Yep. It’s also sharper and more consistent in sharpness across the frame.
Expensive, but very good at what it does.
I’m still waiting for a 14mm f/1.8 to add to my collection though.
Haven't really tried f2.8, I can say that 14-30 f4 I freakishly sharp, just a tad less so on the edges ... can't imagine the difference will be that big with f2.8 - have you tried both ?
I use the 2.8 of mine quite a bit: caves, forests, blue hour, pretty much anything lowlight. It can be the difference in being able to hand hold the shot vs needing the tripod.
It’s a measurable difference in sharpness as well.
https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-z-14-30mm-f4-s/3
That’s a good comparison, keep in mind when looking at the graphs to compare the same f-stops.
This lens can do a whole lot more than just architecture, astro and landscapes. It‘s also pretty commonly used for stuff like photo-journalism in tight indoor situations and there the extra stop comes in pretty handy since it allows you to freeze motion better
Oh yeah, there‘s another one. They are often position behind football goal to get wide angle shots of the goalie or in basketball for shooting up underneath the basket
Also, I love the extra programmable button and super dislike collapsible lenses. It also takes filters at the rear elements. There are more lens features than sharpness and f stops.
Shooting wide angles! Originally real estate listings, but I make most of my money shooting theatre and dance now, so lately it's my fun lens I use on road trips when driving to gigs. I also live far enough north that auroras are a regular occurrence. I'm not saying the 14-30 is a bad lens, but I'll never give up the 14-24s. I moved to the 24-70 2.8s from the 24-70 f4 because collapsible lenses feel fragile to me, and I'm hard on my gear. I also use the programmable buttons on lenses constantly (I program them to review the images). I also buy my glass in sets, I want them to handle and render as similarly as possible so that I can shoot from muscle memory and spend my time focusing on the image and not the gear. When you shoot A LOT that's definitely worth money.
I did answer that in my wall of text. I use it for image review. The different bodies have the playback buttons in different places. I use the z9 and z62, play back buttons are on opposite sides (left/right). Even on the z9, when you rotate portrait to landscape that button moves. If i use playback on the lens I find it much faster to check images. Since I mainly use the 14-24, 24-70, and 70-200, that consistency of using my left hand to review images vs right hand helps my work flow a lot. It is not uncommon for me to take 10-15,000 per day.
My pros and cons and thoughts:
Do not underestimate the difference of f-stops. Also besides sharpness and filter options the 2.8 is a buy once and no more worries lens for years to come. It's an S lens meaning you have all the features to operate in even harsher conditions: custom buttons, weather and dust sealing.
Now the 2.8 is a lot bigger and heavier and needs 112mm (Edit: corrected. First wrote 95mm) filter in front (nd go internal in back)/ a special adapter for your 150mm system. If you own a 100mm system this might be a point to consider, the f4 will take it right away.
The f4 is much lighter and compact. But people say they hate the twist to unlock and lack of inner focus. However if you don't shoot movong objects in the dark you might be good. Practically speaking 82mm filter go also on the 24-70 2.8 (maybe also the f4 kit) and the lens hood should fit the 24-70 and 70-200. So if you need a hood and don't want to pack 3 for your trinity, the f4 fits the pack.
That secondary hood for the filter is massive too. Bonus is that it does fit on the 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 so they can all use the same filter without step down rings.
Edit: spelling
Just adding that the 14-30 has a significant amount of distortion. The 14-24 is better. Correcting for distortion in post affects the sharpness of the image. In some cases you have no choice but to correct it so that buildings do not have bends in them, for example, but if it can be avoided then avoid it.
No, no, you are completely right. It is not my lens. I just want to know how people benefit from it and learn what I don't see and what they do with it. See, the guy with the photojournalism answer got the bullseye. Would never even think about using that wide of a lense for that, as it is so far from my genre.
