It’s a great lens. I own both wide Z lenses the 14-24 f2.8 and the 14-30 f4 and I use the 14-30 most of the time. It is light, compact and if you are shooting outside, it’s perfect.
@@russandloz I bought it to use for Astro photography. I went this summer to a starry night ranch in colorado only to realize that I chose a night with a full moon. I will have to wait till next summer to get my milky way shot. I plan to use it for only that and any indoor shoots. I could have purchased the 20 instead, but decided to spend the extra money for the zoom. Maybe a good decision or not. Only time will tell. Right now, I plan to keep it. Just acquired the 100-400 Z lens. Haven’t had an opportunity to really use it properly but will this winter in Wyoming. We are going to Yellowstone in the winter. Hoping to photograph the animals in a winter landscape.
There are 2 things to consider. 1. How often do I shoot wide open and is that often enough to justify the difference in price? 2. Low light performance in the current bodies is much better than even 3 years ago, and this brings us back to point #1. I use f1.8 primes for all of my low light and I am not as currently concerned about f2.8 or f4, as long as it is S line.
Yes good point. Also worth thinking I could get the 20mm 1.8 for low light and still save £700 if I already own the 14-30. Obviously it doesn't have that 14mm look. But in low light 1.8's are much better than 2.8's?
Love my 14-30 f4 Z lens! I’ve been using it professionally since it came out. Added to the fact that you can put a protective filter (because it does not have bubble glass on the front) on a full-frame 14mm lens is crazy! I don’t miss the one stop as I rarely use wide apertures when shooting with wide angles. Last week I had a hard fall with that lens flying through the air and bouncing on the pavement. The lens survived just fine as I had it in safe mode. I always travel with it in safe mode. The lens came out in much better shape than I did. 😳
Easily the best ultra wide to wide zoom FF lens Nikon has ever made. I have had it for two years now. Absolutely zero regrets with this lens. This together with the Z 20 f1.8 in your bag is the astro/architecture/landscape/etc., FF dream combo. But if you could only buy or only want to buy one lens, its the Z 20 f1.8. That lens destroys all other FF ultra wide to wide zooms and primes. You get the Z 14-30 next for the flexibility. You leave the Z 14-24 f2.8 at the store.
@@russandloz I basically never shoot my Z 14-30 wider than 17-18mm for stills. The barrel distortion is too high wider than that, and the Z 14-24 f2.8 has the same problem albeit to a somewhat lessor degree. For video, I basically never shoot wider than 20mm for the same reason, and again the Z 14-24 f2.8 is in the same boat. I feel that one can come to just accept it for stills. So its a little distorted and stretched in the corners, so what. Its art. But for video this is not an art look I am interested in. So, for me, I buy the ultra wide to wide zoom lens for what it gets me above 20mm and not below it. I suspect I am not alone, and this is why the 16-35mm (or thereabouts) f4's and variable's have traditionally been so much more popular than the 14-24 f2.8's. Its not just the price. Its a lot more useful lens in practical terms. Maybe for some its the price. The Z 20 f1.8 is essentially a zoom lens. I feel 100% comfortable cropping in post to an effective 35mm with that lens. If the Z 20 f1.8 had been available first, I might not have bought the Z 14-30 f4.
Hi great video 👍 A couple of points, i have been using this lens for around six months or so and love it. I paid £ 720 in the uk a bargain though could be gray Market from E infinity, so a bit of a risk 🤔 but better than list price of around £1200. I have no real problem with it. Only thing to be careful with shots with lots of sky in them is dust spots, which your first or second shot had some! I think that is down to the way the lens trombones in and out drawing the air in to the camera? For shots without sky no problems at all. By the way my 24-70mm f4 has no such problems but moves in the same way?? The 14-30mm is also great for video vloggers looking for a bit more room 😀
Interesting thanks. I didn’t notice the dust spots, I’ll also have to check my sensor for dust too. I have been changing lenses in the field more often.
