FTZ adapter. I already knew that for the 24-200 z Nikon had adopted software adjustments and adaptations directly in the camera to compensate for some imperfections, but I did not imagine that the manufacturer did this even for more professional lenses. Thanks Jared Polin you saved me a lot of euros.
the 14 to 24 f2.8 was legendary when it was born, i bought it for my D3, if you own it you know at f4 it starts being a legend !! end of my story
I don't love mine. Nice optics but very heavy and cumbersome.
as a hint for any one looking at wide angle zooms for Nikon F mount the 10-24 f3.5-4.5 DX lens actually covers the FX sensor down to about 20mm (once the converted to FX sizes),
this means that it is more budget friendly, it takes 72mm filters, its light and compact
although its not as optically good as the officially compatible lens its handy to know
P.S. i assume that the auto focus would still work on brand new cameras i haven't tested it on anything newer than a D800.
P.S.S the Auto focus does work on my Nikon F6.
At 11:40 we can see that you are getting a field of view at 14mm on the 14-30 WITH auto lens corrections that matches extremely closely with the 14-24, where you lose a tiny sliver on the left and right but gain a sliver at the top and bottom and also get less barrel distortion. So yes, I’d say you DO get the 14mm wide end that you paid for on this new lens.
Good eyes... Nikon must be capturing more than 14mm and using the extra width to deal with the distortion better - just a guess.
I agree
waiting for 4k....... come on RUclips, you can do it.
I like that Nikon/Adobe LR doing the auto correct transportation. I do that to each and every images individually anyway
Do I prefer bowing? I prefer Airbus at the moment.
Haha Haha! That's funny!!!
@SwitchRich It's a joke, son. A joke, I say.
I'm old fashioned and LOVE my 14-24 (both of them !). I shoot real estate and custom homes and shoot thousands of images a month. It's a real workin' dog !!
You confirm my choice i sell 2.8 last week and I m waiting my new 14/30 F 4 z
Good job Jared again in one image you confirm z is better
The 14-30mm makes a lot of sense and most people don't need f2.8 for the type of shooting they will be doing with this type of lens. However, I don't like the plasticy build of Nikon's new Z mount lenses. Good video BTW Jared.
14-24 is actually cheaper secondhand here, 14-30z is expensive as there is no second hand market yet. overall optical quality is probably similar but the the 14-24 is a pro lens and a result is far better built.
The Z lenses are looking quite nice. I think Nikon is going to be strong in the future when they get some pro bodies out and further their lens line up. I can also see at 9:50 that capture one rendered the file with a lot more detail. The Lightroom file looks blurry.
It's no contest, I will not be dictated to by machines that think they know best. I'd rather some wobbly lines than the weird stretching seen on Cliff by the auto correction. Raw means RAW, not stretched and chopped pixels, you'll need an uncorrecting filter to fix the force fed auto correct.
The option should always remain with the end user.
The true comparison should be between the 16-35 f/4 and not the 14-24.
The pre-applied correction in Lightroom is really something to think about. If it's cropping in that much, as you've already questioned, is the user really getting 14mm? If I'm paying for a 14mm lens, I want 14mm results. For ultra-wides, we can acknowledge that a 1mm difference is fairly significant. So, I'm glad that you've brought this point to the attention of potential buyers. Great work, Jared!
Given that the lens corrections are there by default, it's possible that optically the lens is a 13mm or 12mm, producing a 14mm field of view once corrections are applied. That's how Fuji approached things with their lenses that use profile based corrections on otherwise inferior lens designs (such as their f2 lenses vs 1.4)
I'd HOPE Nikon went that route, but someone would have to do more research to make a determination about field of view.
That said, even if they did build it so that the corrected image is 14mm, you're not getting quite as much use of the sensor and resolution. Though it's probably pretty negligible a difference.
Look at the comparison at 14mm with the 2.8, the images have the same FOV. My guess is the lens is wider and they are using the built-in corrections to bring it back to 14mm. Not a bad idea really.
I know this video is old, but just wanted to say, you can remove the corrections automatically applied in camera, IN lightroom. There is a lens correction tool with all the lens data. As you say the Z bodies automatically correct for this lens, others you can turn off corrections in body. But those corrections can be undone in lightroom via the tool, and I'm guessing you can even undue ALL lens corrections automatically via import settings. Databyter
As a long time Nikon photographer, I recently purchased a Z6II and Zfc to get into the mirrorless world. I still use a D750 and own the 14-24 2.8G along with a Lee filter system and several filters for the 14-24 2.8G so I'm heavily invested with this lens. I like the 2.8 aperture for light gathering ability and in some cases blowing out the background. My landscapes are generally shot at f/8 or better so it's very sharp. Will I go with the Z 14-30 f/4?...likely not. Also, there's something wonderful, I dare say magical in the size and weight of the 14-24 2.8. Great review Jared!