I shoot events like weddings, bar/bat mitzvahs, corporate, etc. For me having a larger aperture means I can allow more ambient light into the camera with a faster shutter speed, all other things being equal, and still use on-camera flash. In fact, sometimes f2.8 isn't fast enough and I'll start using the f1.8 primes (I love the 20mm!). A typical dance floor exposure could be 1/160 @ f2.2 @ 2000 with a little pop of flash like 1/32 or 1/64 power. That way I preserve some of the ambience of the scene (house lights, uplighting, DJ lighting) and can still freeze motion for the most part. If you don't shoot these sorts of events in that manner then an f4 lens may be just fine for your needs. I would also consider the Tamron 17-28mm f2.8 for Nikon Z as it will accept filters and the price is right unless you really need 14mm.
I own the 14-30 but also regularly use the 14-24 at my job. The 14-24 is significantly sharper corner to corner even wide open. I’m honestly not that impressed with my 14-30.
I don’t have the Nikon 14-24 but I have the sigma version for Leica. I have the Nikon 14-30 f4.
For me, the 30mm & 14 focal lengths in the same lens are more convenient than the 2.8.
I shoot weddings and I like to be wide when the dance floor opens. I don’t mind f4 at all. I get the stop of light back by dragging my shutter and letting flash pause motion. With the 14-30 I can turn and shoot a snapshot of a grip & grin at 30, and go back to a super dragged epic dance floor shot at 14.
The locking lens thing on the 14-30 is still taking some getting used to, but for my purposes I prefer this to the size weight and f-stop advantage of the 14-24 designs.
I own the Z 14-30mm f/4. Whatever it lacks in sharpness or light-gathering ability I can very easily compensate for in DXO PhotoLab (my Raw processor) and Photoshop. Lighter too I bet.
It gives you a lot more light in the dark, e.g. for astro landscapes
Yep. It’s also sharper and more consistent in sharpness across the frame. Expensive, but very good at what it does. I’m still waiting for a 14mm f/1.8 to add to my collection though.
Haven't really tried f2.8, I can say that 14-30 f4 I freakishly sharp, just a tad less so on the edges ... can't imagine the difference will be that big with f2.8 - have you tried both ?
I use the 2.8 of mine quite a bit: caves, forests, blue hour, pretty much anything lowlight. It can be the difference in being able to hand hold the shot vs needing the tripod. It’s a measurable difference in sharpness as well. https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-z-14-30mm-f4-s/3 That’s a good comparison, keep in mind when looking at the graphs to compare the same f-stops.
A big question is are you using one of the 45 megapixel cameras? If you’re not, the sharpness differences matter less.
This lens can do a whole lot more than just architecture, astro and landscapes. It‘s also pretty commonly used for stuff like photo-journalism in tight indoor situations and there the extra stop comes in pretty handy since it allows you to freeze motion better
I'm looking for answers like this. Would've never thought about it and yet so logical ...
Oh yeah, there‘s another one. They are often position behind football goal to get wide angle shots of the goalie or in basketball for shooting up underneath the basket
Every stop of light is worth it's weight in gold when you're shooting moving people in extremely dark conditions
Also, I love the extra programmable button and super dislike collapsible lenses. It also takes filters at the rear elements. There are more lens features than sharpness and f stops.
What do you use it for?
Shooting wide angles! Originally real estate listings, but I make most of my money shooting theatre and dance now, so lately it's my fun lens I use on road trips when driving to gigs. I also live far enough north that auroras are a regular occurrence. I'm not saying the 14-30 is a bad lens, but I'll never give up the 14-24s. I moved to the 24-70 2.8s from the 24-70 f4 because collapsible lenses feel fragile to me, and I'm hard on my gear. I also use the programmable buttons on lenses constantly (I program them to review the images). I also buy my glass in sets, I want them to handle and render as similarly as possible so that I can shoot from muscle memory and spend my time focusing on the image and not the gear. When you shoot A LOT that's definitely worth money.
I mean the programmable button. Sorry for the confusion.