@@russandloz If you're seeing dust spots in focus, they're on the sensor, not the lens. Dust on the outside of the lens, or even inside the lens, does almost nothing usually. It's not in focus. I've seen guys do tests by putting more and more dirt and scratches on lenses until something visible happens. It's amazing how much it takes before it shows up. I'm sure you could find the tests with a little searching. The guys who buy and sell used lenses professionally know about the dust thing, too. It's not the problem most people think it is. Dust on the sensor, though, perfect focus, instant problem. I have this lens, too. It seems very nice but I haven't used it much yet.
@@FMJP The wide angle difference sounds like a good clue, but maybe it has to do with the types of pictures when using that lens. Maybe your other pictures hide more dust specs and your wide angle photo subjects tend to reveal more? It's the same sensor in each case so that shouldn't vary. And plenty of real world tests have shown us we can't see dust on the lens (unless it's a ridiculous amount). It could even be related to the types of places where you change one lens vs the other lenses. Or something else we're not thinking of yet.
@@russandloz It's true the newer cameras do better in low light so f/4 vs f/2.8 isn't as important as it was long ago. One thing the 2.8 does better than the 4 is background blur for artistic effect, but short focal lengths don't do that well anyway, so we're not losing much there, if anything. It does seem like the wide angle zoom lens is a good place to save size, weight and money compared to the "pro" f/2.8 lens. In the 24-70 size and 70-200, the 2.8 is really doing something for you. It doesn't seem as important, if at all, in the wide zoom. At least according to all the reading and thinking I've done so far:-)
Hello, I have the Nikon Fc with the kit lens 16-50mm and wonder if I would benefit from buying the 28 mm or 40mm f2.8. They might not reach their best performance or equality to the zoom unless they are in the same f stop anyway. What are your feelings or can you possibly do a comparison video? Thanks.
I’ve never used the 17-28. But depends if you need lower light capability or a wider focal length. Both will be good. Could use 14-30 with slower shutter speeds if the scene is still with a tripod.
Thank you so much for replying! Yeah, that’s my debate.. I mean, I know even with 17mm it will be quite wide and 2.8 is something most photographers go for. And I also thought that how often I would use the 14mm with the distortion and all. 🤔
If there's movement in the images (leaves, branches, vehicles, animals, people, water) your stitching won't work well. Also, with the ultra wide angle you can do really nice perspective emphasizing shots like getting REALLY close to a hood ornament on a car and seeing the body curves severely angled compared to our normal perception. Panoramas are nice, but they have limits. Having the ultra wide lens is still a necessary thing for some uses.
c'est trop marrant les gens qui te parlent des objectifs Z comme si c'etait le top du top , les Z sont mieux que les FX ? NON ,ils sont plus chere oui , exemple vous prenez le 14-24 Z 2.8 il coute 2500 euros , il existe le meme chez Sigma a 1000 euros de moins , mais en monture FX comme par hasard
It’s a great lens. I own both wide Z lenses the 14-24 f2.8 and the 14-30 f4 and I use the 14-30 most of the time. It is light, compact and if you are shooting outside, it’s perfect.
Interesting, when would you use the 2.8 version?
@@russandloz I bought it to use for Astro photography. I went this summer to a starry night ranch in colorado only to realize that I chose a night with a full moon. I will have to wait till next summer to get my milky way shot. I plan to use it for only that and any indoor shoots. I could have purchased the 20 instead, but decided to spend the extra money for the zoom. Maybe a good decision or not. Only time will tell. Right now, I plan to keep it. Just acquired the 100-400 Z lens. Haven’t had an opportunity to really use it properly but will this winter in Wyoming. We are going to Yellowstone in the winter. Hoping to photograph the animals in a winter landscape.
@@ericerickson6537 Fair enough. I recently got the 20 1.8z instead of the 14-24 and really enjoying it so far. Soon to make a video on it.
There are 2 things to consider.
1. How often do I shoot wide open and is that often enough to justify the difference in price?
2. Low light performance in the current bodies is much better than even 3 years ago, and this brings us back to point #1.
I use f1.8 primes for all of my low light and I am not as currently concerned about f2.8 or f4, as long as it is S line.
