Z 14-30 f/4 vs 14-28S f/2.8

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).

Karl Gillard

Karl Gillard

Well-known member
Supporting Member
Marketplace
Member's gallery
I currently have an F-mount Nikon 14-28mm f/2.8 lens and am switching pretty much all of my equipment to Z lenses. I’ve never seen, except on the computer, or been able to physically hold/use either the Z 14-30 or Z 14-24S. There is about $1,000 price difference in the two, a 1-stop difference in aperture, but I was wondering about quality difference. Honestly, I seldom use my F 14-24 except on vacation landscapes or Milky Way (which I’ve only done twice).
So, I would like your opinions if you have used either or both. Thanks much!
 
Member's gallery
I own the 14-30 as the difference I could see in comparisons was mostly edges and not enough to justify paying double for. Plus you can get a 20 1.8s and 14-30 which would cover low light better and with better optics for night photography for the same price, or a 16mm 1.8 viltrox which still has pretty nice optics. Just my opinion, the 14-24 is a nice lens though.
 
Member's gallery
Lee R said:
I own the 14-30 as the difference I could see in comparisons was mostly edges and not enough to justify paying double for. Plus you can get a 20 1.8s and 14-30 which would cover low light better and with better optics for night photography for the same price, or a 16mm 1.8 viltrox which still has pretty nice optics. Just my opinion, the 14-24 is a nice lens though.
Click to expand...
Lee, is the 14-30 an external zoom lens?
 
Member's gallery
Karl Gillard said:
Lee, is the 14-30 an external zoom lens?
Click to expand...
Yes, very compact though when it’s retracted.

I think you made the right move and the FTZ and 14-24 F is still an excellent lens. I did the same and kept my 20 1.8G, I know the 20 1.8S is a bit sharper but it still works well for me and it’s not a lens I use very often. Have a look at the Viltrox 20 2.8 as it does punch way above its weight for the price and it’s a super compact super light 20mm for the times you just want to sneak it in the bag and not carry a lot of weight around for a maybe I’ll use this situation.
 
Member's gallery
If you do not use it much, it may make sense to keep the F mount 14-24. Still a very good lens. I did not buy that lens for my DSLRs, as it was fairly large and heavy. I used the F 16-35, a lens with its own compromises.

In the Z world, I initially bought the Z 14-30. Nice lens and very small for its focal length range. F4 is a little slow for astro, so I bought a Z 20 mm f1.8 and have used that for Milky Way and northern lights photography. I like the Z 20 mm f1.8 a lot.

I decided to sell the Z 14-30 and buy the Z 14-24, as I was planning on more landscape oriented trips. For landscape work, corners and edges can make a difference. The Z mount version of the 14-24 is much lighter than the F mount version (23 ounces versus 35 ounces). Also, Nikon provides a lens hood (one of two) with the Z 14-24 that takes 112 mm circular filters, making it easier to use filters with the Z mount version than with the F mount version.

I like the Z 14-24 a lot, although there have been a few times traveling where I missed the small size of the Z 14-30.
 
Member's gallery
The 14-24 f2.8S is the better optic, in fact one of the very best zooms ever made, especially in the Ultrawide category. I opted for the 14-30 f4S for less weight, size and also cost. It's for general use but also landscapes, when it's on a tripod at base ISO shut down to f8. The 82mm filter attachment is also very convenient.

I also have a pair of Zeiss Distagon f2.8 primes

Wide angle zoom lens recommendations for Nikon

Seeking recommendations for a good wide angle zoom for Nikon cameras (Z9 and D850). I don’t anticipate a ton of low light situations with outdoor landscapes but I would like to have the option of doing street photography in the evenings or early mornings as well as some situations where there is...
bcgforums.com bcgforums.com

Your choice for owning only one wide angle lens for z mount?

8If you want to own only one of the best wide angle lens for landscape and astrophotography for the Z mount? The lens should be wide open with the best quality image. Will you go for a zoom or a prime and what it will be your choice? I don’t own any lens less than 70mm reach and I only want...
bcgforums.com bcgforums.com

Nikkor Z 14-30mm f/4 S reviews?

I’m contemplating adding the Nikkor Z 14-30mm f/4 S to my gear. Does anyone here use one? If so, what are your thoughts on the overall quality?
bcgforums.com bcgforums.com
 
Member's gallery
Karl Gillard said:
I currently have an F-mount Nikon 14-28mm f/2.8 lens and am switching pretty much all of my equipment to Z lenses. I’ve never seen, except on the computer, or been able to physically hold/use either the Z 14-30 or Z 14-24S. There is about $1,000 price difference in the two, a 1-stop difference in aperture, but I was wondering about quality difference. Honestly, I seldom use my F 14-24 except on vacation landscapes or Milky Way (which I’ve only done twice).
So, I would like your opinions if you have used either or both. Thanks much!
Click to expand...
I was in a similar situation, had the old 14-24 f mount, but got increasingly frustrated with soft corners and poor AF when adapted to my Z8. As I do studio/lifestyle product photography as my 9-5 job, asked the boss to upgrade to the 14-24S. I've only had it a week but am loving the IQ so far, not to mention the improved ergonomics. If you have the money, you won't be sorry with the 14-24!
 
