I thought about the high “big brother” high dollar lens, but I used to shoot astro with film using a Meade 10″ Schmidt-Cassey; I figured after that, where would the fun be and I don’t do it any more (and I have hand issues now). So I just bought this one.
RSSER
March 21, 2024 4:16 am
Just got a used one of these and reckon it’s relatively light and compact for the spec. It’s great that it’ll take a screw-on CPL. Frankly I would have preferred a small f4 20mm prime and couldn’t find one. This WA range will come in handy though.
What I found interesting is how well the 14-30 stood up to the competition at f8 and f11 – in fact none of the primes were decisively sharper at these apertures. As I rarely stray from those apertures I’m very reassured by your review. (And your testing reaffirmed my previous decision to get the 18-35 f-mount over the much-dearer 16-35. I was quite sad to trade that one in).
That’s part of why I bought this lens for my own landscape photography. I’m at f/8-16 most of the time anyway, and sharpness differences between lenses are a lot smaller there.
Kamuran Akkor
March 2, 2024 8:25 am
Hi. I think if a lens is designed to be geometrically corrected, then “extreme distortion before correction” cannot be a con. Just test the performance at 14mm and that’s it. I have seen similar cons in other reviews as well (like some Canon lenses). If performance suffers greatly at 14mm compared to others, that may be a con but a lens designed to be corrected isn’t a negative by itself.
It’s still a negative in my book, because correcting such extreme distortion can lead to blurrier corners. (Our corner sharpness measurements are always done on uncorrected RAW files, which by necessity is without any distortion corrections.) But all I can do is offer the data for your consideration. You can make your own decisions whether any of the pros or cons here are relevant to you.
“…in my book…” same same in my subjective opinion; so it goes either way and on and on, you know eh?
Terence
July 12, 2022 4:11 am
The best comment I read was the Z14-30 is 85-90% of the Z14-24 for about 50% of the price. As this focal range is more of a “nice to have” than my bread and butter focal range, I am happy to make the compromise in terms of optical quality for the cost benefit (the new Z14-24 is not sooo much heavier or bigger than the little brother that I consider this a huge factor. Not so compared to the f-mount or third party alternatives which easily crack the 1kg mark…)
when you are 77 and scar tissue along with arthritis is eating up your hand you will change your opinion about “…not sooo much heavier or bigger … ” ‘big time. ;)
Sean
May 29, 2022 2:46 am
I had my newly aquired Z7II and 14-30mm out for the first time yesterday. Corner sharpness seems acceptable but the vignetting and distortion are fairly pronounced. The distortion is what it is. It’s the vignetting that has me more concerned. I was shooting with my Kase polorizer attached at the time–though it is not supposed to cause vignetting at 14mm, I wonder if that was an issue. Also I had the in camera vignette correction turned off.
Lightroom and some other post-processing software takes your in-camera vignetting corrections into account when showing you the (supposedly) “unedited” image. I’d suggest turning vignetting removal to medium or high in your camera, then see if you still notice a problem. If so, the filter is likely a bit too thick.
JR Arsenault
January 20, 2021 6:19 pm
Bought the 14-30mm a couple months ago. Fabulous travel lens for scenics and interiors, extremely sharp corner to corner and consistent at all FL’s. The Z7 cleans up most of it, you can do a lot SOOC with little post required. Happy camper, sold the F mount zoom glass … but still keeping 20mm f3.5 AiS because I still love its’ capture qualities.
Glad you’re enjoying it! I’m still using mine several years later and am very satisfied with it.
Tom
January 19, 2021 4:54 pm
How stiff is the zoom ring on the 14-30 f4 compared to the 24-70 f4 ? I own both and my 14-30 zoom ring feels way looser than my 24-70… Wondering if that’s normal since my unit was shelf unit (last available).
It’s looser on my copy too, although “way looser” is more significant than how I would describe mine. Not sure what’s up with your copy, although it doesn’t mean it has any optical problems.
Hal Stewart
July 28, 2020 2:31 pm
Spencer – Thank you for the review and response in advance. How is the average photographer going to assess whether or not he/she has a bad copy?
Sure thing. Bad copies of this lens may be a little more common than some other lenses, but the odds are good that you’ll get a sharp copy from the start. The bad copy I had was immediately apparent, given the lower level of sharpness in some corners rather than others.
My usual test is to find some subject that’s at infinity (say, a town or mountain in the distance). Put it at the center of your photo and focus with the center point. Then, without refocusing, take four successive photos where the same subject is in each separate corner of the image. (Make sure you’re using a tripod and self timer/exposure delay.) If the subject looks about equal in sharpness at all four corners, it’s a good copy. If one or more corners is *clearly* and consistently less sharp than the others when you repeat this test, it’s likely decentered.
For what it’s worth, it’s March of 2022, and I just bought a copy of this lens and in testing so far it’s very very sharp and evenly sharp into all four corners. I have a 14-24 G and an FTZ, so I’ve been comparing closely (I have many hundreds of Real Estate shoots using that lens – so I know what to look for). This new Z lens is sharper everywhere.
The truth of the matter is none of my clients would ever ever spot the differences. I made technically excellent images with the old 14-24 and this new lens should make my job just a little bit easier.
