Always a pleasure to listen to Ken Rockwell from over here in the UK. Love those vibrant colours - a real assault on the senses. What a fabulous looking country the US is.
Hi Stephanie, wow, thank you!! There is a secret. I get those same colors regardless of where I am. If it’s dreary in the UK, I’ll shoot reflections of neon signs in wet streets. See also www.kenrockwell.com/tech/color.htm
Hello Ken. I know you like to shoot everything turned up so the colours are nice and punchy. Someone said that the best camera lens is the human eye. I guess to some degree it is, especially when it comes to instant focusing, but I’ve seen very dreary looking scenes with my eyes, but then an experienced photographer will come along and make it look fantastic. It does rain a lot in the UK, but of course that’s because we’ve got a maritime climate, but we are having some lovely summery months of hot weather, and some fantastic deep blue skies. Neon colours on wet streets look amazing. Thanks for the link to your site. I’ve been on there many times, but I’ll have a read about how to get those wonderful colours.
Hi Stephanie, Yip, it's all about seeing a glint of color and then emphasizing it. The world is almost never as vibrant as I show it; the key is to see where it's vibrant and emphasize it. See also FART First For Fantastic Fotos: www.kenrockwell.com/tech/fart.htm
Maybe because I’m actually a shooter rather than a talker, and I’ve owned every Nikon ultrawide made since the 1950s. See also www.kenrockwell.com/tech/2-kinds-of-photographers.htm Thanks!
Uh cool one! I love how they included that hood for filters, even thou one has to have some spare money lying around to get filters that large! I won't get over the fact, that there is no more analog window to see your focus distance. For me it takes the soul out of modern lenses. Cool lens thou, I hope many people can get a lot out of it!
@@KenRockwellTV I got a really good deal on that one, just 500 euro in mint condition. Optically likely superior to the Z one. Nikon was looking for a way to add filters and sacrificed IQ a little. Just compare the size of the elements. I have a theory that Nikon paid off Dxomark to not release measurements for the Z 14-24 f/2.8. Also brings up the question what compromises Canon made to offer even larger zoom range and filters with the 15-35 f/2.8. Doesn't really matter as this is full frame the sacrifice is likely very small and practicality is number one. I don't understand who Nikon is targetting with their Z ultrawides. 14-24 f/2.8 is a novelty and 14-30 f/4 is a slow budget novelty with much worse IQ. Then again that's been my impression with Nikon's Z lineup all the time. Wonder about Nikon's intention and then look over to the Canon side where everything seems to makes sense.
I always check-in on your reviews before buying a new Nikon product. I own the F-mount 14-24 (and 24-70 and 70-200) and am looking whether to buy the Z or S mount to go with my new Z9s and the 24-70 and 70-200 Z mounts I just bought. In the end -- I use my 24-70 and 70-200 all the time and so was happy to move up to the S-mount variant for ease of use, added features and better lens performance. I am looking to see what Lee Filters adapter works with this lens and my existing SWM 150mm filters. The SWM does not support a 112mm adapter ring. I do not want to buy their 100 system for this lens. My guess is I will need to buy the lens and work it out.
Now you’ve complicated my decision on whether to replace my F70-200 with a Z lens to get rid of the adapter and improve sharpness. I’ll have to look for your F vs Z 70-200
All these lenses are equally super sharp. The afs FL is much better made than the Z version; I’d stick with the FL. The FL uses an advanced fluorite element not in the more cheaply made (but higher priced) Z version. www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/z/70-200mm.htm#compared
@@KenRockwellTV ken you’re wrong they both have a fluorite element, in fact there’s far more advanced elements in the Z version. Per Nikon: imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/z-mount/z_70-200mmf28_vr_s/spec.htm It’s hard to take you serious when you aren’t correct about something that is simply verified by checking nikon’s website.
Good points highlighting the 14-24. However, I always wonder why all "critics" never have something good to say regardless of the lens brand or models. Always highlighting negatively about everything. Nothing is good enough for the so-called influencers.
Can you explain your comment about image being dulled at ISO 1400? I have a Z6II and Z9 and it seems that bumping up the ISO results in richer/sharper images versus using a tripod with longer exposure and lower ISO? Higher ISO (5000 or more) does seem to be a different story and i handle those situations differently. PS, i own the 14-30 f/4s and was contemplating upgrading to the 14-24 f/2.8- didn't care about f/2.8 but was hearing it was considerably sharper and noticed what i thought was softness in corners of my f/4. This excellent video explained the softness was from the IBIS not performing properly while handheld. Thanks for saving me some cash!!!
