Nikon Z 20mm F1.8S VS Nikon Z 14-30mm F4S. Picture quality, Diffraction and Focus Breathing. 

Hey Everyone ! I hope you are all keeping safe ! As always I hope you find this video useful when it comes to deciding between these two wide Angle lenses. I Was really surprised by how well the 14-30mm held up against the prime in the centre of the image and when both lenses are stopped down. For now the 14-30 is still my go to wide angle lens. What do you think let me know !? Thank you so much for watching !

Regarding astro photography, the 20mm prime at f/1.8 will still let in more light on the sensor. There's a spreadsheet which you can download from this article: petapixel.com/2017/04/07/npf-rule-formula-sharp-star-photos-every-time/ And in that spreadsheet I used the Nikon D750 as a "stand-in" for the Z6 since it's still got the same size sensor. Copying the data for the Nikon D750 to new rows I change the lens info in each new row, for 14mm f/4 and 20mm f/1.8. I set ISO to 6.400 for both. The 14mm f/4 lens allows a shutterspeed of 22.75s and the EV value calculated is -6.51EV. The 20mm f/1.8 lens allows a shutterspeed of 12.08s and the EV value calculated is -7.90EV. Lower EV means you can shoot with less light available; the wider aperture will make up for the shorter shutterspeed. Of course, if you're happy with the astro photos which you get using the 14mm f/4 lens then there's no need to change, and the extra wide angle is very welcome! But for pure light-capturing ability, 20mm f/1.8 wins.

Thanks for the extremely useful vid Ricci! It really has made me realize what a brilliant lens Nikon have made with the 14-30. The ultrawide 2.8 zooms have always been an imperfect fit for landscape photographers because f2.8 is wasted for them. And that makes them larger and heavier, always a con for landscape shooters, and on top of that they are very difficult to use with filters. But landscapers have always been forced into them to get the image quality they need. Now Nikon comes along with an extremely small and light ultrawide zoom, that accepts standard threaded filters, and that has fantastic performance at f8 and up - which is the only performance that really matters for landscapes. It's the lens that maybe even most landscape shooters didn't know they needed, and it really shows how much effort Nikon has put into understanding the needs of real photographers when designing their Z lenses.

Hey Ricci, when are we getting the video on the 24-200 lens? Waiting for that to see if I should preorder it. As always, thanks for all the detailed testing you do!

Very nice comparison review. I own the amazing 20mm 1.8 S and am scouting for a 14-30 f4 lens to go along with it. Now, maybe my scouting will halt. I see nothing bad about the 20 1.8 - mine makes daylight out of darkness. Each time I use it, day or night, I am solid pleased with the images. Thanks, I enjoy your wonderful vids.

I like your reviews and the way you compare lenses, it's helpful for us who moved to Z mount to choose what we need Thank you 👍🏻

Great comparison !!! Thanks. Specifically for Astro/Milky way, I would actually value the F1.8 a lot more than the wider 14mm but with F4, to me this is HUGE difference, I would rather use the 20MM and do a simple stitching, with all the software out there this task become so easy these days, but I am amazed how great the image quality that we can get out of a little F4 zoom lens.

I just re-watched this video as I was going to buy the 20mm F/1.8S to shoot some astrophotography. Your summary regarding this type of photography has now saved me £1000 as I already have the 14-30mm, which I will stick with and save the money towards the 24-105mm or 100-400mm lenses when they eventually get released.

Thanks for the review, I’ve just purchased the 14-30 and I am pleased with the astro shots I am getting at 14mm. I won’t be changing to the 20mm prime either.

Thanks for this thorough analytic video. I recently migrated to mirrorless with a Z6ii. I do landscape and portrait. The kit lens 24-70 that came with the z6ii is really good but a little limiting while doing landscapes. I was struggling trying to make my mind between the 20mm and 14-30mm. Now you just helped me make up my mind, I am going for the 14-30. Thanks again.

Hi Ricci, thanks for doing this. I have just picked up the 14-30 along with the 85 1.8s, it’s really useful to see these comparisons.

