This topic is in the 2019 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2019My 14-30mm f/4 Z tests
p.1 #1My 14-30mm f/4 Z tests
Got my copy yesterday and performed my usual tests.
First, here's an animated GIF showing the lens with and without lens corrections, to demonstrate the effect on FOV and distortion. The method I used to disable the built-in lens corrections is described here.
Nikon 14-30mm FOV and Distortion, With and Without Lens Corrections (Animated GIF)
And here's a comparison showing the acuity loss from lens corrections. This is the extreme right edge at 14mm @ f/8. Also notice how the correction introduces some CA. This is probably a side-effect of imperfect CA correction applied across channels of the WarpRectilinear transformation applied during the geometric correction.
Nikon 14-30mm Acuity Loss (and CA) at extreme edge from Lens Correction @ f/14 (Animated GIF)
Here's a comparison showing Adobe ACR vs Nikon's Capture NX-D in terms of application of the Nikon-supplied embedded lens correction profile. They appear about identical to my eyes.
Adobe ACR vs Nikon Capture NX-D for lens correction, 14mm f/8, upper-left extreme corner
Here is a full focal length/aperture series on a Z7 showing full-field lens performance at infinity distances. Focused at center, electronic shutter, timer release, IBIS off. These are full-size images - shot raw and processed in LR with 45/0.7/35 sharpening and exposure adjustments (highlight reduction and shadow boost, esp on left edge due to uneven lighting):
14mm: f/4 f/5.6 f/8
16mm: f/4 f/5.6 f/8
20mm: f/4 f/5.6 f/8
24mm: f/4 f/5.6 f/8
30mm: f/4 f/5.6 f/8
Here's a full focal length/aperture series of the extreme bottom edge and bottom corners, taken at intermediate distances:
14mm: f/4 f/5.6 f/8
16mm: f/4 f/5.6 f/8
20mm: f/4 f/5.6 f/8
24mm: f/4 f/5.6 f/8
30mm: f/4 f/5.6 f/8
My copy is tilted, causing the bottom corners to be much softer at 14mm vs the top corners. Here's a comparison of all four corners at 14mm at both f/4 and f/8, with distortion correction:
Nikon 14-30mm Corner Tilt Test @ 14mm
And a composite image showing the full top vs bottom edges and corners @ 14mm (with distortion correction):
Nikon 14-30, Top vs Bottom full edges @ 14mm, f/4 and f/8
Here are vignetting measurements. These are images of a clear, blue sky shot through a semi-opaque acrylic sheet (photo of setup). This is with geometric and vignetting lens corrections disabled - note that vignetting is less with geometric corrections applied since those corrections crop off a portion of the corners. First an animated GIF at each major focal length and aperture.
Nikon 14-30mm Vignetting (Animated GIF)
And here are actual raw vignetting measurements at 14mm, measured via 100x100 squares of the center vs extreme right corner.
Nikon 14-30mm Raw Vignetting Measurements @ 14mm
The 14-30mm is unique in that it takes standard 82mm filters. However, being an UWA lens one would expect a bit of hard vignetting when using filters. I just tried it with my Sing-Ray Vari ND filter. Vignetting is pretty severe at 14mm but disappears entirely at 19mm. Here are the photos - these are with built-in Vignetting correction enabled:
Nikon 14-30mm Vignetting with Singh-Ray 82mm Vari ND Filter, 14mm f/4
Nikon 14-30mm Vignetting with Singh-Ray 82mm Vari ND Filter, 19mm f/4
Here is a field curvature test I performed at 14mm, 20mm, and 30mm (infinity). I perform this test by taking two photos at each focal length - the first focused via the center (AF) and the second focused via the extreme corner (MF, top-left corner in this case). These are with the built-in geometric lens profile corrections enabled. Because my copy is noticeably tilted at 14mm the results at that focal length are not to be trusted as a field-curvature measurement for the basic design (even though I used the top edge/corners of the FOV, which are much sharper than the bottom edge/corners). That said, the tilt yielded very interested results. When focused via the center, the center area and 1/3 fields are sharp (as expected). However when focused at the upper left corner, that corner is sharp (as expected) but then the image quickly gets very soft, and remains soft across the entire top edge until the extreme right edge/corner where it becomes sharp again. I believe this is a manifestation of the tilt, and in fact demonstrates how focusing via the center vs corners is also a good way to determine if a lens has a tilted element (particularly is the field curvature for that lens is a known quantity). Also note how the FOV for 14mm changes slightly between the center vs corner focusing cases.