I'll stick with the F/4 on my Z6. I totally agree with what you said about it's difficult to put a filter on the F2.8 versus the F4. Seeing how big of the element is on the 2.8, I would always be extra careful. Your review has me sold on the 14-30 f/4. Thanks again. :D
12:05 I'll say the view angle seems very close to me,
the 14-30 might be acting like a 14 mm after correction,
will before correction, maybe it's more like 13.5 or something.
Agreed. Interestingly, this is the second review where I've seen a Z body + Z lens combo that appears to be slightly wider than advertised when viewed without the algorithm correction. (ruclips.net/video/CrjP8l8njc8/видео.html - Z6 + 35 1.8S, shown at about 13:05)
At 15:24 the concerns of stretching done by auto correction, that’s simply correcting the barrel distortion to make the image more recti-linear - similar to if you wanted to convert a fisheye image to rectilinear (barrel distortion is basically a less severe version of fisheye). And the result of correcting severe barrel or fisheye effect is that closer objects and objects in the peripheries will be stretched. A “perfect” wide angle rectilinear lens with no barrel distortion would cause that degree of stretching too! If you compare the shapes (esp looking at the bricks on the ground) at 11:40, you can see there’s not that much difference between the “uncorrected” 14-24 image and the “corrected” 14-30 image. But I agree, giving photographers the ability to toggle off corrections baked into RAW files is useful, since there may be instances (eg landscapes without obvious straight lines) could benefit from a little extra content in the peripheries
Only with an ultra wide can you compare an F4 vs F2.8 lenses as close equals, apples to apples, for most all use..... In many situations, with less wide lenses, that extra stop has some big advantages despite the extra size and weight.
The fact that the completed image from the older lens is pretty much as good as the newer, slower lens speaks volumes about abilities of the original... plus you get extra stops if needed!
My take, I shoot the Z6 for video and the lighter lens makes more sense for use ons Gimbal or Slider
I do a lot of low light in tight environments. I cannot pass the F/2.8. Great update Jared.
S Tra Hi S Tra. Thanks for your note. I shoot film in low light and use Cinestill 800T. Depending on your lens focal length, f/2.8 would be the minimum.
If much of your work is hand held, I’d go with the s-mount lens instantly. If you often have a need for tripods and L-brackets, you will need to bear with the frustration of moving your L-bracket from the camera to the FTZ adapter and back as you switch lenses. Over time that frustration will go away.
I wouldn't sell a 14-24 for the new Z lens, unless filter use was a priority. I looked at the raw files, sure the new lens is sharper, but in real life it's not going to make a difference. Seeing the horrendous distortion in the viewfinder might make precise composition impossible (I don't own a Z, but I'm assuming it would not fix the distortion in real time), 2.8 might make a difference, the hugely better build quality is also a fact to consider.
@Jared Polin this played behind the review of the 14-24 f2.8. Thank you for your content and now i am on the hunt for the Z 2.8
Great comparison. I am a canon shooter but will have to make the same choice between old F and new R lenses and this tells you what to look at.
F2.8 I use it daily, and it's terrific.
just bought the 14-30/4 and going to test it in my upcoming travel trip. As a hobbilist who mostly shoot travel photos, I love the size and weight of 2470/4 and 1430/4. these two are super light and small that I can travel with less weight in my pack which is nice. Now I wish Nikon introduce a 70200/4 so I can have the perfect trio for travel photography.
Just moved to the Zf. Apart from buying a new z50mm 1.8s, I’ll be staying with my F Mount 14-24f2.8, F 24-70mmf2.8 and my F 85mm1.4G. I think the z mounted zoom lenses are a little fragile and I’m not sure if they’ll last the distance whereas my F lenses are bulletproof.
If I had a Z6/Z7 I would definitely get the new F4, mainly for that sharpness!
I understand what your saying about the cropping, but if you were to make the correction for the bowing on the 14-24 f/2.8, it would also crop the the image.
I just sold my Tamron 15-30mm F2.8, which optically corrected the distortions better than the Nikon, because I almost never used it. If I wanted to shoot wide now, I’d probably go with a prime lens and save the weight of a zoom. 24-70mm is my sweet spot, as I almost never went wider than 24mm, even on the 15-30mm zoom.
That's cool to see you using Peter's filter
I thing a linear Wide angle MUST deform the angles, if you want a not stratching lens, you must buy a fisheye. I've used it a lot, you can also transform a fisheye image in a normal wide angle (losig obviously a bit of definition vs a noative linear wide angle).
No doubt that the auto correction can be useful, but I still strongly feel that it should be an option you can turn on or off in-camera. They can sell slightly inferior lenses but throw autocorrect on it to make it artificially "better" for the consumer, but that's still them selling something less than perfect. I don't think they're doing it with malicious intent, but it would still be nice to have an opt out because you're still loosing some control and bits of the image.
