The 14-24 is one of the best lenses I have ever used. I sold all my primes and just use this along with the 24-70 2.8 plus the 24-120. I also shoot with the 100-400 which is a great lens as well. I do have the 14-30 but like you said it works well outside but not inside. I am not a pro but I travel a lot and love a good piece of glass.
It's an incredible lens, stunning quality images everywhere, great for "casual" Milkyway shots, interiors, land and seascapes and really not too heavy or large. It feels the same as my 24-120 F4S on the camera, well worth the extra money.
I would love for Nikon to bring back the 17-35 zoom range. My hesitation with the 14-30 is the low light performance when you need it, and the 14-24 is not having a useful enough zoom range for me to use only that lens. Looking at what focal lengths I use mostly which are 14, 20, 28, 30, and 35, the 14-30 covers most while the 14-24 only covers two. But then again you have that 1 stop of light advantage... I just don't like Nikon's offering here. I don't mind a more expensive version that goes all the way from 14mm to 35mm as it would still be cheaper than buying both the 14-30 and the 14-24 or the 14-24 and the 24-70.
I love the F4, because I don’t need it for astronomy. Wide angle, is already “wide” so getting everything in the picture, makes no sense for me having it to 2.8 aperture, compared to the F4, if everything is widely. For that price and quality, it’s almost pixel peeping to get the difference. The second thing is it’s a 14-30mm and i like that, most of the time i can use 30mm which I really like.
I own both the 14-30 f4 and the14-24 f2.8 s. The 14-24 is truly an amazing lens but I will keep the 14-30 for my travels. It is a great walk around lens, small, sharp and fun to use.
I've just purchased the Z 70 - 200 2.8 s lens , I'm now living on dry bread and water to save for the z 14-24 f 2.8 , you two gents have improved my health I've lost so much weight following your lens advice lol 😆
Swapping the 20mm and 14-30mm for the 14-24mm was a good trade for what you're shooting. I agree that if you don't shoot UWA a lot, then the 14-30mm is probably the preferred lens, based primarily on its lower price relative to the 14-24mm. I also agree the 20mm is too similar to what you can get out of a 24-70 in terms of field-of-view to justify carrying it in most cases. Another great video guys.
@@russandloz I have the 20mm f/1.8G, which was purchased with the intent of using in small spaces, especially for documenting experimental designs associated with my day job. While it is wider than a 24-70, it's often times not quite wide enough, whether in small rooms or larger auditoriums. I'm considering the 14-24 or 14-30 for my personal work photographing conferences and weddings. I'm leaning towards the 14-30 because at such short focal lengths you can drag the shutter to compensate for the smaller aperture, especially given the IBIS in the Z6II and Z7II...and I tend to use UWA sparingly.
I bought the 14-30mm. I mostly use it for landscape. It's rare that I need a wide aperture. I would have loved to have bought the 14-24 but that was way out of my budget. I also didn't want to have to buy a new set of filters to use on it. My filters have the same threads as the 14-30. In terms of sharpness, the 14-30 sits right in between the f mount and z mount 14-24. I figured if the old 14-24 was sharp enough that the 14-30 would be fine.
I did the same thing. I sold my Z 20 mm f/1.8 S and Z 14-30 mm f/4 S to get a used 14-24 mm Z f/2.8 S. I'm happy, it is sharp edge-to-edge. I miss the 20 mm f/1.8 S for Astro, though because of more light-gathering capabilities.
Another nice video :). Nikon went for near perfection with this lens and they nailed it. It is expensive but for those using this focal range often, it's the very best. A couple of other points to add: less vignetting than the 14-30 and the advantage of circular filters vs the older 14-24 f-mount. The 14-30 has the advantage of smaller filters but there seems to be more vignetting with having more than one filter (CP + ND) vs the 14-24 option. I like your summary.....the 14-30 is the smart choice for most but for those who have the most difficult scenarios (low light, fast shutter), want the best image possible or do astrophotography, the 14-24mm f2.8S is the best option out there. The 14-30 will remain a strong option.....due to price and because the smaller package with filters is enjoyable while the large filter and adapter size with the 14-24 is more cumbersome with genres like street photography. So one could really say that the 14-24 f2.8S is the best out there but he 14-30 f4S is the real game changer for landscape photography due to being a smaller, lighter UWA zoom with a wider range that can take filters without being a lot behind the 14-24 f2.8S in terms of image quality. That's hugely remarkable vs what we had 5 years ago.
