Wide Angle S series for my pre ordered Z9

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

Ken Miracle

Well-known member
Supporting Member
Trying to decide between the Nikon 14-30 F/4 and the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8? $1,100 more for the f/2.8 and it takes non standard size filters. Anyone have expereince with both or either?
I seldom use a wide angle in fact after selling Tamron 15-30 and 18-400 my widest right now is Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 G2 so not sure the extra $1,100 is worth it.
 

ruley74

Well-known member
It's an interesting question I've asked myself... and I rarely use my F mount 14-24 so I'm including in my own conversation do I sell it or keep it.

If it's dramatic landscape/waterfalls type shooting I'm leaning towards the 14-30... if astro the 14-24 get's my vote.

In saying all that I may end up just getting a prime and doing away with the zoom, maybe the 20mm F/1.8.
 

Charlie Lasswell

Well-known member
I've been trying to figure this out too and I'm leaning toward the 14-30 because 1) it's lighter, 2) it takes 82mm filters, and 3) I think the image quality is good enough. Everything I've seen about the 14-24mm says it's an outstanding lense, but the 14-30mm is a little sharper than the F mount 14-24mm, especially in the corners. So, I'm thinking it's good enough.
 

fcotterill

Well-known member
I am yet another who's mulled the choice between these zooms. Yes, it's a tricky decision but I'm still saving and will finally get the 14-24 f2.8S. This is in case I need to shoot night sky and it has better overall and edge to edge sharpness - notably at 14mm. Fitting 100 filter system is a substantial breakthrough IMHO, and on fast UW zoom of remarkably less weight. I recall reading on FM or dpr @Lance B has both these Nilkors and his feedback has influenced mine :)

Compared to 14-30 f4S, the extra 165g weight is no problem, especially compared to Zeiss UW primes and the 1kg brick of the 14-24 f2.8G.

I rate the much higher price as the main factor to choose 14-30 f4S instead, as it is also an impressive zoom.

Here's a comparison wrt landscapes and skyscapes etc and NiSi filter solutions, which have been upgraded because the overtightening of the older filter holder damaged threads of the lens [edited]
https://landscapegear.co.za/blogs/n...-z-14-24mm-f-2-8?_pos=29&_sid=8751c2f03&_ss=r
 
Last edited:

Ad Astra

Active member
I have the Z 14-30mm and 20mm f1.8 prime. The 14-30mm is great for Landscape work and filter work. I have the 20mm for a specific landscape style. I have been looking at the 14-24 for Astro photography. I could use the 20mm prime for Astro, but at 20mm you need faster shutter speeds to stop star trails so my choice is between getting a star tracker for using with the 20mm or purchasing the 14-24.

Lee Filters make a special adopter for the 14-24mm; allows you to reuse your existing Lee Filters although the small and big stoppers need a new filter without the foam seal.
 

BorderBirder

Active member
Supporting Member
As above I went for 14-30 and 20 Z lenses. The 14-30 is sharp enough for landscapes and I am going to use the 20mm for Astro using the MSM star tracker. The 14-24 is very sharp but also very heavy - I did rent it to try. Hudson Henry likes both the 14-24 and 20 for astro, with the 20 obviously a faster lens. I will post some Astro images after this weekend if the cloud cover stays away!!
 

Ken Miracle

Well-known member
Supporting Member
Thread starter
I've been trying to figure this out too and I'm leaning toward the 14-30 because 1) it's lighter, 2) it takes 82mm filters, and 3) I think the image quality is good enough. Everything I've seen about the 14-24mm says it's an outstanding lense, but the 14-30mm is a little sharper than the F mount 14-24mm, especially in the corners. So, I'm thinking it's good enough.
Given how little I use anything under 500mm good enough is a good point.
 

Hut2

Well-known member
Supporting Member
FWIW I have a Sigma 14-24 f/2.8 f mount that I consider an essential part of my gear. Great for landscapes and Astro photography.
I assume the Nikon Z mount would be great
 

BillW

Well-known member
Supporting Member
I have the 14-30 mm f4 and 20 f1.8 S lenses. They are quite good (especially the 20 mm 1.8) and the 14-30 is quite light. I have certainly thought about the 14-24 f2.8 S. While it’s heavier than the 14-30, it‘s also materially lighter than the F mount 14-24. Looks like a great lens.

