Z 14-24mm vs 14-30mm REVIEW
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 сен 2024
- From forests, to streets, to beaches and back to forests again, we've tested these lenses extensively over the past year and can confirm: if it's pro quality you need, then the 14-24mm f/2.8 can't be beaten, but for everything else the 14-30mm f/4 is a terrific wide-angle and general purpose lens.
Contribute to our Coffee Fund: paypal.me/GoWL...
Check our our website and e-shop: shop.graysofwe...
**Our e-shop is open! We ship to the EU and UK, as well as the USA and Canada. For orders from the rest of the world , send us an email at info@graysofwestminster.co.uk or call us +44 (0)20-7828 4925**
Presentation:
Rebecca Danese: bit.ly/Bex_on_I...
Konstantin Kochkin: bit.ly/kon_on_i...
Claim £15 off your basket : shop.graysofwe...
with Coupon Code: YTLIVE22
(minimum spend £50, can be used in conjunction with other coupons or discounts, excludes merchandise)
Subscribe to our newsletter to get updates about our offers: bit.ly/newslet...
Contact us: media@graysofwestminster.co.uk
#nikon #photography #nikonz
Always look forward to your content. Always informative and entertaining. I'm coming to the shop on Monday to collect a 14-30mm.
I have gotten amazing results from the 14-30mm on my Z6/Z7II for landscapes. I also use it on my Zfc for an effective equivalent focal length of 21-45mm on that camera. Look, if a money truck dropped cash on my doorstep, I would jump on the professional lens, but, otherwise the f4 is more than enough. I prefer the f4 for its light weight and great results. Filter thread size is also a consideration in its favour.
Hold up, you own both Z6ii and 7ii? I think you could've got one and used the other $ on that lens. You're being dramatic!! Lol
@@coltoncyr2283 Haha…. Z6 and Z7II…actually, I have a Zfc too! The Z6 will eventually be a Z6III at some point. I love the cameras! For me personally, I l often use the primes, and lightweight f4s. I think if I do splurge on an f2.8 Z lens it will be either 24-70 or 70-200. For the amount I use it, a converted F mount f2.8 70-200 is perfectly fine. I often use FTZ and old manual focus Nikkors. How a lens renders, or fits my use case, matters more to me than the best of the best. Just because I can afford the f2.8s, does not necessarily make it worthwhile dollars wise. I love the 14-30….truly. If all were available at the beginning, I would have likely bought it alone, but I have no need to do it now. Cheers.
Hello from Silicon Valley California! I have been a pro for decades (always only Nikon) and when I switched to Z cameras I went with the 14-30 f/4. I sold my f mount 14-24 f/2.8 and since I never shoot at f/2.8 I can say the 14-30 on the Z camera body is as good as or maybe slightly better than the f mount 14-24 f/2.8. I have not used the 14-24 f/2.8 S lens and do not doubt it is optically superior but not needed for my use case. Thanks for all the entertaining videos. I look forward to watching you both when I get in bed on Friday night. You really help me fall asleep! Kidding (sort of). Keep up the fun and informative videos.
Totally agree.I am also a pro with a long history of Nikon. Practically the 14-30 Z seems just as good 14-24 F mount and the extra between 24 and 30 is very useful. I shoot kitchen interiors for a very demanding client and they have made no comment about the images they are getting
Thanks for this nice video. I chose the 14-30mm and if I need to shoot in low light i use my 20mm/1.8 Z..... I love the stars that the 20mm creates out of light sources....
Same. The 20mm f1.8 S line is brilliant.
Me too. Landscapes often f8 or less so very little difference. Z 20mm for Astro at 1.8. Both light and nice to use. Wish you didn’t have to twist unlock the zoom but no big deal.
I've owned both and will say that the 2.8's image quality is top notch and order of magnitude above the f4. The 2.8 is not that much heavier.
Yep, I agree with you. I had the 14-30 mm f/4 S first. That lens is good. But, the corners are not sharp. I like the compactness and it is perfect for hiking if you are willing to sacrifice image quality with weight. I sold it to get the 14-24 mm f/2.8 S. Since I am used to hiking with a heavy pack, I can shave some weight from somewhere else and gain more image quality. I am blown away by the edge-to-edge sharpness. And the rendering, wow!
The 14-24 is my first actual Z lens with all my other lenses being F mounts used with the ftzII. It’s worth the extra money. Monsoon season is beginning so I don’t think I’ll get too much of an opportunity to do any astrophotography for awhile. Goes great with Z9 for landscape shots.