This analysis helped me to finally decide. I know it's a lot of work for you to do all these tests, but they really are very helpful. 👍👍

That little 14-30 is impressive. I was really surprised by the focus breathing on the 20, doesn't really affect me, but still surprising.

Ricci, a very helpful comparison. I certainly am one of those who has had the struggle to choose between the two. I rented both at the same time and was a bit shocked at how well the zoom held up in comparison.

Great video as always, one of the reasons I picked up the 20mm to compliment my 14-30 was for two reasons, better shaped and sharper stars at the edge of frame and a more accurate ability to shoot MY panos. As soon as lockdown is eased I’ll be out there with my new 20mm f1.8 👍

The 14-30 shows itself to be an almost perfect super wide angle landscape lens. I don't recall ever shooting a landscape shot at f4.

Very useful and interesting on the Astro shutter speed thing at the end. I've never owned anything wider than a 20mm, so I'm tempted to try the 14-24mm.

I haven't got my hands on the 20 1.8S yet, but I'm finding the 14-30 sublime. Comparing it to my older 16-35 really showed up a world of difference in terms of corner sharpness. I was thinking of the 20 1.8S but think I'll wait for the 70-200 2.8S first, very jealous of you being able to get one!

I keep my 20mm f1. 8 F mount because of how Nice sunstars I can get and The close up almost wideangle macro.

Thank you for your reviews! The 14-30 is absolutely fantastic. A comparision with my Fuji 10-24 would be great - but I know ... you only do Nikon reviews :)

What a teaser having the 70-200mm standing there :-). I am very happy with the 14-30mm and it also works very well in IR

pretty astounding for zoom to compare well to prime, I'm sold....except for the 14-24 f2.8 that is waiting in the wings

I love the old 20mm f1.8 F lens. But apart from landscapes and astro the convenience of a zoom is hard to ignore. There is a need for a faster ultrawide Zoom.

Didn't expect such focus breathing from a fix and total absence of it in a zoom... Not good for a focus stacking. But am still think ing of getting 20 mm to add to my 14-30 just for picture quality (thanks to your tests it's more obvious now, especially in the corners) and aperture. It seems to me that Z lenses offer more shallow DoF than F lenses at the same apertures. By the way, didn`t you think by chance of showing also some outdoor picture comparisons i.e. outside the studio? Just an idea, I do not insist of course.Your test are already good as they are and tremendously helpful

When it comes to reviews I enjoy this presenter's information.I have been thinking about buying both lenses.These lense, my standard view I guess is prime is always going to win over zoom at their respective lengths. Seriously I am wondering if it's now down to light room skills as much as any correct lens choice ,given the correct choice has been made . Now I would like to say I have found this information really useful. I am not sure which the 14-30 mm z or the 20mm z (has weight helps to sway me more than price) . I look at photos constantly, my overall opinion before purchasing a lens is to consider these old and tried statements before purchase . 1 ( it's a bad craftsman that blames his tools .) And my own take on that is 2( it's an even worse craftsman that has no tools !) In Lightroom some errors are corrected some seemingly by magic brought to life ,by being recreated too bring out the awe factor. Equipment , capture , and light room skills only enhance composition. Many good a tune is played on an old fiddle, but seriously I know the temptation to purchase the latest and greatest..... My point is for any incoming wanna be photographer, learn your craft. Once you are up and running purchase accordingly . I chose to purchase the 14-30 for two reasons. One light room ,and two weight .In All forms of photography from street to landscape and everything in-between, what makes the photo work is its appeal to the viewer. Learn to choose wisely use the reviews and learn about both Lightroom and equipment . We learn quicker by listening to those more experienced . My one greatest thrill is having the expectation my next photo is going to be great. That thrill alone is priceless. It makes getting up or staying up worth something. I got a lot out of the review. Even at the age of 68, it's always worth checking out stuff from whatever source there is. Because the saying goes " There's no fool like an old fool". Great review very helpful.