I’m repeating here something I posted in response to a comment by Ken in the Z9 thread, in case it is interesting to those considering the wide zooms and because it may be more likely to be seen here:

“Yes, the 14-24 f2.8 S lens (which I do not own) takes 112 mm filters that fit on one of the two lens hoods that come with it. One interesting point is that if you put a 112 mm filter on the hood designed to take filters (or a Nisi equivalent hood), you can mount the filter/hood on the 14-24 f2.8 S; the 14-30 f4 S; the 24-70 f2.8 S; or the 70-200 f2.8 using the lens hood bayonet mount on those lenses. I forget where I read that Nikon had designed the hood filter system to be able to be used this way.

I was on a trip to the Icelandic Highlands in September and used mainly a Z7II and Z7 with the 14-30 f4 S; 24-70 f2.8 S; and the 70-200 f2.8 S. I bought two of the Nisi hoods (the Nikon hood that takes filters was not in stock) and a 112 mm 6-stop Nisi ND filter and a 112 mm Nisi polarizer and put one of them on each of the two hoods. That let me put the ND or a polarizer on any of the three lenses. The bayonet mount was quick and the lens hood did not interfere with using the polarizer on any of the lenses. A good design for a system.

I’m hoping that the same hood will fit the new 100-400 mm S lens, although I have not seen anything about it.”
 

Ken Miracle

Well-known member
Supporting Member
Thread starter
FWIW I have a Sigma 14-24 f/2.8 f mount that I consider an essential part of my gear. Great for landscapes and Astro photography.
I assume the Nikon Z mount would be great
I have had a lot of Sigma lenses and all were quite good ... always heavy but good glass and construction and only one had a problem a first run 60-600 sport and it was replaced under warranty.
 

Hut2

Well-known member
Supporting Member
I have had a lot of Sigma lenses and all were quite good ... always heavy but good glass and construction and only one had a problem a first run 60-600 sport and it was replaced under warranty.
The 14-24 art is no exception it is a solid piece piece. I assume the Nikon S is comparable in weight
 

ingweDave

Well-known member
Supporting Member
I really rate the 14-30f4, I also have the 14-24 2.8 f mount. Find the 14-30 a better lens overall. I keep the 14-24 2.8 for occasional astro shots but it will go when the Z9 arrives.
 

Hut2

Well-known member
Supporting Member
I really rate the 14-30f4, I also have the 14-24 2.8 f mount. Find the 14-30 a better lens overall. I keep the 14-24 2.8 for occasional astro shots but it will go when the Z9 arrives.
That being the case he could always go 14-30 f/4 and use his Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 for Astro. It does pretty good at 24mm imo
 

fcotterill

Well-known member
I just investigated this, particularly as I will have to buy an additional 112mm filter or more, but I already have the NiSi 100 and 150 systems, the latter for the Zeiss 15mm f2.8AIP Distagon I modified to screw in the NiSi grad holder with CPL .
It is nice to know Nikon standardized the designed of the bayonet fitting on the 3 dragon Trinity and 14-30 f4S; these all can share the larger HB-97 hood of the 14-24 f2.8S for 112mm screwins (y) although I have yet to read anything about this compatibility admitted to somewhere in a Nikon website?!?

[Yet more evidence that Nikon's "Marketing" Dept must work for some other companies. For what else can one assume....]

"Something seriously cool about the HB-97 lens hood is that it doesn’t just fit the Z 14-24mm f/2.8 S, but also three other Nikon Z lenses so far: the 14-30mm f/4 S, 24-70mm f/2.8 S, and 70-200mm f/2.8 S..."


I have the 14-30 mm f4 and 20 f1.8 S lenses. They are quite good (especially the 20 mm 1.8) and the 14-30 is quite light. I have certainly thought about the 14-24 f2.8 S. While it’s heavier than the 14-30, it‘s also materially lighter than the F mount 14-24. Looks like a great lens.

I’m repeating here something I posted in response to a comment by Ken in the Z9 thread, in case it is interesting to those considering the wide zooms and because it may be more likely to be seen here:

“Yes, the 14-24 f2.8 S lens (which I do not own) takes 112 mm filters that fit on one of the two lens hoods that come with it. One interesting point is that if you put a 112 mm filter on the hood designed to take filters (or a Nisi equivalent hood), you can mount the filter/hood on the 14-24 f2.8 S; the 14-30 f4 S; the 24-70 f2.8 S; or the 70-200 f2.8 using the lens hood bayonet mount on those lenses. I forget where I read that Nikon had designed the hood filter system to be able to be used this way.

I was on a trip to the Icelandic Highlands in September and used mainly a Z7II and Z7 with the 14-30 f4 S; 24-70 f2.8 S; and the 70-200 f2.8 S. I bought two of the Nisi hoods (the Nikon hood that takes filters was not in stock) and a 112 mm 6-stop Nisi ND filter and a 112 mm Nisi polarizer and put one of them on each of the two hoods. That let me put the ND or a polarizer on any of the three lenses. The bayonet mount was quick and the lens hood did not interfere with using the polarizer on any of the lenses. A good design for a system.