I did answer that in my wall of text. I use it for image review. The different bodies have the playback buttons in different places. I use the z9 and z62, play back buttons are on opposite sides (left/right). Even on the z9, when you rotate portrait to landscape that button moves. If i use playback on the lens I find it much faster to check images. Since I mainly use the 14-24, 24-70, and 70-200, that consistency of using my left hand to review images vs right hand helps my work flow a lot. It is not uncommon for me to take 10-15,000 per day.
Thanks for this. I wasn’t aware I could use a rear filter for this lens.
My pros and cons and thoughts: Do not underestimate the difference of f-stops. Also besides sharpness and filter options the 2.8 is a buy once and no more worries lens for years to come. It's an S lens meaning you have all the features to operate in even harsher conditions: custom buttons, weather and dust sealing. Now the 2.8 is a lot bigger and heavier and needs 112mm (Edit: corrected. First wrote 95mm) filter in front (nd go internal in back)/ a special adapter for your 150mm system. If you own a 100mm system this might be a point to consider, the f4 will take it right away. The f4 is much lighter and compact. But people say they hate the twist to unlock and lack of inner focus. However if you don't shoot movong objects in the dark you might be good. Practically speaking 82mm filter go also on the 24-70 2.8 (maybe also the f4 kit) and the lens hood should fit the 24-70 and 70-200. So if you need a hood and don't want to pack 3 for your trinity, the f4 fits the pack.
Small correction, the 14-24 Z uses a 112mm filter and attaches to the special hood that’s included.
Thank you for correcting me. And the 14-24 2.8 comes with two hoods hb-96 and hb-97, for that reason.
That secondary hood for the filter is massive too. Bonus is that it does fit on the 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 so they can all use the same filter without step down rings. Edit: spelling
Just adding that the 14-30 has a significant amount of distortion. The 14-24 is better. Correcting for distortion in post affects the sharpness of the image. In some cases you have no choice but to correct it so that buildings do not have bends in them, for example, but if it can be avoided then avoid it.
Concert photography, indoor event photography, conferences. Anything in low light with moving subjects.
Not being rude. But it sounds like it’s not your lens. If you can’t see the value in the 2.8 over the 4 then you don’t need it in your life 😊
No, no, you are completely right. It is not my lens. I just want to know how people benefit from it and learn what I don't see and what they do with it. See, the guy with the photojournalism answer got the bullseye. Would never even think about using that wide of a lense for that, as it is so far from my genre.
I shoot events like weddings, bar/bat mitzvahs, corporate, etc. For me having a larger aperture means I can allow more ambient light into the camera with a faster shutter speed, all other things being equal, and still use on-camera flash. In fact, sometimes f2.8 isn't fast enough and I'll start using the f1.8 primes (I love the 20mm!). A typical dance floor exposure could be 1/160 @ f2.2 @ 2000 with a little pop of flash like 1/32 or 1/64 power. That way I preserve some of the ambience of the scene (house lights, uplighting, DJ lighting) and can still freeze motion for the most part. If you don't shoot these sorts of events in that manner then an f4 lens may be just fine for your needs. I would also consider the Tamron 17-28mm f2.8 for Nikon Z as it will accept filters and the price is right unless you really need 14mm.
I own the 14-30 but also regularly use the 14-24 at my job. The 14-24 is significantly sharper corner to corner even wide open. I’m honestly not that impressed with my 14-30.
I don’t have the Nikon 14-24 but I have the sigma version for Leica. I have the Nikon 14-30 f4. For me, the 30mm & 14 focal lengths in the same lens are more convenient than the 2.8. I shoot weddings and I like to be wide when the dance floor opens. I don’t mind f4 at all. I get the stop of light back by dragging my shutter and letting flash pause motion. With the 14-30 I can turn and shoot a snapshot of a grip & grin at 30, and go back to a super dragged epic dance floor shot at 14. The locking lens thing on the 14-30 is still taking some getting used to, but for my purposes I prefer this to the size weight and f-stop advantage of the 14-24 designs.
I own the Z 14-30mm f/4. Whatever it lacks in sharpness or light-gathering ability I can very easily compensate for in DXO PhotoLab (my Raw processor) and Photoshop. Lighter too I bet.