Sure. All cameras get softer at every higher ISO. It’s a natural byproduct of the noise reduction in all modern cameras. See my written review for explicit examples showing this in the Z9 www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/z/z9.htm#fine thanks!
@Ken Rockwell i have actually seen reviews claiming higher ISO (withing reason- 1400 falls into this) on certain bodies helps with sharpness and going lower can decrease. Yes, this is the opposite of what i was taught 10 years ago, but they had good examples and times/equipment changes. Anyway, thanks for the reply and i look forward to reading your article when i get a chance. They're always well written. Have a good day!
Looks same as raw and just as editable as raw and saves so much space and time. I wrote all about this 15 years ago and even more true today www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm thanks!
Eh Kenny, easy there my best reviewer. I use sox as lens cases with good results :o This 14-24 intrigues me a little as a toy to play around, but DSLRs still the best for my hobby and I think I will wait until the 24-120 f/4 Z version. Now a question: witch of the D7200, D7500 and D500 has the best IQ at the end product?
Thanks Ken for your review which made it easier to make a decision to keep 14 -30, but one common thing in all your reviews, where the lens is made, that's not scientific as the QC of Nikon is the same wherever it's made, this is an old concept, also the newer S is much better than the old heavy, bulky 14-24, anyway, thanks for your effort
Thanks Ken for your honesty on this lens, like a lot of us we are saddened how Nikon an iconic Japanese company is off shoring to China / Philippines and Thailand with so called pro gear , its just not the same any more and that's why you invested , not just for the technical image qualities like colours renditions you and all of us love, you bought into Nikon for the history precision and heritage. This is sadly not happening today . Cannon on the other hand is showing everybody up, the new compact 14-35 RF f4 is unbelievable ! compared to what Nikon has on offer now with the F and Z mount , be great if you can review this Cannon lens when available, its makes other equivalent focal length obsolete now . Nikon need to really lift their game if they want to survive as many people I know are switching over to Cannon RF systems.
Exactly as I’ve been saying since 2018: Nikon gave up while Canon leads the industry with quality products made domestically where quality takes precedence over cheapness. Sony never even was part of the party in the first place. Thanks!
That Canon Lens is a Woes compared to this >> Fan Boy. Nikon is Building in lots of Asian Cos just Like MANY USA Multinationals (IBM etc etc ) GET REAL
I came to Nikon from Canon. I shoot almost exclusively landscapes and Nikon has exceeded my expectations and previous experience with Canon in terms of sharpness and low light performance. I don't care where they're made as long as the people making them are paid a fair wage and treated well. If Nikon keep churning out glass like these latest S line lenses I'll keep buying and using them.
I get better pictures in JPG and it’s so much faster. Every real pro I know also shoots JPG because it helps us get things done; the only people who shoot raw I know are hobbyists, including the hobbyists who pretend to be pros when they talk about it more than shooting. See also www.kenrockwell.com/tech/2-kinds-of-photographers.htm and most importantly kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm thanks!!!
@@KenRockwellTV thanks fir the quick answer. I shoot raw and jpeg and tweak my photos in affinity. I'm into industrial landscape and I crea a kind of surrealistic hdr(ish) look what people seems to like. Thanks again
Always a pleasure to listen to Ken Rockwell from over here in the UK. Love those vibrant colours - a real assault on the senses. What a fabulous looking country the US is.
Hi Stephanie, wow, thank you!! There is a secret. I get those same colors regardless of where I am. If it’s dreary in the UK, I’ll shoot reflections of neon signs in wet streets. See also www.kenrockwell.com/tech/color.htm
Hello Ken. I know you like to shoot everything turned up so the colours are nice and punchy. Someone said that the best camera lens is the human eye. I guess to some degree it is, especially when it comes to instant focusing, but I’ve seen very dreary looking scenes with my eyes, but then an experienced photographer will come along and make it look fantastic.
It does rain a lot in the UK, but of course that’s because we’ve got a maritime climate, but we are having some lovely summery months of hot weather, and some fantastic deep blue skies.
Neon colours on wet streets look amazing.
Thanks for the link to your site. I’ve been on there many times, but I’ll have a read about how to get those wonderful colours.
Hi Stephanie, Yip, it's all about seeing a glint of color and then emphasizing it. The world is almost never as vibrant as I show it; the key is to see where it's vibrant and emphasize it. See also FART First For Fantastic Fotos: www.kenrockwell.com/tech/fart.htm
He was harder on this lens than most reviewers.
Maybe because I’m actually a shooter rather than a talker, and I’ve owned every Nikon ultrawide made since the 1950s. See also www.kenrockwell.com/tech/2-kinds-of-photographers.htm Thanks!