I’m hoping that the same hood will fit the new 100-400 mm S lens, although I have not seen anything about it.”
 

Hut2

Well-known member
Supporting Member
I just investigated this, particularly as I will have to buy an additional 112mm filter or more, but I already have the NiSi 100 and 150 systems, the latter for the Zeiss 15mm f2.8AIP Distagon I modified to screw in the NiSi grad holder with CPL .
It is nice to know Nikon standardized the designed of the bayonet fitting on the 3 dragon Trinity and 14-30 f4S; these all can share the larger HB-97 hood of the 14-24 f2.8S for 112mm screwins (y) although I have yet to read anything about this compatibility admitted to somewhere in a Nikon website?!?

[Yet more evidence that Nikon's "Marketing" Dept must work for some other companies. For what else can one assume....]

"Something seriously cool about the HB-97 lens hood is that it doesn’t just fit the Z 14-24mm f/2.8 S, but also three other Nikon Z lenses so far: the 14-30mm f/4 S, 24-70mm f/2.8 S, and 70-200mm f/2.8 S..."

Yes! 👍
 

fcotterill

Well-known member
more from PL review:

"The first thing you’ll notice when using the Nikon Z 14-24mm f/2.8 S, at least if you’ve used a similar lens in the past, is just how light it is. Take a look at the list below of the current ultra-wide f/2.8 lenses from different brands in descending order of weight:

  • Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 A for DSLR: 1150 grams / 2.53 lbs
  • Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8 G2: 1100 grams / 2.42 pounds
  • Nikon F 14-24mm f/2.8: 1000 grams / 2.20 lbs
  • Tokina AT-X 16-28mm f/2.8: 950 grams / 2.09 pounds
  • Sony 12-24mm f/2.8: 847 grams / 1.86 pounds
  • Canon RF 15-30mm f/2.8: 840 grams / 1.85 pounds
  • Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 A for FE & L-mount: 795 grams / 1.75 pounds
  • Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 III: 790 grams / 1.74 pounds
  • Nikon Z 14-24mm f/2.8 S: 650 grams / 1.43 pounds"
 

Ken Miracle

Well-known member
Supporting Member
Thread starter
I have the 14-30 mm f4 and 20 f1.8 S lenses. They are quite good (especially the 20 mm 1.8) and the 14-30 is quite light. I have certainly thought about the 14-24 f2.8 S. While it’s heavier than the 14-30, it‘s also materially lighter than the F mount 14-24. Looks like a great lens.

I’m repeating here something I posted in response to a comment by Ken in the Z9 thread, in case it is interesting to those considering the wide zooms and because it may be more likely to be seen here:

“Yes, the 14-24 f2.8 S lens (which I do not own) takes 112 mm filters that fit on one of the two lens hoods that come with it. One interesting point is that if you put a 112 mm filter on the hood designed to take filters (or a Nisi equivalent hood), you can mount the filter/hood on the 14-24 f2.8 S; the 14-30 f4 S; the 24-70 f2.8 S; or the 70-200 f2.8 using the lens hood bayonet mount on those lenses. I forget where I read that Nikon had designed the hood filter system to be able to be used this way.

I was on a trip to the Icelandic Highlands in September and used mainly a Z7II and Z7 with the 14-30 f4 S; 24-70 f2.8 S; and the 70-200 f2.8 S. I bought two of the Nisi hoods (the Nikon hood that takes filters was not in stock) and a 112 mm 6-stop Nisi ND filter and a 112 mm Nisi polarizer and put one of them on each of the two hoods. That let me put the ND or a polarizer on any of the three lenses. The bayonet mount was quick and the lens hood did not interfere with using the polarizer on any of the lenses. A good design for a system.

I’m hoping that the same hood will fit the new 100-400 mm S lens, although I have not seen anything about it.”
FWIW I have a Sigma 14-24 f/2.8 f mount that I consider an essential part of my gear. Great for landscapes and Astro photography.
I assume the Nikon Z mount would be great
At this time Sigma does not have any s mount lenses for z camras that I can find. A Tamron rep told me that Nikon has not provided them Sigma and other lens makers what they need to make lenses for the s mount for z cameras so would require the FTZ adapter.
 