Member's gallery
I recently had the opportunity to trial the Z 14-24 f2.8 and the 14-30 f4 lenses with a Z8 body over several days. I am not a pixel peeper so probably not the best person to comment about image quality comparisons. But recognising they are both 'S' series lenses, the glass and images taken with both lenses should be top quality.

What I can add is their physical differences. The 14-24 f2.8 is a beast of a lens. It is physically large and if filters are required, I suggest the front screw-on ones would not be cheap. The front of the lens moves in and out within the overall lens housing, so no real physical changes when altering focal lengths. This lens coupled to the Z8 is substantial in size.

Whereas the 14-30 f4 lens is much more compact and light in weight. The lens locks down so is compact when moving about or stored in your backpack. When you are ready to shoot you rotate the lens out from its rest position and select your focal length. This is the first time I have experienced such a lens that locks away. The Z8 alerts you to rotate the focal length in preparation to shoot. In other words, you cannot use this lens when it is compacted down. I quickly got use to the start-up and finish process when using the 14-30 lens. The lens physically extends in and out depending upon the focal length. It takes a much more 82mm accessible filter.

My current thinking after trialling these 2 (and other Z lenses) is that when I migrate to mirrorless and assuming I stay with Nikon, the 14-30mm lens would suit the majority of my wide angle shooting. I am happy to forego the f2.8 aperture and save money and physical size and go with its f4 sibling.

Good luck with your decision.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
I bought the Z14-30s f/4 for $$$ to avoid spending so much on another great Nikon lens. I have received the most wonderful comments on many photos from this lens combined either my Z5 or Z6ii. It works without problems , excellent clarity, easily fit filters on it if needed.
 
Member's gallery
I have the 14-30 with my Z8. Everything you have heard above plus the video reviews all point to your decision is really determined by your needs. I do not do Astro or Studio work. The constant f/4 has worked for my interior shots wonderfully. And so far, I have not regretted not having the f/2.8 once. While cost should factor into any decision; why would I spend more $$$ when my critical requirements were size and weight? If size and weight are not critical...and cost is not a factor, then I would go with the 14-28.
 
Member's gallery
jbk2forum said:
I have the 14-30 with my Z8. Everything you have heard above plus the video reviews all point to your decision is really determined by your needs. I do not do Astro or Studio work. The constant f/4 has worked for my interior shots wonderfully. And so far, I have not regretted not having the f/2.8 once. While cost should factor into any decision; why would I spend more $$$ when my critical requirements were size and weight? If size and weight are not critical...and cost is not a factor, then I would go with the 14-28.
Click to expand...

I went 14-30 as well, for compact size and I don't have any need for F2.8. It's not like using a 14-30 is a step down in quality compared to the 14-24, it's still excellent lens.

I would only buy the 14-24 2.8 if you really need or want that extra light because it's a huge lens and heavy in comparison for a tiny difference in output quality. Remember we live in a world where half the people you show a print too can't tell the difference if it came from an iphone wide angle or a 14-24.

If I shot astro I would look really carefully at the 20 1.8 first instead of the 14-24. Both the 14-30 and 20 1.8 can be had for the same price as the 14-24 and cover your bases, both will be lighter for the specific application and the 20 1.8 is the sharpest for that application.

I think there's also some who just want whatever is the most expensive just because and it just itches to much inside to not have what they consider the peak of performance. If that's you buy the 14-24, 14-30 and the 20 1.8!
 
Member's gallery
I bought the Z14-24 because I read so many good things about it and I wasn't disappointed. It was an improvement on the old F mount version, especially in terms of size and weight. Then I saw a used Z14-30 for an incredibly good price so I bought it and did testing in my garden between the 2 lens. The Z14-24 was noticeably sharper at 14mm (both at f4) but by 20mm they were barely distinguishable. In fact the 14-30 was sharper in the left corner, I can only assume because the 14-24 was not perfect. In any case, because I'm not printing my photos I thought what was the point of keeping the 14-24 when the other was much lighter for travel (when I'd mainly be using it) and I could get up to 30mm. So I sold the 14-24 and have never had one regret. When I look at the photos taken with the 14-30, I am impressed by how sharp they are. However if you are a stickler for the ultimate sharpness then the 14-24 is the way to go.
 
Member's gallery
Lee R said:
I went 14-30 as well, for compact size and I don't have any need for F2.8. It's not like using a 14-30 is a step down in quality compared to the 14-24, it's still excellent lens.

I would only buy the 14-24 2.8 if you really need or want that extra light because it's a huge lens and heavy in comparison for a tiny difference in output quality. Remember we live in a world where half the people you show a print too can't tell the difference if it came from an iphone wide angle or a 14-24.

If I shot astro I would look really carefully at the 20 1.8 first instead of the 14-24. Both the 14-30 and 20 1.8 can be had for the same price as the 14-24 and cover your bases, both will be lighter for the specific application and the 20 1.8 is the sharpest for that application.

