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

[framingpoint]

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.

But if I print 40x60?

 

[Nature Files]

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.

The 14-24 S lens is not "huge and heavy". In fact, I was shocked at how light it was compared to the F mount version.

 

[Lee R]

The 14-24 S lens is not "huge and heavy". In fact, I was shocked at how light it was compared to the F mount version.

Compared to the F mount, no it's svelt, compared to the 14-30? It's quite a lot more space in a bag and half a pound more. I consider that huge and heavy. I pack pretty light when I travel and use a 6L peak design sling. That 14-24 would mean two less primes in my bag. I can get a ZF or Z8, 14-30, 24-200, 26 2.8 and 40 F2 in that 6L. That's not happening with the 14-24.

It's a good lens and i agree it's a lot lighter than the F, and smaller, I value light weight/size a lot for travel and will use lenses like the 40 F2 because the weight savings means more to me than the image quality which I consider plenty good enough. There really are no bad Z lenses for image quality so far.

 

[Anjin San]

But if I print 40x60?

Even at 40x60…I’m not sure the difference will be really discernible if looked at from a normal viewing distance as it is supposed to be corners where the 2.8 lens is better and stopping down as is typical for landscapes will help some. Only you can decide if the $$, filter, and weight penalty is worth it…it wouldn’t be for me but I’m a great believer in better is the enemy of good enough.

 

[O]

Think I’ve answered my own question gang! As little as I use the F-mount 14-24 f/2.8, it probably just makes more sense to keep it and use the FTZ II adapter. But thank you for the suggestions!

There is always better different newer more expensive and there is nothing wrong embracing that.

What do these two cars both have in common..........
A new state of the art electric car with every modern technical self drive option or a 15 year old 1.8 ltr Toyota Corolla at a 10th the cost, answer, both get you to the corner store or across state, just differently and at a different cost, above all how often do you use it is what really matters to many people.

If its critical and a very very special event renting what you need is an option.

The 14-24 F 2.8 G is now selling here used for $900 AUD or USD $585. I have one, i love it and use it often but cant see the benefit in buying the S version for what i do.

Yes its nicer to have the new S lens but again only if you use it often and are doing a lot of video i guess.

As to F4 versus F2.8, many club members have the 16-35 G F4, while 20% sharper in the center but softer in the corners (vignetting) they all want F2.8 for Low light and Astro work, or they want F1.8, ok that's a specific need and logical.

If your in good light and wanting to do all round travel work then F4 is fine they say.

Tools are tools, is the new 14-24 S version better ?, yes in certain ways clearly, optically yes but can the viewer actually see the difference to the G............?

A Tangent, for me its the photo that matters, not the technical excellence so much, below is a JPEG snap shot taken while i was sailing in Tasmania, the Dumb Camera was the 16mp DF and yep the old F mount 28-300 at 44mm hand held while bouncing across the waves...........
or could it have been the Z9 and a 50mm 1.8S ????

The photo below could no doubt be further enhanced in PS or LR.....if one wanted to, its a case were F2.8 wasn't needed LOL.

The DF and 28-300 with ISO floated to 12800, is one of my favorite travel buddy's, just cant crop as hard when needed with 16mp hence the lens.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[westpalmdoc]

Think I’ve answered my own question gang! As little as I use the F-mount 14-24 f/2.8, it probably just makes more sense to keep it and use the FTZ II adapter. But thank you for the suggestions!

I wasnt using my 14-24 much either, because it didnt take filters and was a nightmare using the Lee system. this new 14-24 will take filters (big expensive ones) which is a HUGE plus for me. that ftz adaptor will unfortunately make the whole kit even bigger.

 

[O]

I wasnt using my 14-24 much either, because it didnt take filters and was a nightmare using the Lee system. this new 14-24 will take filters (big expensive ones) which is a HUGE plus for me. that ftz adaptor will unfortunately make the whole kit even bigger.

Its a very good point that the filter solution is a bonus that is for certain, smaller lighter is another definite benefit.

I guess its all dependent on cost and use questioning is it worth it.

If i was doing a real lot of 14-24 photography i would defiantly invest in newer lenses like
the F2.8 every time, if i was traveling on holidays or doing 3-4 day hikes and just wanted memories then defiantly the F4.

However at this focal range of 14-24 and the new wide angle capabilities of say something like a I Phone 15 pro max and the 16 looming along with Ai, there is a very real element of vulnerability to the traditional camera system. As we know its becoming incredible as to what can be achieved these days with some of the premium smart phones especially creatively.

Below is a the 14-24 G hand held on the old D3X at ground level after the bush fires, the original image is much more impactful to look at but hey the lens is still a brilliant tool considering the cost is running around $580 USD used for F2.8, honestly size and weight isn't a major issue if doing serious work.

Click on the image for more detail.
D3X 14-24 at 24mm -1 exp 1/125 F8 iso 100

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[O]

In reflection, 14-24 G 14-24 S, 14-30 f4 etc

It’s always good to hear of peoples experiences, i guess that's how we learn.
All said and done, i am a lover of light, F2.8, F1.8, F1.4, on a 300mm prime its F2.8, on 600mm prime its F4.
I won’t sell the F2.8 G as it meets all my needs.
If i do landscapes i use my D850 over the Z8, or recently sold Z9.
As to filters i use the Lee "Holder" the base flange ring of that holder is permanently mounted on the 14-24 G.
I use the 6.6 inch Schneider 4mm shot glass square GND and ND glass filters and have since the beginning of time as i have a huge collection of these filters even creative ones used in film applications.
A second filter adapter i have can screw on to any lens with a thread, i use step up step down rings, i can use my filters on 24-70, 28-300, 50mm, 85mm, etc etc
So i guess its a system i don't want to rebuild or reinvent as what i have does all i want.
I do use the 14-24 G for street and paparazzi shoots, also for nature and creative shoots.
If i fly or travel extensively and on the go, hey the smart phones can be a blessing LOL

Yes the 14-24 G is a brick large etc but when i do creative landscapes seriously its the only lens i take with the filter kit and tri pod.
F2.8 glass gathers great light = micro contrast and detail.

Only an opinion