Yes good point. Also worth thinking I could get the 20mm 1.8 for low light and still save £700 if I already own the 14-30. Obviously it doesn't have that 14mm look. But in low light 1.8's are much better than 2.8's?
@@russandloz A F1.8 is 1.5 stops better than a f2.8 in low light when shooting wide open. Sigma makes a 14mm F1.8, if you really want 14mm.
My mind is Blown by the difference between 14mm and 24mm.. Awesome video Thanks ❤️🙌🏻
Love my 14-30 f4 Z lens! I’ve been using it professionally since it came out. Added to the fact that you can put a protective filter (because it does not have bubble glass on the front) on a full-frame 14mm lens is crazy! I don’t miss the one stop as I rarely use wide apertures when shooting with wide angles.
Last week I had a hard fall with that lens flying through the air and bouncing on the pavement. The lens survived just fine as I had it in safe mode. I always travel with it in safe mode. The lens came out in much better shape than I did. 😳
Wow thats impressive and maybe lucky
@@russandloz And a bit of embarrassing for taking the fall.
Easily the best ultra wide to wide zoom FF lens Nikon has ever made. I have had it for two years now. Absolutely zero regrets with this lens. This together with the Z 20 f1.8 in your bag is the astro/architecture/landscape/etc., FF dream combo. But if you could only buy or only want to buy one lens, its the Z 20 f1.8. That lens destroys all other FF ultra wide to wide zooms and primes. You get the Z 14-30 next for the flexibility. You leave the Z 14-24 f2.8 at the store.
Yes good advice. Leave the 2.8 at the store and save money too. But do you feel 20mm is wide enough?
@@russandloz I basically never shoot my Z 14-30 wider than 17-18mm for stills. The barrel distortion is too high wider than that, and the Z 14-24 f2.8 has the same problem albeit to a somewhat lessor degree. For video, I basically never shoot wider than 20mm for the same reason, and again the Z 14-24 f2.8 is in the same boat. I feel that one can come to just accept it for stills. So its a little distorted and stretched in the corners, so what. Its art. But for video this is not an art look I am interested in. So, for me, I buy the ultra wide to wide zoom lens for what it gets me above 20mm and not below it. I suspect I am not alone, and this is why the 16-35mm (or thereabouts) f4's and variable's have traditionally been so much more popular than the 14-24 f2.8's. Its not just the price. Its a lot more useful lens in practical terms. Maybe for some its the price. The Z 20 f1.8 is essentially a zoom lens. I feel 100% comfortable cropping in post to an effective 35mm with that lens. If the Z 20 f1.8 had been available first, I might not have bought the Z 14-30 f4.
I’d been thinking about this lens…you convinced me! Thanks
It's a great lens, love using it. The 2.8 version is just too expensive maybe.
nice video guys. a note that the 14-24 2.8 is 150g lighter than the 24-70 2.8.
Yes it is a bit lighter which is welcomed but it is quite a bit longer than the 14-30 if thats a consideration
Thanks for your thoughts on this. I used this to replace the AF-S 16-35 when I went mirrorless. The 14-30 is head and shoulders better than that lens.
Yes, the z lenses are so much better!
I did exactly that as well, and I agree that the Z is much better !
Topaz Photo AI makes the F4 completely safe now.
Lightroom has a new denoise feature too. But it’s easier to get it right on the shoot
Hi great video 👍
A couple of points, i have been using this lens for around six months or so and love it. I paid £ 720 in the uk a bargain though could be gray Market from E infinity, so a bit of a risk 🤔 but better than list price of around £1200. I have no real problem with it.
Only thing to be careful with shots with lots of sky in them is dust spots, which your first or second shot had some! I think that is down to the way the lens trombones in and out drawing the air in to the camera? For shots without sky no problems at all.
By the way my 24-70mm f4 has no such problems but moves in the same way??
The 14-30mm is also great for video vloggers looking for a bit more room 😀
Interesting thanks. I didn’t notice the dust spots, I’ll also have to check my sensor for dust too. I have been changing lenses in the field more often.