Ken Miracle

Well-known member
Supporting Member
Thread starter
more from PL review:

"The first thing you’ll notice when using the Nikon Z 14-24mm f/2.8 S, at least if you’ve used a similar lens in the past, is just how light it is. Take a look at the list below of the current ultra-wide f/2.8 lenses from different brands in descending order of weight:

  • Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 A for DSLR: 1150 grams / 2.53 lbs
  • Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8 G2: 1100 grams / 2.42 pounds
  • Nikon F 14-24mm f/2.8: 1000 grams / 2.20 lbs
  • Tokina AT-X 16-28mm f/2.8: 950 grams / 2.09 pounds
  • Sony 12-24mm f/2.8: 847 grams / 1.86 pounds
  • Canon RF 15-30mm f/2.8: 840 grams / 1.85 pounds
  • Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 A for FE & L-mount: 795 grams / 1.75 pounds
  • Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 III: 790 grams / 1.74 pounds
  • Nikon Z 14-24mm f/2.8 S: 650 grams / 1.43 pounds"
I had only used the Tamron 15-30 and not the G2 and it was a big beast.
 

Ken Miracle

Well-known member
Supporting Member
Thread starter
Thank you to all who responded. Since my use will be limited and I do not do astro and I have 82mm filters I just ordered the Nikon s mount 14-30 while it is in stock and on sale.
 

Hut2

Well-known member
Supporting Member
more from PL review:

"The first thing you’ll notice when using the Nikon Z 14-24mm f/2.8 S, at least if you’ve used a similar lens in the past, is just how light it is. Take a look at the list below of the current ultra-wide f/2.8 lenses from different brands in descending order of weight:

  • Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 A for DSLR: 1150 grams / 2.53 lbs
  • Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8 G2: 1100 grams / 2.42 pounds
  • Nikon F 14-24mm f/2.8: 1000 grams / 2.20 lbs
  • Tokina AT-X 16-28mm f/2.8: 950 grams / 2.09 pounds
  • Sony 12-24mm f/2.8: 847 grams / 1.86 pounds
  • Canon RF 15-30mm f/2.8: 840 grams / 1.85 pounds
  • Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 A for FE & L-mount: 795 grams / 1.75 pounds
  • Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 III: 790 grams / 1.74 pounds
  • Nikon Z 14-24mm f/2.8 S: 650 grams / 1.43 pounds"
That's crazy! I don't mind the weight of the Sigma 14-24 art lens because I don't haul it around that often but dang that is amazing how much lighter Nikon made the Z mount and still gets such great results/reviews
 

Hut2

Well-known member
Supporting Member
Thank you to all who responded. Since my use will be limited and I do not do astro and I have 82mm filters I just ordered the Nikon s mount 14-30 while it is in stock and on sale.
Sounds like it will be a great choice according to the experienced owners.
Since you are in are in good location near dark, if you ever do feel like shooting a milky way you could always set up your 24-70 Tamron G2 and get some great shots with it. Kind of fun in the summer going out at night.
 

TonyB

Member
You can do astro with the 14-30 but if that’s your passion, I’d go with something faster like the 20mm f/1.8 or the 14-24 f/2.8. I did a workshop last year at Kissimmee Prairie State Park, a dark sky designated location in central Florida. This was my first and only attempt at astro photography so not something I do a lot of and not worth the additional cost of a faster lens. If I give it another go, I’ll use my f/4 zoom again.

I’m on my iPad so rather than I resize photos for the forum, here’s a link to one from that workshop.

Here’s a link to a sunrise photo with the 14-30 f/4
 

Hut2

Well-known member
Supporting Member
You can do astro with the 14-30 but if that’s your passion, I’d go with something faster like the 20mm f/1.8 or the 14-24 f/2.8. I did a workshop last year at Kissimmee Prairie State Park, a dark sky designated location in central Florida. This was my first and only attempt at astro photography so not something I do a lot of and not worth the additional cost of a faster lens. If I give it another go, I’ll use my f/4 zoom again.

I’m on my iPad so rather than I resize photos for the forum, here’s a link to one from that workshop.

Here’s a link to a sunrise photo with the 14-30 f/4
That's some nice work, I like the moon through the palm fronds photo.
The OCD part of my brain wishes you moved 6 inches to the right but the artistic side says it looks great! 😇

Monument Valley sunset is killer! Have seen it done a lot and this is one of the best, honestly. the bands of color and just the correct amount of sun burst, very nice.
 
Last edited:

TonyB

Member
That's some nice work, I like the moon through the palm fronds photo.
The OCD part of my brain wishes you moved 6 inches left but the artistic side says it looks great! 😇

Monument Valley sunset is killer! Have seen it done a lot and this is one of the best, honestly. the bands of color and just the correct amount of sun burst, very nice.
Thanks so much! I really appreciate your kind feedback.
 
Top