Nice, thanks! Having opted for the f4 zoom (since filters are manageable at 82mm) I also bought a Z 20mm to stop myself feeling unprepared for night shots.
I think the 14-30 f4 would be a perfect choice in my case. On my Z5 it would be 14-30 and on my Z50 it would be 21-45 very good for travel. Great video, thanks 🙏🏼😀📸
Good way to start Sunday morning with coffee and a review of Z lenses :)
Love the funky intro music. I have the 14-30 f/4 which as an enthusiast photographer meets my needs and my budget! Being able to attach filters straight onto the lens is a big plus for me.
I have the 14-30 and it’s plenty sharp for me. The 82mm filters it takes vignette up to about 16mm. I wish my research had uncovered that before buying filters. I’m not quite saying it’s a design flaw, but it surprised me.
If you are into landscape, cityscape or seascape,then the 14-30 f4 is a logical option. If your niche is in Astro, then the Z primes are amazing, with the 14-24 f2.8 being an optional. In my humble opinion you need to think twice before jumping onto the 14-24 f2.8. Thank you for creating this discussion.
The 14-30 F4 is also an S series lens. The14-24 2.8 is an amazing lens, but overkill for my use case (landscape and real estate). The 14-30 F4 is more than plenty for my needs.
I like the 14-30 but of course I have not shot with the 14-24. I wonder if I would see the difference?
Thank you. Great comparison. Had the 14-30 to start as Im new to Nikon but did switch up to the 14-24. Great lens and I bought the Nisi adapter to use my external filters. Would love to see a comparison of the excellent Z 24-70/2.8 S vs the Z 24-120/4 S as well. Take care
great video and I just love the music! I also have the z 14-24 which is brilliant!
Have you used the 14-30? I've had that for almost a year, but I'd buy the 14-24 if I knew there'd be a significant improvement on distortion or sharpness.
The cost is just so prohibitive between the F4 and the F2.8 sometimes…that one stop of light is expensive!
Another great video,, I bought the Z6 on the day it came out, but sold it as there was no 70-200 f4, since then I have purchased the Z6ii
and the Z9, 20mm f1.8,14-30 f4, 24-70 f4, 70-200 f2.8 and the 105 f2.8 macro. I have just had 10 days in Malta where the 70-200 lived on my Z9 and the two z 4 zooms were used on the Z6ii. Those 2 small zooms did everything I asked of them, I still wish there was a 70-200 f4 as I would love one for travel and would possibly buy another small Z body, a 6 or a 7 or whatever's coming next. Nikon since 1977, still using F6, F4, F3HP, F2AS, F100 and FA on a regular basis.
I wonder how much fun it'd be on the Z9. My trusty old 70-200II was struggling a bit on the Z7ii. The high mpix was showing some softness in the old glass that I didn't see on my D800.
I ended up starting with the 20 1.8, I’ve always had a thing for 20 primes. But I plan to add the 14-30 a little further down the road. The Z lens lineup is absolutely amazing.
I've seen a few comparison videos on these lenses as well as the old 14-24. Hudson Henry has a video comparing the 3 lenses and how sharp they are. The new 14-24 is the sharpest followed by the 14-30 with the f mount 14-24 being the least sharpest of the 3. Everyone knows how sharp the older version was so you can imagine how sharp the new lenses are. Not just sharper in the middle. They are sharper corner to corner. There's very little if any chromatic aberration or focus breathing in the new z lenses. I'm not a professional nor do I have the budget for the 14-24 S lens so I went with the 14-30. I'm happy with it. Another reason why I chose that lens is that I have a z6 II which has a 24 MP sensor. How much sharpness would I see between the 14-24 and the 14-30? Probably not enough to spend the extra money on it. And, I already have filters that will fit the 14-30. I would have to buy a whole new set of filters for the massive front element of the 14-24. The f/2.8 is definitely an advantage in low light such as astrophotography. Most of my landscape is during the day and f/4 works just fine for that.
Brand new subscriber here. Enjoy your humorous and at the same time informative videos. You guys are down to earth, easy going and obviously know Nikon. Love the music too! Just purchased a Z7 and am about to pop for a 24-105 F4. After watching this I just may add the 14-30 f4. Keep em coming Lord and Lady Gray.