Observations: Outside of the 14-16mm area where my copy has severe tilt, there is little to no field curvature observed at 20mm and 30mm at infinity distances. Also, corner performance is excellent at 20mm through 30mm.
Nikon 14-30mm Field Curvature Test (14mm, 20mm, and 30mm)
Edited on Apr 27, 2019 at 07:45 PM · View previous versions
First, here's an animated GIF showing the lens with and without lens corrections, to demonstrate the effect on FOV and distortion. The method I used to disable the built-in lens corrections is described here.
Nikon 14-30mm FOV and Distortion, With and Without Lens Corrections (Animated GIF)
And here's a comparison showing the acuity loss from lens corrections. This is the extreme right edge at 14mm @ f/8. Also notice how the correction introduces some CA. This is probably a side-effect of imperfect CA correction applied across channels of the WarpRectilinear transformation applied during the geometric correction.
Nikon 14-30mm Acuity Loss (and CA) at extreme edge from Lens Correction @ f/14 (Animated GIF)
Here's a comparison showing Adobe ACR vs Nikon's Capture NX-D in terms of application of the Nikon-supplied embedded lens correction profile. They appear about identical to my eyes.
Adobe ACR vs Nikon Capture NX-D for lens correction, 14mm f/8, upper-left extreme corner
Here is a full focal length/aperture series on a Z7 showing full-field lens performance at infinity distances. Focused at center, electronic shutter, timer release, IBIS off. These are full-size images - shot raw and processed in LR with 45/0.7/35 sharpening and exposure adjustments (highlight reduction and shadow boost, esp on left edge due to uneven lighting):
14mm: f/4 f/5.6 f/8
16mm: f/4 f/5.6 f/8
20mm: f/4 f/5.6 f/8
24mm: f/4 f/5.6 f/8
30mm: f/4 f/5.6 f/8
Here's a full focal length/aperture series of the extreme bottom edge and bottom corners, taken at intermediate distances:
14mm: f/4 f/5.6 f/8
16mm: f/4 f/5.6 f/8
20mm: f/4 f/5.6 f/8
24mm: f/4 f/5.6 f/8
30mm: f/4 f/5.6 f/8
My copy is tilted, causing the bottom corners to be much softer at 14mm vs the top corners. Here's a comparison of all four corners at 14mm at both f/4 and f/8, with distortion correction:
Nikon 14-30mm Corner Tilt Test @ 14mm
And a composite image showing the full top vs bottom edges and corners @ 14mm (with distortion correction):
Nikon 14-30, Top vs Bottom full edges @ 14mm, f/4 and f/8
Here are vignetting measurements. These are images of a clear, blue sky shot through a semi-opaque acrylic sheet (photo of setup). This is with geometric and vignetting lens corrections disabled - note that vignetting is less with geometric corrections applied since those corrections crop off a portion of the corners. First an animated GIF at each major focal length and aperture.
Nikon 14-30mm Vignetting (Animated GIF)
And here are actual raw vignetting measurements at 14mm, measured via 100x100 squares of the center vs extreme right corner.
Nikon 14-30mm Raw Vignetting Measurements @ 14mm
The 14-30mm is unique in that it takes standard 82mm filters. However, being an UWA lens one would expect a bit of hard vignetting when using filters. I just tried it with my Sing-Ray Vari ND filter. Vignetting is pretty severe at 14mm but disappears entirely at 19mm. Here are the photos - these are with built-in Vignetting correction enabled:
Nikon 14-30mm Vignetting with Singh-Ray 82mm Vari ND Filter, 14mm f/4
Nikon 14-30mm Vignetting with Singh-Ray 82mm Vari ND Filter, 19mm f/4
Here is a field curvature test I performed at 14mm, 20mm, and 30mm (infinity). I perform this test by taking two photos at each focal length - the first focused via the center (AF) and the second focused via the extreme corner (MF, top-left corner in this case). These are with the built-in geometric lens profile corrections enabled. Because my copy is noticeably tilted at 14mm the results at that focal length are not to be trusted as a field-curvature measurement for the basic design (even though I used the top edge/corners of the FOV, which are much sharper than the bottom edge/corners). That said, the tilt yielded very interested results. When focused via the center, the center area and 1/3 fields are sharp (as expected). However when focused at the upper left corner, that corner is sharp (as expected) but then the image quickly gets very soft, and remains soft across the entire top edge until the extreme right edge/corner where it becomes sharp again. I believe this is a manifestation of the tilt, and in fact demonstrates how focusing via the center vs corners is also a good way to determine if a lens has a tilted element (particularly is the field curvature for that lens is a known quantity). Also note how the FOV for 14mm changes slightly between the center vs corner focusing cases.