Thank you Ricci . Verry good video as usual. I have the Z6+14-30 and i'am really pleased with both . When are you going to test the 24-200 ? The quick look was a too big Teasing for me 😉 !

LOL Gotta love Ricci -- who else would have a D6 as a prop!

Great comparison Ricci, and it’s kind of what I assume the results would be. The 14-30 lens is really stellar for such a nice small light ultra wide zoom. Only thing I’m disappointed in is I wish Nikon would come out with a 70-200 f/4 in a nice small light package, that would be dream lens for landscape photography

Really like to see a comparison between the 20 1.8 vs 14-24 2.8 at f8 outside

Thank you for the comparioson, Ricci. This, along with your previous comparisons, definitely helps me narrow down my options to realistic numbers.

I purchased the 13-30 largely on your recommendation. Very satisfied in terms of my use case. Thank you.

Hey man great stuff as always, thanks for your upload. I regard your channel as one of the very few actually worthy of peoples time, the other one being Steven Perry’s backcountry gallery. I am really going into mirrorless once the 14-24 f2.8 is available, to cater for my landscaping needs , mostly I shoot wildlife . Hence why I cannot wait for your thoughts on the D6. Currently shoot D5 and a pair of D850s, and TBH I cannot find myself excited about the D6. I never judge on spec sheets and never rely on what the various “Big” brand shills YT channels say. If one goes back in time a bit and see what they said about the Zees then one can never take any of these channels seriously!! Therefore your uploads on the D6 are highly anticipated !! Thanks for your efforts man Stay safe and God Bless.

Good video Ricci :) I might opt also for the 14-30mm although I also prefer to wait for the new 14-24mm before deciding. It will all depend on the ability of the brighter lens to take filters. If they make it like the Canon, I will definitely go for it, if it is bulbous like the current F model then the smaller brother wins... decisions, decisions.

Nice comparsions as always, Ricci! I tend to agee with your conclusion, though I rarely do astrophotography. Especially since you've shown that image quality between these lenses are virtually equal at f/8 in the center, I'd rather have the versatility advantage of the 14-30. I do wonder how the sharpness of the 14-30 at 24mm @say, f/8, compares to the 24-70 f/4 at same settings? Thank you!

Great review and as said; it depends on the use or purpose of the lens. I recently had the option of a 2nd hand 14~30 or a new 20 mm Z for my Z6ii, and considering I love shooting low light dance / social events (available light only), I opted for the prime 20mm lens for the light capture and better shutter/aperture choices. I already have the Z 50mm 1.8 and 85mm 1.8 for this purpose as the primes give me the results I want, and when the light is better (and for general everyday use) I use my Z 24~120 S which is a brilliant all-rounder. They are all great lenses and I don't discount the notion of acquiring a 14~30 sometime in future.

Really helpful & informative, I have both of these lenses on my wishlist. I've always been a fan of a nice 20 prime lens, and so far that's what I'm leaning towards. New sub here as well. :)

NIce video. I was fascinated by the difference in focus breathing between the two. You didn't mention this, and I was wondering if you find it a big deal. I imagine it would be more of a problem if you are focus stacking in post. Thoughts?

I'd be curious if you could do a comparison (perhaps with a few lenses) to see how the in-camera Diffraction Compensation (option) works and if it's any good in helping reduce diffraction at higher apertures, like those at f/11 and beyond. Did you have that option turned on/off in this comparison?

This came back up on my list of vidoes and so I watched it again and I feel that at 7:12 when comparing the 20 to the 14-30 both at f/4, there might be a hint of more ghosting (especailly around the "D6" logo) but given the zoom level, you probably wouldn't see it in practice. But I do feel the 14-30 does exhibit some ghosting at f/4 (wide open). And even if you look at the Nikon logo in the center of the frame, the 14-30 looks slightly ghosted there too, and the 20mm is a bit more crisp in terms of the lettering.