Sony and Canon are made from plastic so nothing bad with that. I don't care that its from plastic. It feels amazing in the hand. :)
Excellent. Thanks!
One of my dream lenses. Actually every lens I can’t afford is my dream lens 😂 Thanks again for the lovely pictures 🥲
Then don’t worry. You’ll take the same photos with any other Nikon lens of the same focal length. Thanks!
Uh cool one! I love how they included that hood for filters, even thou one has to have some spare money lying around to get filters that large!
I won't get over the fact, that there is no more analog window to see your focus distance. For me it takes the soul out of modern lenses.
Cool lens thou, I hope many people can get a lot out of it!
That’s why I mentioned the AFS 14-24/2.8G, a nicer lens at a lower price. Thanks!
@@KenRockwellTV I got a really good deal on that one, just 500 euro in mint condition. Optically likely superior to the Z one. Nikon was looking for a way to add filters and sacrificed IQ a little. Just compare the size of the elements. I have a theory that Nikon paid off Dxomark to not release measurements for the Z 14-24 f/2.8. Also brings up the question what compromises Canon made to offer even larger zoom range and filters with the 15-35 f/2.8. Doesn't really matter as this is full frame the sacrifice is likely very small and practicality is number one. I don't understand who Nikon is targetting with their Z ultrawides. 14-24 f/2.8 is a novelty and 14-30 f/4 is a slow budget novelty with much worse IQ. Then again that's been my impression with Nikon's Z lineup all the time. Wonder about Nikon's intention and then look over to the Canon side where everything seems to makes sense.
Awesome Job As Always Ken. Thank you. Was wondering about this lens!
Thanks! Hope I answered everything you’d want to know.
Beautiful lens from Nikon 🤘
Thanks!
I always check-in on your reviews before buying a new Nikon product. I own the F-mount 14-24 (and 24-70 and 70-200) and am looking whether to buy the Z or S mount to go with my new Z9s and the 24-70 and 70-200 Z mounts I just bought. In the end -- I use my 24-70 and 70-200 all the time and so was happy to move up to the S-mount variant for ease of use, added features and better lens performance.
I am looking to see what Lee Filters adapter works with this lens and my existing SWM 150mm filters. The SWM does not support a 112mm adapter ring. I do not want to buy their 100 system for this lens. My guess is I will need to buy the lens and work it out.
Thanks!
Hope you are having a great weekend.Thanks for sharing.
So far, so good. Thanks!
Great video Ken! I am so happy you making videos. Does Exposure Compensation work if you shoot in Manual mode?
Yes, but what “works” means is only that that the meter reads differently
Now you’ve complicated my decision on whether to replace my F70-200 with a Z lens to get rid of the adapter and improve sharpness. I’ll have to look for your F vs Z 70-200
All these lenses are equally super sharp. The afs FL is much better made than the Z version; I’d stick with the FL. The FL uses an advanced fluorite element not in the more cheaply made (but higher priced) Z version. www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/z/70-200mm.htm#compared
@@KenRockwellTV ken you’re wrong they both have a fluorite element, in fact there’s far more advanced elements in the Z version. Per Nikon:
imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/z-mount/z_70-200mmf28_vr_s/spec.htm
It’s hard to take you serious when you aren’t correct about something that is simply verified by checking nikon’s website.
Great review!
Great comment! Thanks!
… great review Ken, thx! 🙏🏻 what’s your opinion if you compare this lens to the Sony 12-24 f2.8 GM?
Both have great optics, and Sony goes much wider. All depends which camera you own.
This guy knows everything about photography! Case in point he shots only jpeg. 😄
I don’t know about “everything,” but you get the idea. Thanks!
Yet another thorough unbiased review by the camera guru
Thank you!!!
Good points highlighting the 14-24. However, I always wonder why all "critics" never have something good to say regardless of the lens brand or models. Always highlighting negatively about everything. Nothing is good enough for the so-called influencers.
Thanks!
I use the third ring for exposure compensation
Thanks!
Can you explain your comment about image being dulled at ISO 1400? I have a Z6II and Z9 and it seems that bumping up the ISO results in richer/sharper images versus using a tripod with longer exposure and lower ISO?
Higher ISO (5000 or more) does seem to be a different story and i handle those situations differently.
PS, i own the 14-30 f/4s and was contemplating upgrading to the 14-24 f/2.8- didn't care about f/2.8 but was hearing it was considerably sharper and noticed what i thought was softness in corners of my f/4. This excellent video explained the softness was from the IBIS not performing properly while handheld. Thanks for saving me some cash!!!