What about adding a correction profile to the 14-24 as well - isnt the fringing gone and some sharpening applied? Since that can be automated as well the advantage of the Z is only weight and size.
correcting a barrel distortion is not doing a crop. The barrel distortion consists in capturing a wider angle than wished for example the angle of a 12° insread of a 14°. The correction consists in « flatening » the image and removing the part which is out of the wished angle of view.
Correcting a pincushion distortion is a real crop.
For me the bowing and distortion is only a problem with an asymmetrical crop. Most of the time I prefer the barrel distortion over stretched edges
yes for Astro 2.8 is important
If one already owns the 14-24, I'm not sure it makes any sense to get rid of it for another wide angle. Now if you're in the market for one, the winner is clear here.
I am using the f4 between the two, but I am waiting for the new 2.8 before I spend any money. Jared honestly just use the 12-24 for now, when you have had a chance compare all three then make the choice.
I don’t like that the image is auto corrected there may be a time when I want the bowing for artistic reasons - but that would just make me switch to capture 1 to process files. I shouldn’t have to do that though.
YAY.........Jered's on board with F/4
Nikon "Z" for the win
Thanks for doing this review Jered
Love you Brother
regards, rick
Based on some of the comparison images the CORRECTED 14-30 seems to have the same field of view as the UNCORRECTED 14-24 at 14mm so your comment around 16:40 may not be correct. Its possible the lens is SLIGHTLY wider than 14mm and that you get a true 14mm field of view post correction. Even if that's not true, its not like no other lens produced has ever not quite been the FOV the focal length suggests.
but at f4 you didn't show us the real difference , you talked about fringing, but color fringing is so correctable in lightroom
Me: Looking for a new wide angle lens
Jared Polin: I got you fam! *uploads helpful video*
Thank you!
Looks like Nikon knew what they were doing after all 😂 great review Jared. I love my 14-24 2.8 mainly shot it at f8 for landscapes but as a wedding photographer I used a lot for venue details like table set ups, it gave a lovely background separation at f2.8 up close not sure if the f4 would be as pleasing? Love that it has filters though
I have glases with dioptry -10, was scared I got eye cancer, but than I saw 360p horror, was relived regarding my eyes.....but Mr Fro NOTHING LOOKS SHARP....
The Z lens because of Z mount/lens enhancement in image quality and lightweight and filter thread - but I will wait for the 2.8 and of course the results of wind tunnel and smell test 😜
super tuto about LR correction and 14-30 F/4. I first looked the tuto comparing it with new Z F/2.8 and it seemed really bad so here, I am more confident to have something at least beter than the old one everybody was using on D800... You don't mention FTZ which is tedious to use and adds size and weight to the old 14-24 F/2.8,...
happy to see you are using Polar pro VND. I was hesitating with the new freewell magnetic kit we see on lot of tutorials now. For 14mm landscapes however, round VND seems not advised and I have read that we need to use Nisi V6 100x100mm or similar.
Owned the 2.8 for 9 months and the focus ring stoped working. Best Buy couldn’t fix it so they gave me a refund for it 😒 Anywho, looking forward to purchasing the F4. We need that 24-70 2.8/F4 review sir!!!
You buy camera gear from Best Buy? Who does that? Adorama or B&H :)..... .
SV Poldhu - Best Buy Price matches Adorama and B&H. Why not purchase from them if they have what you need in stock 🤷🏾♂️
Use all of your resources...
Cant wait to see what the 70-200mm f2.8 will be like !!
Great video. I'll definitely save up for the 14-30 F4
The lens like most mirrorless lenses is specifically designed to be used with the lens profile . It is something in the past that I have complained about but it is what it is, I think by allowing software to fix what it can allows for the designers to give us sharper lenses . My Sony 24-105mm g for example has a whopping 5.4 stops vignette wide open at 24mm ! the uncorrected corners are literally black . If you want to see just how much a profile can "improve " a mirrorless lens take a look at uncorrected files form the , In my opinion rather ironically named Olympus pro 7-14mm
I like the Z cameras which are relatively much lighter than the F DSLRs, and the Nikkor Z 14-30 f4 S is a good price and weight for traveling and landscape photography.
Nikon F/4 is much more compact for travel, but if you wait for sales & cash back the 2.8 is cheaper until the f/4 is no longer new
I feel that the 14-30 F4 meets all my primarily landscape and travel photography needs. I do like the end-to-end sharpness of the lens, as well as it’s size and weight. I would think a nightscape or astro photographer would go with the F2.8 lens (old or new). For those occasional times when I do nightscape or astro photography, I carry a prime 20mm F1.8 lens. I expect to trade in my Nikon16-35mm when the new 14-30mm lens is available.
Consider Price, cost,weight ,go for 14-30 for sure!