Hi Ricci. What I have noticed in this video is that in comparison to the other video comparing the Z 20mm F1.8S to the F-Mount 20mm 1.8G, the Z 20mm F1.8S is just simply not as sharp 1:1, wide open, in the center. I'm mainly looking at the "X-Rite" text on the color card. If this was the candidate to decide which was better, I would still choose the Z 20mm over the F Mount 20mm, but would be less swayed. What changed?

Thanks for the helpful video. Unfortunately, I'm still hesitating because I have no experience with a 14mm focal length and have found f1.8 to be extremely appealing. Always perfect light and great perspectives. Greetings from Germany Raule

thank you so much for this review.....I can't wait to see the comparison between the nikon z 14-30 f 4 and the nikon z 17-20 f 2.8

At f/4, i think I can see the prime is sharper at the centre of the frame too e.g. the D6 logo seems sharper on the prime to my eyes

An advantage of the 20 1.8 is the close focus distance 20cm vs 28cm (on the 14-30, but I do not know if on all focal length), and the possibilities for nice close shoots with blurry background. The Focus breathing is really surprising. - Thanks for the Review.

I love my 14-30, but I use it in low light vlogging and would really love Nikon to release a 14mm, or even 16mm 1.8 prime, S line of course. It would be an absolute game changer.

Perfect as always - thanks for this comparison

This 14-30mm is really outstanding !!! I will buy it quickly before the price increase. The no breathing on it is also very interesting.

Thank you for these very detailed comparisons Ricci - they are very informative. One aspect that wasn’t covered was coma: do you know if the 14-30 handles coma as well as the 20mm?

Well done, Ricci. I never shot zooms and am not going to change that. I have to say, that Nikon made a leap forward in the optical quality of these new Z/S zoom lenses. Wow. Yes, between them, the differences are marginal and arbitrary. The argument to go with the 14... for astro - totally valid. I thought in a couple side-by-side comparisons that the zoom had slightly less contour sharpness and with astro, with all those tiny twinkly spots, that is what you need. Also it seemed that the zoom had a couple shots where certain color patches were either less saturated or brighter (for instance in the first side by side, the left bottom brown patch). But still marginal. Side by side you have a hunch, but really need measurement equipment to figure it out. That means in normal use, even in difficult circumstances, there is no difference. The focus breathing of the zoom was impeccable. Wow. I can totally imagine that lens one Z camera doing movie, whether in FX or DX.

great comparison, thank you - I bought the 20mm but am going to change it out for the 14-30

Thanks Ricci, Appreciate the comparison of the 2 lenses. I can now make an informed decision. Great video

Thanks for this detailed review. I just ordered the 20mm prime and look forward to trying it out. I tried the 14-30mm for astrophotography and there was too much coma and too little sharpness outside the center when used wide open. Wide open there was a good bit of vignette even with the vignette control turned on, which was accentuated by the total lack of light coming in. With less light due to the f/4 aperture I was needing 3-4 minute exposures with a tracker from relatively dark skies to get good shots. Also the 14-30mm 4.0 is 2.33 stops darker than the 20mm 1.8. With current high MP sensors, I've found that untracked a 14mm can only do 15 seconds before trailing and 20mm only 10 (I think for modern sensors a rule of 200 is a better guide than 500). Thus, that extra light coming into the 1.8 wide open is equal to a 23 second exposure @ 14mm compared to the 14-30mm's 15 seconds @ 14mm. I sold the 14-30mm after two nights under the stars and bought the 14-24mm 2.8. However, even that is pretty slow for astro, and while the 14mm end is wonderful, the 24mm end loses a good bit of sharpness outside the center on stars. It's totally a matter of personal taste, too, but I tend to think 14mm loses too much of the detail of the night sky, especially the milky way. 20mm is a really nice focal length if you're going wide. If you need wider, you've already got a tripod set up and it's easy to do a two shot pano. If you don't shoot astro at all, then I see this as an easy choice between the 14-30, 14-24, and 20: 14-30 all day.

