Although heavier, Id be curious to know how the Sigma Art 2.8 14-28 stack up. It’s much cheaper and recall it was tack sharp…and only an FTZII adapter away.
Kristoffer
February 28, 2023 2:47 am
I have big problems with flare on this lens, using it with Z9
Interesting, I was just searching to see if I was the only person having problems with flare/glare with this lens. It’s fine looking directly into a light source, but if there is a light source just out of shot, even an overcast sky above a forest clearing for example, it shows a massive bloom of white in the image. It seems much worse at 24mm and very little can be seen at 14mm.
That’s counter to my experience with the lens – especially getting flare on an overcast day. I’m assuming you’re not using a filter on it? I would try to test another copy of the lens if you can, and see if you experience the same thing, because it really doesn’t sound right to me.
Thanks, that’s what I thought, I could find very few references to similar problems. There is one main difference with my lens that struck me a few days ago, I bought it used and it had a Haida rear filter holder already installed on the back. The original Nikon part didn’t come with it so I can’t eliminate it completely as the cause. I know that without the holder fitted the same problem shows up.
The second potential problem is that when I bought it there was a slight mark on the front glass that I though could be a chip, but the seller took out a wet lens tissue and wiped it thoroughly to show the glass was clean. I don’t think this should have impacted on the coatings but it’s possible.
I found the problem thanks to another 14-24 owner who has the same Haida holder. In their wisdom, Haida have a large white logo and text on the back of the holder. This is being reflected onto the sensor, as well as that the inside of the Haida part is a lot more reflective than the Nikon originals.
To test this, I was able to take a similar black ‘baffle’ part out of the FTZ adapter. It fits the 14-24 but the Haida filter holder won’t fit in the FTZ. After a lot of tests, the part from the FTZ shows none of the problems I was seeing. it’s definitely the coating and text on the back of the Haida holder causing my issue. I’m getting some matte black spray paint to coat the Haida filter holder while I search for the original part online somewhere.
Wow! That’s wild. I’m glad you figured out the problem. Haida dropped the ball on that one. Thanks for leaving a comment about it in case other people are experiencing a similar issue.
Just to close this off, I painted the entire Haida rear filter holder with a very matte black paint. This includes the full back surface and the inside rings. The problem is now completely gone. Delighted it’s not a problem with the lens itself which has, in all other respects, been superb.
Didnt contact HAIDA regarding this? They really need to rectify this in an update.
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).
Exactly my plan, for next week! :) 2.8 seems pointless for daytime, even in this test it’s never shot wider than 5.6. And got the price difference one gets much capable set of two lenses with much, much, much cheaper filter options! Above all, 1.8 is perfect as it gets!
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.
Although heavier, Id be curious to know how the Sigma Art 2.8 14-28 stack up. It’s much cheaper and recall it was tack sharp…and only an FTZII adapter away.
I have big problems with flare on this lens, using it with Z9
Interesting, I was just searching to see if I was the only person having problems with flare/glare with this lens. It’s fine looking directly into a light source, but if there is a light source just out of shot, even an overcast sky above a forest clearing for example, it shows a massive bloom of white in the image. It seems much worse at 24mm and very little can be seen at 14mm.
That’s counter to my experience with the lens – especially getting flare on an overcast day. I’m assuming you’re not using a filter on it? I would try to test another copy of the lens if you can, and see if you experience the same thing, because it really doesn’t sound right to me.
Thanks, that’s what I thought, I could find very few references to similar problems. There is one main difference with my lens that struck me a few days ago, I bought it used and it had a Haida rear filter holder already installed on the back. The original Nikon part didn’t come with it so I can’t eliminate it completely as the cause. I know that without the holder fitted the same problem shows up.
The second potential problem is that when I bought it there was a slight mark on the front glass that I though could be a chip, but the seller took out a wet lens tissue and wiped it thoroughly to show the glass was clean. I don’t think this should have impacted on the coatings but it’s possible.
I found the problem thanks to another 14-24 owner who has the same Haida holder. In their wisdom, Haida have a large white logo and text on the back of the holder. This is being reflected onto the sensor, as well as that the inside of the Haida part is a lot more reflective than the Nikon originals.
To test this, I was able to take a similar black ‘baffle’ part out of the FTZ adapter. It fits the 14-24 but the Haida filter holder won’t fit in the FTZ. After a lot of tests, the part from the FTZ shows none of the problems I was seeing. it’s definitely the coating and text on the back of the Haida holder causing my issue. I’m getting some matte black spray paint to coat the Haida filter holder while I search for the original part online somewhere.
Wow! That’s wild. I’m glad you figured out the problem. Haida dropped the ball on that one. Thanks for leaving a comment about it in case other people are experiencing a similar issue.
Just to close this off, I painted the entire Haida rear filter holder with a very matte black paint. This includes the full back surface and the inside rings. The problem is now completely gone. Delighted it’s not a problem with the lens itself which has, in all other respects, been superb.
Didnt contact HAIDA regarding this? They really need to rectify this in an update.
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).
Exactly my plan, for next week! :)
2.8 seems pointless for daytime, even in this test it’s never shot wider than 5.6. And got the price difference one gets much capable set of two lenses with much, much, much cheaper filter options!
Above all, 1.8 is perfect as it gets!
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.