Thank you so much for making this. The 14-24 2.8 is my workhorse for shooting real estate and I use the nisi s5 filter system on it for cp etc. I’m currently on the d850 tethering to capture one. This review has seriously made me consider the swap to the z system. Hopefully there are no issues with the pce lenses with the adapter? Anyway thanks so much Jared and team this was a proper excellent and highly useful look at both the lenses. From mark waking his dog in the English hills (I really am I was watching whilst walking)
I have the 14-24mm and will be moving to the Z (zed) system at some time in the near future, but I will be keeping my existing Nikon SLR, so will stick with the 14-24.
That vignette gave it away. I’ll stick to my 16-35 even with the z6.
The old 16-35 is simply terrible compared to the new 14-30, they're not even in the same league
Not terrible. But yes, they are not in the same league. The 16-35 doesn't have that much of vignetting. It doesn't crop so much after the lens correction. It's not as sharp as the 14-30 I agree. About Colors, well, they don't matter much cuz both of these aren't terrible at producing good Colors. Maybe the 14-30 is better. But since I only shoot interiors with it, we anyway manipulate Colors on set using lighting or in post. About the size, 14-30 looks smaller. Distortion is heavier on 16-35. Overall, they both are pretty comparable apart from the sharpness. Now, we all know both of these lenses are the starter package. The 16-35 (where I live) can be bought for about $800 new (but since I already own the 16-35, upgrading to 14-30 seems dumb. Cuz I won't get more than $500 after selling my 16-35) and the 14-30 is $1300 new... you see what I mean? It's better for people in my situation (buying Z6 as a secondary body - can become primary - to my D750) to just wait for the 14-24 update. Yes the 14-30 is better, but is it $800 better than the 16-35 (cuz I already own one)? Nope.
Super video and compare dude! Thank you! What product do you use to get that beautiful sheen in your hair?
can you see the cropping already in the viewfinder or do you have to guess where it's gonna crop exactly?
14-30 f4 is the reason I ordered a Z6, I have waited so long for someone to make a wide zoom witch can take 100mm filters. Though I think it's a bit on pricier side. Should have been just under $1000 for an f4 lens.
Such a nice range with filter option on the 14-30, but love the 2.8 of the 14-24 of course. The FTZ adapter does add bulk to it when using a non Z lenses on the Z bodies though.
why is the video in 360p Jared..............
Hoping its a youtube issue and just wait for vid to be processed
Jared: "feels...ok...in the hands..."
Me: "WTF it should feel spectacular in the hands that lens is 4 times what my camera costs."
I use an 810 alongside two Z6 bodies so I'll keep the 14-24 for now.
I never use lense correction, unless I noticed something I don't like. Lense correction lowers details.
I’m watching back this review again, after DxO has updated their lens database recently. From the video it is obviously that 14-40mm is sharper than 14-24mm, however in DxO, the score (both total and sharpness) is lower than the later (24 vs 31). Any explanation Jared?
because DxO is largely full of shit
What about astro photography. I use 14-24mm for that but you can't with 14-30mmf4?
I still think it's the wrong comparison, the 16-35mm is the lens that it replaced not 14-24mm f2. 8 you can see that by looking at the roadmap. But for me it's the 14-24mm sline lens they will release next year and some other sline primes
We own the 14 2.8 and the 14-24 2.8. I use both very frequently. I especially like shooting live bands while on-stage. I prefer to shoot f/8 when possible to get very close features and features up to 10-12 feet all tack sharp. Do you have a feel for how the 14-30 compares to my 2 lenses at f/8 or 5.6?
14-30 f4 all day, light, filter capabilities and compact. I don’t see it being cheap or like it’s gonna break unless your a brute and twist the hell out of it but that would be any lens then.
So once LR auto corrects the lens distortion the 14mm widest field of view is reduced. So Nikon should call this lens a 15 or 16 - 30 focal range perhaps given you loose width due to the crop?
The automatic corrections are ridiculous, there should be a way to turn it off, the reason some people get this kind of gear is to have control, auto corrections are for smartphones
7:23 the only test I care about 😂❤️
Maybe it's me but the corrected photos look like other things get distorted to straighten out the bowed aspects. The steps get straightened out but the photographer on the steps looks stretched to me.
I am struggling with the hoods as well, especially on the 24-70! 😂 It is not so bad on the 50. Natacha
I want to compare these lenses with the Sigma 14-24 f / 2.8 DG HSM Art for Nikon.
Hi Jared! Great video, as always! Regarding the collaboration between Nikon and Adobe: maybe change your trademark to: I SHOOT ALMOST RAW ! 😊😊😊😊
It’s still actual RAW, the correction data is just there in addition to give the developer a hint on how to correct the lens. It’s a profile and not applied to the actual pixel data, otherwise you wouldn’t get the full image in C1.