Your Explanations are really helpful, so would I be happy when you continue. thank you

Thanks Ricci, for another very clear comparison. I agree with you about the 14mm focal length, even with my f-mount lenses. I have the 20mm 1.8, and the 14-24 f/2.8, and prefer the 14-24 for astrophotography. (although both are excellent) Take care, and stay safe!

The 14-30 is such a great versatile lens especially for the price and relatively compact dimensions. I find the higher aperture of my 20mm 2.8 AFD useful for tight interior shots in low light when I travel but the corners aren’t as good as the 14-30 and don’t improve much until f5.6. I’m tempted but I’m not sure if I can justify adding this lens to my bag, the 14-30 is hard to fault.

Exactly what I've been looking for, Thanks.

I am a fast lens kinda guy. For me, a 20mm 1.8 is the way to go. Admittedly though, if the focal length options and if you don't need the sharpest lens or if you want a video lens with no focus breathing, the 14-24mm f4 is the way to go without a second thought!

Incredibly helpful! Thank you for the detailed reviews.

Good Video. i have the 14-30 also, and same for me, once the 2.8 is released, i will end up trading up. but first, seriously the release of the 70 - 200 2.8 delays are killing me.

Very instructive. I own the 14-30/f4 and can confirm the results. It's a great lens.

You said they're identical once you start viewing things at the smaller aperture. To me, through RU-vid, it looked like the 20mm was catching more of the bright areas as where the 14-30mm started looking a little more washed out to me. Was that just "margin of error"-type observations? Or do you notice more light in the highlight areas of the 20mm as well?

Nice love it

I have the 14-30mm, I'll give the 20mm a miss. Put that money towards the 70-200mm.

Nice comparison but I think you can not shoot 25seconds for Astro even with 14mm. I use the D850 and Z7 and even with 14mm a max time would be 8 seconds before the starts start trailing. 25sec is not possible. And for Astro the 20mm 1.8 is much sharper in the corners than the 14mm. Using both lenses and also the sigma art 14 1.8 and 20 1.4. for architecture and landscape I love the 14-30mm but for Astro I prefer the 20 1.8.

All those additional stops make a HUGE difference if you're shooting indoors and/or in low light, especially with non-static subjects. I'll take the prime any day.

Call me a pixel peeper if you want but I DO notice a difference between these 2 lenses at f8 and f11. Quite frankly I would take the 20mm f1.8 lens because of it's superior sharpness / rendition. (Just so btw I do own both of these lenses which I bought for different uses.)

Have you seen the DXOMark scores on the Z 14-30mm? Not good. Seems there is conflicting information on the new Z glass. DXO has always been spot on for me anyway.

Nice work, as usual. :bow: Nikon is really hitting the ball out of the park with these Z zooms. I was very quick to pull the trigger on the 14-30mm when it came out since the 12-24mm zoom F mount was a very popular lens for me. For some odd reason the 14-30mm has NOT been used that much. But it's an odd year so I'll wait and see. Thanks!

Given the price point and the flexibility, I'd go with the 14-30.

It looks like focus breathing of 20mm 1.8 is unusable for focus stacking. I am very surprised by 14-30. It looks like stellar landscape universal portable lens. BTW what UV and CPL would you recommend to be OK with vignetting? Should I look for something special, or just pick some 82mm UV and CPL? Thanks for great video!

It's crazy how compact the 14-30 is as well. Tbh I'd have been happy with an even slightly more compact 14-24 though because I couldn't see myself using a wide angle lens for above 24mm

Sorry, but I can see a difference at 6:55 in the D6 logo. Sharper in the Z-20 at F/4.

Great work

Nice comparison, really helpful, thanks a lot.

I probably shoot landscape more than nightscape but I'm probably going to go with the 20mm f/1.8 for milky way photography. It beats the 14-30mm for that. I may buy the 14-30mm or something like it later on.

Thanks for your efforts. This is what a comparison should be.

Thanks for the Great comparison!