I’m wondering if Nikon had production birthing problems with this lens. Now (hopefully) resolved. My sample of “1” says yes.
I thought about the high “big brother” high dollar lens, but I used to shoot astro with film using a Meade 10″ Schmidt-Cassey; I figured after that, where would the fun be and I don’t do it any more (and I have hand issues now). So I just bought this one.
Just got a used one of these and reckon it’s relatively light and compact for the spec. It’s great that it’ll take a screw-on CPL. Frankly I would have preferred a small f4 20mm prime and couldn’t find one. This WA range will come in handy though.
Under specs change 22 to 82 filter size
Thanks for catching that typo, just fixed it!
What I found interesting is how well the 14-30 stood up to the competition at f8 and f11 – in fact none of the primes were decisively sharper at these apertures. As I rarely stray from those apertures I’m very reassured by your review.
(And your testing reaffirmed my previous decision to get the 18-35 f-mount over the much-dearer 16-35. I was quite sad to trade that one in).
That’s part of why I bought this lens for my own landscape photography. I’m at f/8-16 most of the time anyway, and sharpness differences between lenses are a lot smaller there.
Hi. I think if a lens is designed to be geometrically corrected, then “extreme distortion before correction” cannot be a con. Just test the performance at 14mm and that’s it. I have seen similar cons in other reviews as well (like some Canon lenses).
If performance suffers greatly at 14mm compared to others, that may be a con but a lens designed to be corrected isn’t a negative by itself.
It’s still a negative in my book, because correcting such extreme distortion can lead to blurrier corners. (Our corner sharpness measurements are always done on uncorrected RAW files, which by necessity is without any distortion corrections.) But all I can do is offer the data for your consideration. You can make your own decisions whether any of the pros or cons here are relevant to you.
“…in my book…” same same in my subjective opinion; so it goes either way and on and on, you know eh?
The best comment I read was the Z14-30 is 85-90% of the Z14-24 for about 50% of the price. As this focal range is more of a “nice to have” than my bread and butter focal range, I am happy to make the compromise in terms of optical quality for the cost benefit (the new Z14-24 is not sooo much heavier or bigger than the little brother that I consider this a huge factor. Not so compared to the f-mount or third party alternatives which easily crack the 1kg mark…)
I think that sums it up! Glad you’re enjoying yours.
when you are 77 and scar tissue along with arthritis is eating up your hand you will change your opinion about “…not sooo much heavier or bigger … ” ‘big time. ;)
I had my newly aquired Z7II and 14-30mm out for the first time yesterday. Corner sharpness seems acceptable but the vignetting and distortion are fairly pronounced. The distortion is what it is. It’s the vignetting that has me more concerned. I was shooting with my Kase polorizer attached at the time–though it is not supposed to cause vignetting at 14mm, I wonder if that was an issue. Also I had the in camera vignette correction turned off.
Lightroom and some other post-processing software takes your in-camera vignetting corrections into account when showing you the (supposedly) “unedited” image. I’d suggest turning vignetting removal to medium or high in your camera, then see if you still notice a problem. If so, the filter is likely a bit too thick.
Bought the 14-30mm a couple months ago. Fabulous travel lens for scenics and interiors, extremely sharp corner to corner and consistent at all FL’s. The Z7 cleans up most of it, you can do a lot SOOC with little post required. Happy camper, sold the F mount zoom glass … but still keeping 20mm f3.5 AiS because I still love its’ capture qualities.
Glad you’re enjoying it! I’m still using mine several years later and am very satisfied with it.
How stiff is the zoom ring on the 14-30 f4 compared to the 24-70 f4 ? I own both and my 14-30 zoom ring feels way looser than my 24-70… Wondering if that’s normal since my unit was shelf unit (last available).
It’s looser on my copy too, although “way looser” is more significant than how I would describe mine. Not sure what’s up with your copy, although it doesn’t mean it has any optical problems.
Spencer – Thank you for the review and response in advance. How is the average photographer going to assess whether or not he/she has a bad copy?
Sure thing. Bad copies of this lens may be a little more common than some other lenses, but the odds are good that you’ll get a sharp copy from the start. The bad copy I had was immediately apparent, given the lower level of sharpness in some corners rather than others.
My usual test is to find some subject that’s at infinity (say, a town or mountain in the distance). Put it at the center of your photo and focus with the center point. Then, without refocusing, take four successive photos where the same subject is in each separate corner of the image. (Make sure you’re using a tripod and self timer/exposure delay.) If the subject looks about equal in sharpness at all four corners, it’s a good copy. If one or more corners is *clearly* and consistently less sharp than the others when you repeat this test, it’s likely decentered.
Hope this helps!
For what it’s worth, it’s March of 2022, and I just bought a copy of this lens and in testing so far it’s very very sharp and evenly sharp into all four corners. I have a 14-24 G and an FTZ, so I’ve been comparing closely (I have many hundreds of Real Estate shoots using that lens – so I know what to look for). This new Z lens is sharper everywhere.
The truth of the matter is none of my clients would ever ever spot the differences. I made technically excellent images with the old 14-24 and this new lens should make my job just a little bit easier.
I’m wondering if Nikon had production birthing problems with this lens. Now (hopefully) resolved. My sample of “1” says yes.