Sure. All cameras get softer at every higher ISO. It’s a natural byproduct of the noise reduction in all modern cameras. See my written review for explicit examples showing this in the Z9 www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/z/z9.htm#fine thanks!
@Ken Rockwell i have actually seen reviews claiming higher ISO (withing reason- 1400 falls into this) on certain bodies helps with sharpness and going lower can decrease. Yes, this is the opposite of what i was taught 10 years ago, but they had good examples and times/equipment changes.
Anyway, thanks for the reply and i look forward to reading your article when i get a chance. They're always well written. Have a good day!
@Ken Rockwell and thanks again from saving me from buying the Z 14-24 f/2.8!!!! I owe you a beer I'll never be able to buy you 🤣
you say you only shoot jpeg? what's your reasons please ken?
Looks same as raw and just as editable as raw and saves so much space and time. I wrote all about this 15 years ago and even more true today www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm thanks!
Eh Kenny, easy there my best reviewer. I use sox as lens cases with good results :o
This 14-24 intrigues me a little as a toy to play around, but DSLRs still the best for my hobby and I think I will wait until the 24-120 f/4 Z version.
Now a question: witch of the D7200, D7500 and D500 has the best IQ at the end product?
They’re all pretty similar. D7200 has slightly more pixels and D500 probably slightly best at highest ISOs. See samples at KenRockwell.com
@@KenRockwellTV gotcha thanks.
when you pressed the "disp" button does display shows also on camera's viewfinder/lcd?
No; different displays. I find the lens display pretty silly since it only turns on if pressed. Thanks!
@@KenRockwellTV Pretty "silly" is too nice.
You one of the few photographers that know about photography. Thank you for sharing, Ken Rockwell.
Thanks Ken for your review which made it easier to make a decision to keep 14 -30, but one common thing in all your reviews, where the lens is made, that's not scientific as the QC of Nikon is the same wherever it's made, this is an old concept, also the newer S is much better than the old heavy, bulky 14-24, anyway, thanks for your effort
It’s about attitude and human respect, not about measurable product quality. Thanks!
Thanks Ken for your honesty on this lens, like a lot of us we are saddened how Nikon an iconic Japanese company is off shoring to China / Philippines and Thailand with so called pro gear , its just not the same any more and that's why you invested , not just for the technical image qualities like colours renditions you and all of us love, you bought into Nikon for the history precision and heritage. This is sadly not happening today . Cannon on the other hand is showing everybody up, the new compact 14-35 RF f4 is unbelievable ! compared to what Nikon has on offer now with the F and Z mount , be great if you can review this Cannon lens when available, its makes other equivalent focal length obsolete now . Nikon need to really lift their game if they want to survive as many people I know are switching over to Cannon RF systems.
Exactly as I’ve been saying since 2018: Nikon gave up while Canon leads the industry with quality products made domestically where quality takes precedence over cheapness. Sony never even was part of the party in the first place. Thanks!
That Canon Lens is a Woes compared to this >> Fan Boy. Nikon is Building in lots of Asian Cos just Like MANY USA Multinationals (IBM etc etc ) GET REAL
I came to Nikon from Canon. I shoot almost exclusively landscapes and Nikon has exceeded my expectations and previous experience with Canon in terms of sharpness and low light performance. I don't care where they're made as long as the people making them are paid a fair wage and treated well.
If Nikon keep churning out glass like these latest S line lenses I'll keep buying and using them.
I think I'd rather have Sony's 20mm 1.8 What say you Ken?
No way; I don’t like shooting Sony so I’ll stick with the Nikon or Canon lenses. See www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/z/20mm-f18.htm
I like your reviews so I subscribed to you. May I ask you why you don't shoot in raw? Most "pro" shoot raw. Just wonder. Thanks
I get better pictures in JPG and it’s so much faster. Every real pro I know also shoots JPG because it helps us get things done; the only people who shoot raw I know are hobbyists, including the hobbyists who pretend to be pros when they talk about it more than shooting. See also www.kenrockwell.com/tech/2-kinds-of-photographers.htm and most importantly kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm thanks!!!
@@KenRockwellTV thanks fir the quick answer. I shoot raw and jpeg and tweak my photos in affinity. I'm into industrial landscape and I crea a kind of surrealistic hdr(ish) look what people seems to like. Thanks again
Are you reviewing the new 105?
As soon as mine arrives. Thanks!
Nikon 14-24 G is not close To the sharpness to the z
Much less practical as well. Thanks!
Nikon Lifetime Warranty: Their lifetime not yours!
Not a big deal, these don’t start breaking until 7-10 years go by. Thanks!