At f8 the 14-30 looks like it has more contrast, am I imagining that?

poor guy..he sold EVERTHING to buy this D6! ;) Thanks a lot Ricci! Lets hope for a 2 Slots Cam from Nikon "Mirrowless" and im in.

Thank you for your time Ricci

Ricci, we need a comparison between the 24-200mm and the 24-70mm f/4

interesting conclusion, as one would expect the diffraction and Abirations to be worse close up than with the 20 mm as this is "less wide" so there is less angle for the light at the corners, so there is less ghosting etc. and considering the new F mount that nikon has come up with is the 19 mm PC, and this is designed specifically for architecture and landscape work, then if the 14 was better why have the PC lenses not been designed to the wider end than 19, or 17 in the case of the canon lineup?

Leave comments again. Very useful practical comparison. Not just read the lens profile. This is what we need

I was going to get the 20mm prime for astro, but your comments made me wonder. Can you do a comparison for the two specifically for astro?

I am a Dslr full time photographer, I use a d750 with a 16-35 afs F4, a 24-70 afs 2.8, 50 afs1.4g, 60mm micro afd, a 80-200afd. im still thinking on this transition to Z6ii or Z7ii or even what 2021 will bring us in terms of new cameras, but I am thinking if getting just an adapter for my lenses, or it's critical to get a Z lens, considering that I will do also video. I know the afd won't autofocus with the ftz, but that's OK for me, I don't do any wildlife or sports, mostly lifestyle, food, architecture or portraits. I heard that for video, z lenses have advantages. My doubt is on getting some Z primes for video and keeping the f mount for photography. Any thoughts are very welcomed. Thank you in advance!

Thanks a lot for this video! Focus breathing seems quite noticeable on the 20mm, how do you explain it? This lens hasn’t got focus breathing according to Nikon... I mean it makes the lens less attractive for video! Thanks, Cheers from Switzerland

Could you compare 14-30 S to the f mount Nikon 16-35?

Great Video, just what i was looking for!!

Wait is no one talking about the fact the dude is using a D6 as a prop in a photo sharpness test 🤣 You cant even buy them yet

Great video. Thanks for that!

Wo war der Messpunkt, welches Messfeld und welche Kamera? Sonst ist der Test nicht zugebrauchen , das 14-30 ist für f4 zu teuer.

I like your way of thinking: 14mm allows slower shutter speeds vs. 20mm, negating the wider aperture of the 20mm lens. Some/Most reviewers don't bother to go into the nitty gritty. The only thing you should be aware of is that some lenses show significant sharpness issues when used at longer focusing distances. In other words, using test charts or any nearby objects cannot guarantee sharpness across the frame on far away subjects. The Canon RS 15-35 f/2.8 lens is a good example. It produces sharp images at close focusing distance, but it shows a ring of blur at faraway subjects - typical landscape shots. So next time please use real landscape shots to demonstrate sharpness for wide angle landscape lenses.

Which lens is best for real estate interior videos on a gimbal, currently shooting with a nikon z6ii

Ricci - Question for you. Lower extended ISO on the Z6 - I've done some image tests and the images are cleaner at 50 ISO rather than the native 100 ISO - not to say 100 ISO isn't clean of course. Do you ever use LO1 (50 ISO) in your Z6 or Z7? There are many areas that simply state it's like overexposing by a stop, but I wanted to ask you. Thanks for the great video ;) Chris from Canada

How does the zoom ring stiffness of the 14-40 compares to the 24-70 f4? My 14-30 is way looser than my 24-70 that feels solid, wondering if it's normal. Thanks

So torn. I basically use a 14-24 almost always at 20mm. If I wanted to do non Landscapes do I buy the 14-30 F4 for $1200 or do I hold my breath and wait for the 2.8 version (thats guaranteed to cost 2.8 Z money). If Nikon ever cares about releasing that anyway

What is the difference with the lenses and how they handle coma?

14-30 + star tracker = best of both worlds 👍🏽

Have you reviewed Nikon Z 17-28mm f2.8?

nice channel📸