The 14-30 is much more useful! I shoot nikon, but love how Canon makes a 15-35mm 2.8 and a 28-70 f2! Want to switch for that reason alone. The 28-70 f2 is like a prime lens that zooms….
This is a phenomenal review. Both lenses are fantastic and I have owned both. It's not all about sharpness. Sure you can correct stuff in post but I want accurate colors, good noise control, better corners, and superior contrast on top of sharpness. Well done!
Expected to see sharpness comparison at f11, which would be the main use case for landscape work. For regular landscape work the 14-30/4 is great having in mind its low weight. And for astro Nikkor 20/1.8 + Laowa 15/2 do quite nice job - all three at about the price of the 14-24/2.8.
I didn’t test for landscape or filters as it’s not my area of expertise. There are other videos on RU-vid for that but non for event photography. But yes at full price the lens probably isn’t worth it
I am saving up for this lens upgrading from the 14-30 f/4 S. I also want the 100-400 so gotta make some choices. I do a lot of low light photos so will be worth the investment. Thanks for the review.
There is only 175g difference in the weight. That isn’t enough for anybody to suggest one is for travel and one isn’t, surely? Team the 14-24 with the 24-120 and you are covered for travelling. Have we really become such wimps that 175g has become a factor, or do we use that as an excuse because we don’t want to spend the extra for the 14-24? The 14-30 f/4 was on my list. Now it’s definitely the 14-24. Another great fun to watch video.
@@russandloz It is more compact when closed down, no question, but if things are that tight in the bag, it’s time to buy a bigger bag. :-) I know that if I buy the 14-30, I will wishing I had the 14-24, especially for low light. It’s one or the other for me, so I will have to manage, with my 6’5” frame to carry that 175g. :-)
I took the 14-30 to Iceland then the 14-24 and then the 20mm to see which I liked best and the 14-24 is hands down my favorite, cost aside. I agree there is a "certain look" with the colors but I actually found it picks out certain color tones that the other two might blend together. We were standing at Vestrahorn at night and it found all these different blues in the water coming up on the beach in blue hour that I just didnt find on the 14-30. Also the edge sharpness matters at 14mm. The 20mm I didnt find wide enough to take the 24-120 off the camera out in the field and ended up not really using it for that reason. The 20mm might however be a better lens for aurora than the 14-24 because at f/2.8 you are always thinking about ISO when it's aurora's time.
@@russandloz thanks! we got lucky that night and had plenty of time to play with settings so this is for that shot: NIKON Z 7_2 f/2.8 2.5 sec. ISO-4000 -1.3 step 14 mm
Really excellent comparison (apart from the "astrology" thing!!!! ;-)) I've actually had both for quite some time, though ALWAYS preferred the 14-24 f/2.8. I purchased the 14-30 f/4 and the 24-200 in order to save weight over the f/2.8 trilogy. But fact is, having spent £££ on a photography trip to god-knows-where, I'm not happy with taking two slightly sub-par lenses that don't quite match up to three best-in-class lenses for the sake of a few 100 grammes. You have helped me clarify, for which I thank you.
Really depends on a variety of factors, with budget being one of them. The weight difference between the two versions is pretty significant, let alone the difference in performance. I used to have the 14-24 on a D810, which is pretty much the same weight as the new 14-24 on the Z9. All depends on your circumstances and needs/wants in the end but that was a pretty remarkable difference for me. Street photography at the same weight but with all the performance gains of lens/body combo is quite ridiculous, almost like the price. That the new 14-24 can take filters is a nice but significant bonus.
Fill-flash not an option during the wedding? If everyone is motionless, you can try HDR photo stacking. Lastly, just expose for the subject and live with blown highlights. Better to have the subject properly exposed than the background.
You can’t use flash during the ceremony and I wouldn’t anyway as it’s too intrusive. People move a bit so hdr won’t work. But I’m happy with the 14-24, serving me well when I need it
If you can afford it, stay away from non-S lenses. I had the Z 24-200 mm, and the corners are not sharp. When Nikon released the 24-120 mm f/4 S, the 24-200 mm became a headscratcher. For beginners and hobbyists, this lens may be good enough. But, if you are planning to go to the next level, invest in the lenses since they typically last the longest in your gear vault and outlive your skills.
