I have big problems with flare on this lens, using it with Z9
Carl Galeana
January 28, 2023 12:04 pm
Thanks for the review! I have a funny issue with the HB-97 hood. I ordered a filter from B&H and when it arrived it wouldn’t fit the hood because it is magnetic and has no threads. No problem, I thought. It seems everyone, from Nikon as well as B&H thinks it’s impossible. Nikon not aware was really intriguing. Anyway, I bought Magnetic KASE 112mm filters that drop in perfect. No one seems to know how I have this. Are you aware of this?
That’s interesting, how does the KASE filter stay in place considering that it doesn’t have threads? Sorry if I’m misunderstanding you.
Kristian Karaneshev
December 29, 2022 2:37 pm
Great review as always! I decided to get 14 30 for general photography and 20 1.8 for wide angle astrophotography instead of 14-24. The 20 1.8 is exceptional as well and for daytime images f4 is enough, also 14-30 is lighter. (also 14-24 wasn’t yet released when I got the 14-30).
Nikos Charp
February 3, 2022 8:21 am
How about Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8 VC vs S 14-24
shoreline view
October 25, 2021 9:42 am
Looking at these reviews the 14-24S, as good as it is, makes no sense on account of the very wide long-end and the huge filters. Nor, really, the 14-30/4, on account of not being quite as good as I’d like. The 20 f1.8, however, is a different matter — a clear improvement over F-mount and over any zoom; the (relatively) little pocket-rocket for when a 24-120, 24-70 or 24 prime don’t quite cover it. I’ve always been hoping that Nikon would do a 16-35 f2.8 F-Mount like the Canon Mk III, or a 15-35 f2.8 for mirrorless like Canon’s R-mount number, as such a lens might enable me to ditch mid-range zooms altogether, but so far none has been forthcoming.
akul
September 30, 2021 3:49 am
Hi Spencer, Thank you for a thorough, comprehensive and very informative review with great image samples. After reading through all the review, it was a bit of a surprise to read your decision in the end. You said, “Personally, I’m going to stick with the Nikon Z 14-30mm f/4 because it’s a good fit for my type of photography, and it has enough image quality for me.” It makes me want to ask If you could elaborate on that comment and your decision a bit more. I myself am in search for a UW zoom for Z6 and am oscillating between 14-24 F/2.8S and 14-30 F4/S. I do own 14-24 F/2.8G, and have been using it with Z6 with FTZ. However, I won’t take it with me often due to the weight and bulk of this setup when going hiking or biking which would be the main use. Either 14-24S or 14-30S will be smaller and lighter, so they both fits my need. So my rational says, if Z 14-30 f/4 is good enough for Spencer Cox, it should be more than enough for me regardless of my use. However, I am a bit concerned about the potential image degradation from distortion correction on 14-30, which was the main reason why I chose to wait to see what 14-24/s would bring. I use DXO PhotoLab mainly for RAW processing and I tend to turn off the default lens correction. Seeing almost a fish eye 14mm uncorrected image from 14-30 could be a bit disturbing. 14-24/F2.8S looks to be a stellar lens packed in small size and weight but with a heavy cost. I can bear the cost, but cost delta between 14-30 and 14-24 is so big that I could get both 50/1.8 and 14-30 and still spend less money. Hearing a bit more of the factors that played into your decision on 14-30 will definitely help me evaluate whether those factors apply to my use. Thank you
Awy
June 28, 2021 5:01 am
Spencer I am a fan of your YouTube videos and PL articles.. I see that you guys have Nikon z 105 in your hands.. while publishing review for the lens could you also please compare it with laowa z 100mm micro.. is it really worth to spend extra 500 dollars and get Nikon 105 instead laowa??
Thanks, Awy! The Laowa 100mm is an amazing lens. Aside from image quality, keep in mind that the Nikon has autofocus, auto aperture control, and full EXIF data. The Laowa in turn has a higher maximum magnification of 2x. I would base my decision on those factors more than image quality, which is in the same ballpark (the Laowa has surprisingly good image quality).