Thanks for joining us, Jimmy! We really appreciate it ☺
Hello Both, I am lucky enough to have the 14-24mm f2.8 and then the 24-70mm f2.8 Z mount lenses and for me they are fit what I try and do very well. They seem lighter the the F mount versions and sharper. I know a lens should not alter the colours but there's Z mount lens coupled with my Z7ii and Z9 give amazing results. I know little about the 14-30mm lens but for some on a tight budget for a second lens it could be a very good choice. Keep well, keep safe and stay funny.
I am sorry but the 14-30 lens is also a S line lens just like 14-24. Optically 14-30 is so sharp for landscape images
Fantastic images from both lenses! Having no experience with the f/2.8 version, I must say that the 14-30 f/4 is a fantastic lens, if you can adjust shooting angles to compensate for the slightly softer corners at 14mm. As the central sharpness of the 14-30 is superb, I think that "professional" work can be done with either lens under the right circumstances and skillset of the photographer...both are "S" lenses.
I love how you can use a cpl and up to 3 100mm filters with the nisi V6 filter holder on the 14-30. The 14-24 is a bit more constrained - limited to 2 100mm filters and no cpl I think, otherwise you have to step up to the 150mm filters.
Nikon have got it just right with having both options. I have the old 2.8 but moving over to mirrorless I only have the 4 because 95% of my work is in the 24-200 range and because of its size/weight I’m more likely to bring the 4 with me for that rare occasion when I need it.
I own both lenses and love them both. I bought the f2.8 version primarily for astro work and the other for travel. I will say it is hard to tell the difference between files with either, but the 2.8 is great for astro work. There is a magic quality to the 2.8 version that is not there with the f 4 version. I will say the f 4 version fits better on the z7.2 or the z6 both of which I shoot. I would imagine the 2.8 version would fit better on the 9? Just thought I would add my two cents.
I like my bright apertures even though the rule of thumb is that you don't need one for landscapes which is what I mostly shoot so you get everything tack sharp and in focus. However, I shoot mostly things that are far enough to get everything in focus anyway and I need the extra stop of light to keep my ISO low which is almost always what I want to do. I just don't like the focal range of the 2.8 lens, if they can make it a 14-35 I'll buy it with my eyes closed because I shoot mostly on 14mm 20mm and 35mm and the 14-24 focal range is too narrow IMO. I don't know why they gave up on the 17-35 which is another one I would buy in a heartbeat... Meanwhile, Canon R users get a 15-35mm, I'm officially jealous! The Z mount has a flange distance of 16mm while the R mount is at 20mm, therefore, I am hoping just like we have an e-mount adapter (e mount has a flange distance of 18mm) there will be one day an R mount adapter!
I agree, I have and suggest the 35mm f1.8S lens. It pairs well with the 14-30 f4 (or 20mm f1.8S) vs 14-24 at similar (combined) cost.
@@andhib absolutely, and TBH I am mostly a prime guy mainly because of the brighter aperture and form factor. I currently use adapted F mount 20mm 1.8 and 35mm 1.4 and 14mm 1.8 Sony GM in my bag. I'd be happy to trade 1.33 stops of light with a one -stop-shop piece of glass especially that all the glass I use is adapted so it's a bit cumbersome to switch lenses. I've had my eye on the Z 20mm 1.8 for some time now, do you own one? How does it perform? For the 35mm 1.8, I have heard it's not as good as the other lenses in the 1.8 Z lineup from 3 people so far, so I'm sticking with my adapted F 35mm 1.4 for now. Or do you have a different opinion based on your personal experience? Thanks!
always entertaining and informative 👍
My question boils down to: can you see the difference without pixel peeping at 100% zoom in the corners or blowing up prints beyond A3 (which I consider the absolute maximum for "normal" prints)? BTW, I am using a z6ii with no intention of upgrading to 45MP.
I enjoy that feeling of owning the "best" available as much as most people, but the extra 1200€ for the 2.8 here in Germany goes a long way to paying for a 200-600 (if it ever comes out) or a nice vacation somewhere to put the 14-30 to good use especially if in my use case (normal landscape photos for personal enjoyment) is sufficient.
Can you compare the Z MC 105 and the Z MC 50 for Macro shooting flowers, butterflies, and close up nature?
I’ve got both lenses and while the 50mm is surprisingly sharp, it isn’t very practical for flowers. You really have to get quite close with the 50mm. Butterflies are likely impossible with the 50mm and having to get close means you’ll be in more awkward positions. The 50mm is much smaller which makes it easier to pack when macro shooting isn’t the main focus of the day.