I think there's also some who just want whatever is the most expensive just because and it just itches to much inside to not have what they consider the peak of performance. If that's you buy the 14-24, 14-30 and the 20 1.8!
Click to expand...
I’ve had both the Z 14-30 and Z 14-24. Currently I have only the Z 14-24.

I would not say that the Z 14-24 is a huge lens and heavy. It weighs 23 ounces, only about 6 ounces more than the Z 14-30 which weighs 17.1 ounces. In contrast, the F mount version was 35.3 ounces.

When the Z 14-30 is retracted, it is certainly smaller. That’s nice in your camera bag or backpack. The lens hood system for using 112 mm filters is bigger, of course, than simply using 82 mm filters on the Z 14-30. (Interestingly, the Z 14-24 lens hood that accepts 112 mm filters also fits the Z 14-30, along with the Z 24-70 f2.8, Z 70-200, and Plena lenses.)

I’m quite happy with the Z 14-24 lens. I think it is better in the corners and edges. But the Z 14-30 is a very good lens and there are times when I wish I’d kept it too.
 
Member's gallery
BillW said:
I’ve had both the Z 14-30 and Z 14-24. Currently I have only the Z 14-24.

I would not say that the Z 14-24 is a huge lens and heavy. It weighs 23 ounces, only about 6 ounces more than the Z 14-30 which weighs 17.1 ounces. In contrast, the F mount version was 35.3 ounces.

When the Z 14-30 is retracted, it is certainly smaller. That’s nice in your camera bag or backpack. The lens hood system for using 112 mm filters is bigger, of course, than simply using 82 mm filters on the Z 14-30. (Interestingly, the Z 14-24 lens hood that accepts 112 mm filters also fits the Z 14-30, along with the Z 24-70 f2.8, Z 70-200, and Plena lenses.)

I’m quite happy with the Z 14-24 lens. I think it is better in the corners and edges. But the Z 14-30 is a very good lens and there are times when I wish I’d kept it too.
Click to expand...
I don’t think the 14-24 is bad it’s a great lens, I just don’t have the need for what it offers. I don’t do Astro or typically super low light wide angle and I’m plenty happy with the corners on the 14-30. I know it’s a bit sharper in the corners but nobody I show images too ever comments on how sharp the image is, just if it’s interesting and composition is good. Basically all the lenses today are so good overall it’s hard to find one so far gone for sharpness than the average viewer comments on it detracting from the work. Certainly not the difference between the 14-24 or 14-30.

I would buy it though if low light or Astro was something I did often as it’s the right tool for the job, or if corner sharpness was somehow critical to the work so much that I needed the difference. None of those factors apply to my shooting though and the lighter weight and lower price are worth more for me.

But overall we have two amazing options for wide zooms in Z mount and I don’t think you can go wrong with either.

I also think it’s going to get really tough for camera manufacturers as more people get content with how good what they have is rather than needing a sliver more performance. In a way the 14-30 probably has dinged the 14-24 sales numbers.
 
Member's gallery
As noted above…it is 2.8 instead of f4 and ’better’, hence the price different. But…while it is better when pixel peeping…is it really that much better when downsampled to whatever size is needed for the output? Dunno…but physics tells us that the 2:1 differences get a lot closer when downsampled, particularly if it’s screen display ouput. Whether the difference is worth the weight, size, price, and filters extra cost is worth it depends on the user…and their needs and wants. I’ve said before…better is the enemy of good enough…and pros probably can justify the need for the better…but for the rest of us the answer isn’t as clear. I went with the 14-30 and never considered the more $$ and weight 2.8 lens because the costs outweighed the benefits for me…especially as a guy who almost exclusively outputs for the screen.
 
Member's gallery
Anjin San said:
As noted above…it is 2.8 instead of f4 and ’better’, hence the price different. But…while it is better when pixel peeping…is it really that much better when downsampled to whatever size is needed for the output? Dunno…but physics tells us that the 2:1 differences get a lot closer when downsampled, particularly if it’s screen display ouput. Whether the difference is worth the weight, size, price, and filters extra cost is worth it depends on the user…and their needs and wants. I’ve said before…better is the enemy of good enough…and pros probably can justify the need for the better…but for the rest of us the answer isn’t as clear. I went with the 14-30 and never considered the more $$ and weight 2.8 lens because the costs outweighed the benefits for me…especially as a guy who almost exclusively outputs for the screen.
Click to expand...
If I were a pro I’d probably be thinking the 14-30 is good enough but have a nagging phobia that my image would somehow end up critiqued against the 14-24 (or whatever brand equivalent) and with a professional reputation on the line and how competitive photography is it must feel almost like a relief to just remove that possibility from ever being a factor. Fortunately I’m just shooting purely for fun, but I would have that worry if I was in the game against others.

I agree with perfect is the enemy of good with so many lens options.
 
Member's gallery
It all depends on what you mostly shooting. 14-30/4 is a good travel lens. F mount 14-24 does not accept filters and its z equivalent is by far better lens and accepts filters. For ASTRO and landscapes 20/1.8 is great choice. I tried Viltrox and sent it back. Vignetting, especially at night, is not acceptable. Budget is important, but IMO value is important as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top