Would love to see a comparison of the 105 macro to the Tokina 100mm macro if at all possible :)
Anonymous :)
June 27, 2021 10:36 pm
Hey Spencer, Thanks for the article! Unrelated to this particular article but, I want to try out macro photography and I’m looking for a suitable lens….I feel the Sigma 105mm f/2.8 might be good. I have also checked out the Nikkor 105mm f/2.8. Both are great but the Nikon one is kinda pricey. (considering that I’m trying out Macro for the first time) What’s your opinion? I’m pretty confused and would REALLY appreciate some guidance from you. P.S. I saw that article about some guy falsely accusing you of faking that beautiful photo. Just wanna say: don’t get all worked up by haters like him; anyone who follows you and PL will never doubt your honesty :)
I too looking to get into macro world .. my dilemma is between laowa 100mm and Nikon z 105… Laowa gets you 2:1 and at macro distances autofocus is of no use I feel..
The Laowa is optically very good, one just needs to be happy with not getting EXIF data of aperture. And if you want to dive into focus stacking – as feature on board of most of the newer Nikon FX bodies – you’d be better off with an AF lens as the Laowa is fully manual and you would have to get a macro slider from Edelkrone, MIOPS or Novoflex to name a few.
Sarfaraz Hussein
June 27, 2021 10:21 am
Thank you so much for this review Spencer. I just wanted to express my gratitude to you and all the other contributors here on Photography Life.
I shoot with a Nikon d7200 with an AF-S NIKKOR 12-24mm f/4 DX lens that I purchased many years ago. I realize your article is about the newest Z lenses, but I’m wondering how much optical quality difference there is between the Niko Z 14-24mm f/2.8 S lens and the older ultra-wide I described? Thank you for your excellent articles, Spencer, much appreciated.
Thanks, Tom! There are enough differences in their base specifications and usages that I don’t know how well I can compare them, unfortunately. The end result is that the new 14-24mm f/2.8 will let you go substantially wider, capture much more light, and have better optics (especially flare and corner sharpness). I can’t quantify how much sharper it is for your needs, but the two lenses are in different ballparks.
I have big problems with flare on this lens, using it with Z9
Thanks for the review! I have a funny issue with the HB-97 hood. I ordered a filter from B&H and when it arrived it wouldn’t fit the hood because it is magnetic and has no threads. No problem, I thought. It seems everyone, from Nikon as well as B&H thinks it’s impossible. Nikon not aware was really intriguing. Anyway, I bought Magnetic KASE 112mm filters that drop in perfect. No one seems to know how I have this. Are you aware of this?
That’s interesting, how does the KASE filter stay in place considering that it doesn’t have threads? Sorry if I’m misunderstanding you.
Great review as always! I decided to get 14 30 for general photography and 20 1.8 for wide angle astrophotography instead of 14-24. The 20 1.8 is exceptional as well and for daytime images f4 is enough, also 14-30 is lighter. (also 14-24 wasn’t yet released when I got the 14-30).
How about Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8 VC vs S 14-24
Looking at these reviews the 14-24S, as good as it is, makes no sense on account of the very wide long-end and the huge filters. Nor, really, the 14-30/4, on account of not being quite as good as I’d like. The 20 f1.8, however, is a different matter — a clear improvement over F-mount and over any zoom; the (relatively) little pocket-rocket for when a 24-120, 24-70 or 24 prime don’t quite cover it. I’ve always been hoping that Nikon would do a 16-35 f2.8 F-Mount like the Canon Mk III, or a 15-35 f2.8 for mirrorless like Canon’s R-mount number, as such a lens might enable me to ditch mid-range zooms altogether, but so far none has been forthcoming.
Hi Spencer,
Thank you for a thorough, comprehensive and very informative review with great image samples. After reading through all the review, it was a bit of a surprise to read your decision in the end. You said, “Personally, I’m going to stick with the Nikon Z 14-30mm f/4 because it’s a good fit for my type of photography, and it has enough image quality for me.”