My only issue that you don't bring up is the distortion on the 14-30 is horrible and you have to rely on your software to correct for its deficiencies which for some is OK as long as the end result is good but I would rather get the much higher quality 14-24 personally if I can afford it.
Did you ever get the 14-24? I like my 14-30 and rarely shoot below f8 at this focal range, but the distortion from the 14-30 has me ready to get the 14-24 as well. I've seen reviews showing the 14-24 being lighter, BUT they really didn't address improvements on distortion or use example shots that were good for comparing distortion. Any input appreciated, if you have it.
@@uhoh7541 I never got the 14-24 for a number of reasons, I don't shoot landscapes often enough for me to justify the cost difference and while the distortion is definitely less along with the vignetting it also comes at that over 1K price point increase. If doing landscape photography I would never shoot at f 2.8 anyway and would be shooting with either lens in the f8-f11 range with my camera probably on a tripod, also filter costs are much higher and the filter doesn't mount on the lens of the 14-24, it mounts on a special lens hood so you have a gap between the lens element and the filter. I think for a lot of folks not selling $1,000 prints the 14-30 works out well, distortion is controlled reasonably well via software and the lens is smaller and lighter in your kit. But if you are going to try to do Astro Photography you want the faster lens although I would buy the prime 24 or 20mm f1.8 S lens myself. There is no perfect answer because it depends on your use case, your budget and you own satisfaction. Many tests of sharpness are always showing the differences at 200%, in real world are you going to see a major difference in a print (Don't know). The 14-30 is almost 6 Oz. lighter FYI 17.1 vs 23. If you could rent one take the same image from both at F8 or F11, do the same post adjustments and print (2) 20 x 30 prints that may be the only way you know for sure. Sorry I couldn't be more help but if you can afford it as I originally said I would get the 14-24. - Jeff
@@selectiveimagery You were plenty of help Jeff, thanks for taking the time for the detailed response. Renting one isn't an option as my local camera shop's rental list is pretty weak, however doing a 30 day trial from Amazon or 60 day from Crutchfield is. Not much interest in the 20mm f/1.8- I have the 50mm 1.8 and was very unimpressed by it (I have the 85 + 50 1.2 and that's a different story, love those lenses! Not just because of the 1.2, they're possibly the sharpest Z lenses I own- the 50 1.8 didn't seem sharper than my 2.8 S zooms to me). Probably hold off on the 14-24 unless I see a sale or a great used one. If there's ever a rumor about a 20 or wider 1.2, I'd possibly be all over that). Take care!
I use the F4 takes all my NISI Filters but a bit slow for Milky Way but then Nothing can beat the 20 f1.8 S
Great vid! Can I ask what camera strap Kon is using? It looks like an Artisan and Artist strap but with Peak Design quick connectors. How?
I got the Z 14-30mm f4 for £427 brand new from a UK store that had clearance.
I won't swap it for anything.,😎😎😎😎
I think the F4 is the better choice.
How about a review of the Z 100-400?
We have Z 100-400 lens review on our channel have a look in our videos
What’s the opening music it was awesome
Raise Your Shoes by Splasher
@@claudebourque9282 thank u
with attempt #2 where is the car?, as in Australia, a Vauxhaull is an old car of the 60/70's, a family saloon, 6cyl. and this is the automatic assumption of this word, so can you please explain to those non-UK residents, where Vauxhaull is, near scotland, whales, london, dover?, as these are places we are somewhat familliar with.
To save the bank I ended up getting a third party wide zoom. I want that 14-30 so bad but I saved $800 on my Tamron 17-35, which is a very good lens! It just has some old engineering in it and a bulb lens so bad w flares. Optically really great on my z6ii!
Maybe one day!
Have the 14-30, amazing lens. Unless you really need f2.8 I really can’t see any reason to get the 14-24. As others have pointed out the 14-30 is also an S-Line lens, just like the 14-24
The 14-30 and its filter thread being the same as the 24-70 and 70-200 makes it very convenient. I doubt I’ll ever upgrade it to the 14-24.
Er, the 70-200 z filter thread is 77 and the others are 82mm, surely?
@@dominiclester3232 You're absolutely right - I totally forgot that I've got a step-down ring on that.
For general photography if a zoom lens doesn't at least have a 2x range what is the point of it?