@@russandloz If you're seeing dust spots in focus, they're on the sensor, not the lens. Dust on the outside of the lens, or even inside the lens, does almost nothing usually. It's not in focus. I've seen guys do tests by putting more and more dirt and scratches on lenses until something visible happens. It's amazing how much it takes before it shows up. I'm sure you could find the tests with a little searching. The guys who buy and sell used lenses professionally know about the dust thing, too. It's not the problem most people think it is. Dust on the sensor, though, perfect focus, instant problem. I have this lens, too. It seems very nice but I haven't used it much yet.
@@jefflastofka9289 interesting. Like I said it was probably as I’m changing lenses more in the field.
@@FMJP The wide angle difference sounds like a good clue, but maybe it has to do with the types of pictures when using that lens. Maybe your other pictures hide more dust specs and your wide angle photo subjects tend to reveal more? It's the same sensor in each case so that shouldn't vary. And plenty of real world tests have shown us we can't see dust on the lens (unless it's a ridiculous amount). It could even be related to the types of places where you change one lens vs the other lenses. Or something else we're not thinking of yet.
Also the lens going up to 30mm instead of 24mm is a massive advantage.
Yes the extra focal length is nice to have, though I understand the 14-24 then turns into the 24-70 and so on
I've wanted a very wide, I'll check this out
love this lens, excellent quality
It really is impressive. Maybe in lower light I can shoot a slower shutter speed to emulate the 2.8.
@@russandloz with the ff mirrorless nowedays a bit higher iso doesn't hurt either
@@russandloz It's true the newer cameras do better in low light so f/4 vs f/2.8 isn't as important as it was long ago. One thing the 2.8 does better than the 4 is background blur for artistic effect, but short focal lengths don't do that well anyway, so we're not losing much there, if anything. It does seem like the wide angle zoom lens is a good place to save size, weight and money compared to the "pro" f/2.8 lens. In the 24-70 size and 70-200, the 2.8 is really doing something for you. It doesn't seem as important, if at all, in the wide zoom. At least according to all the reading and thinking I've done so far:-)
@@jefflastofka9289 yes its true, wide shallow depth of field is less important unless you need to shoot in low light.
Hello, I have the Nikon Fc with the kit lens 16-50mm and wonder if I would benefit from buying the 28 mm or 40mm f2.8. They might not reach their best performance or equality to the zoom unless they are in the same f stop anyway. What are your feelings or can you possibly do a comparison video? Thanks.
It was Omar Sharif riding out of the distance to well.
Hello there! So would you recommend for someone that is in interior photography (beginner) the 14-30 f4 or the 17-28 f2.8??
I’ve never used the 17-28. But depends if you need lower light capability or a wider focal length. Both will be good. Could use 14-30 with slower shutter speeds if the scene is still with a tripod.
Thank you so much for replying! Yeah, that’s my debate.. I mean, I know even with 17mm it will be quite wide and 2.8 is something most photographers go for. And I also thought that how often I would use the 14mm with the distortion and all. 🤔
@8:27 wow 2.8 all the way. and look at the rendering / color @8:50
Yes in low light 2.8 will always be better, hence why I traded the 14-30 for the 14-28 2.8
You do not really need a wide angle lens when it is so much easier and better just to blend multiple crystal clear 50mm shots.
If there's movement in the images (leaves, branches, vehicles, animals, people, water) your stitching won't work well. Also, with the ultra wide angle you can do really nice perspective emphasizing shots like getting REALLY close to a hood ornament on a car and seeing the body curves severely angled compared to our normal perception. Panoramas are nice, but they have limits. Having the ultra wide lens is still a necessary thing for some uses.
Ummm if you want to try all that extra work, and the perspective will not be the same. A 18mm shot vs three 50mm etc will not look the same.
c'est trop marrant les gens qui te parlent des objectifs Z comme si c'etait le top du top , les Z sont mieux que les FX ? NON ,ils sont plus chere oui , exemple vous prenez le 14-24 Z 2.8 il coute 2500 euros , il existe le meme chez Sigma a 1000 euros de moins , mais en monture FX comme par hasard