It makes me want to ask If you could elaborate on that comment and your decision a bit more. I myself am in search for a UW zoom for Z6 and am oscillating between 14-24 F/2.8S and 14-30 F4/S. I do own 14-24 F/2.8G, and have been using it with Z6 with FTZ. However, I won’t take it with me often due to the weight and bulk of this setup when going hiking or biking which would be the main use. Either 14-24S or 14-30S will be smaller and lighter, so they both fits my need. So my rational says, if Z 14-30 f/4 is good enough for Spencer Cox, it should be more than enough for me regardless of my use. However, I am a bit concerned about the potential image degradation from distortion correction on 14-30, which was the main reason why I chose to wait to see what 14-24/s would bring. I use DXO PhotoLab mainly for RAW processing and I tend to turn off the default lens correction. Seeing almost a fish eye 14mm uncorrected image from 14-30 could be a bit disturbing. 14-24/F2.8S looks to be a stellar lens packed in small size and weight but with a heavy cost. I can bear the cost, but cost delta between 14-30 and 14-24 is so big that I could get both 50/1.8 and 14-30 and still spend less money. Hearing a bit more of the factors that played into your decision on 14-30 will definitely help me evaluate whether those factors apply to my use.
Thank you
Spencer I am a fan of your YouTube videos and PL articles.. I see that you guys have Nikon z 105 in your hands.. while publishing review for the lens could you also please compare it with laowa z 100mm micro.. is it really worth to spend extra 500 dollars and get Nikon 105 instead laowa??
Thanks, Awy! The Laowa 100mm is an amazing lens. Aside from image quality, keep in mind that the Nikon has autofocus, auto aperture control, and full EXIF data. The Laowa in turn has a higher maximum magnification of 2x. I would base my decision on those factors more than image quality, which is in the same ballpark (the Laowa has surprisingly good image quality).
Would love to see a comparison of the 105 macro to the Tokina 100mm macro if at all possible :)
Hey Spencer, Thanks for the article! Unrelated to this particular article but, I want to try out macro photography and I’m looking for a suitable lens….I feel the Sigma 105mm f/2.8 might be good. I have also checked out the Nikkor 105mm f/2.8. Both are great but the Nikon one is kinda pricey. (considering that I’m trying out Macro for the first time) What’s your opinion? I’m pretty confused and would REALLY appreciate some guidance from you.
P.S. I saw that article about some guy falsely accusing you of faking that beautiful photo. Just wanna say: don’t get all worked up by haters like him; anyone who follows you and PL will never doubt your honesty :)
See The Best Macro Lenses for Nikon by Spencer Cox:
photographylife.com/the-b…-for-nikon
I too looking to get into macro world .. my dilemma is between laowa 100mm and Nikon z 105… Laowa gets you 2:1 and at macro distances autofocus is of no use I feel..
The Laowa is optically very good, one just needs to be happy with not getting EXIF data of aperture. And if you want to dive into focus stacking – as feature on board of most of the newer Nikon FX bodies – you’d be better off with an AF lens as the Laowa is fully manual and you would have to get a macro slider from Edelkrone, MIOPS or Novoflex to name a few.
Thank you so much for this review Spencer. I just wanted to express my gratitude to you and all the other contributors here on Photography Life.
Thank you, Sarfaraz! We really appreciate it.
I shoot with a Nikon d7200 with an AF-S NIKKOR 12-24mm f/4 DX lens that I purchased many years ago. I realize your article is about the newest Z lenses, but I’m wondering how much optical quality difference there is between the Niko Z 14-24mm f/2.8 S lens and the older ultra-wide I described? Thank you for your excellent articles, Spencer, much appreciated.
Thanks, Tom! There are enough differences in their base specifications and usages that I don’t know how well I can compare them, unfortunately. The end result is that the new 14-24mm f/2.8 will let you go substantially wider, capture much more light, and have better optics (especially flare and corner sharpness). I can’t quantify how much sharper it is for your needs, but the two lenses are in different ballparks.