Observations: Outside of the 14-16mm area where my copy has severe tilt, there is little to no field curvature observed at 20mm and 30mm at infinity distances. Also, corner performance is excellent at 20mm through 30mm.
Nikon 14-30mm Field Curvature Test (14mm, 20mm, and 30mm)
Edited on Apr 27, 2019 at 07:45 PM · View previous versions
Apr 23, 2019 at 09:37 AM
p.1 #2My 14-30mm f/4 Z tests
Thank you so much for the time taken to do these tests and sharing with the forum. 
Apr 23, 2019 at 09:47 AM
p.1 #3My 14-30mm f/4 Z tests
Thanks.
So ... What would you say the 14mm corrected FOV winds up being? 14.5mm, 15mm, 15.5mm, 16mm, etc.
So ... What would you say the 14mm corrected FOV winds up being? 14.5mm, 15mm, 15.5mm, 16mm, etc.
Apr 23, 2019 at 11:34 AM
p.1 #5My 14-30mm f/4 Z tests
snapsy wrote:
Got my copy yesterday and performed my usual tests.
First, here's an animated GIF showing the lens with and without lens corrections, to demonstrate the effect on FOV and distortion. The method I used to disable the built-in lens corrections is described here.
Nikon 14-30mm FOV and DIstortion, With and Without Lens Corrections (Animated GIF)
And here's a comparison showing the acuity loss from lens corrections. This is the extreme right edge at 14mm @ f/8. Also notice how the correction introduces some CA. This is probably a side-effect of imperfect CA correction applied across channels of the WarpRectilinear transformation applied during the...Show more →
Thanks for posting! Haven't had to shoot mine much lately because most of my work is on the tele end, but hoping to get some travel in soon to give it more of a test. So far really impressed by the sharpness.
Got my copy yesterday and performed my usual tests.
First, here's an animated GIF showing the lens with and without lens corrections, to demonstrate the effect on FOV and distortion. The method I used to disable the built-in lens corrections is described here.
Nikon 14-30mm FOV and DIstortion, With and Without Lens Corrections (Animated GIF)
And here's a comparison showing the acuity loss from lens corrections. This is the extreme right edge at 14mm @ f/8. Also notice how the correction introduces some CA. This is probably a side-effect of imperfect CA correction applied across channels of the WarpRectilinear transformation applied during the...Show more →
Thanks for posting! Haven't had to shoot mine much lately because most of my work is on the tele end, but hoping to get some travel in soon to give it more of a test. So far really impressed by the sharpness.
Apr 23, 2019 at 03:37 PM
p.1 #6My 14-30mm f/4 Z tests
RustyBug wrote:
Thanks.
So ... What would you say the 14mm corrected FOV winds up being? 14.5mm, 15mm, 15.5mm, 16mm, etc.
Or, the resolution reduction (depending on how you might correct) ?
Thanks.
So ... What would you say the 14mm corrected FOV winds up being? 14.5mm, 15mm, 15.5mm, 16mm, etc.
Or, the resolution reduction (depending on how you might correct) ?
Apr 23, 2019 at 05:01 PM
p.1 #7My 14-30mm f/4 Z tests
RustyBug wrote:
So ... What would you say the 14mm corrected FOV winds up being? 14.5mm, 15mm, 15.5mm, 16mm, etc.Or, the resolution reduction (depending on how you might correct) ?
Not sure about the absolute focal length distances - the effort required to calculate that exceeds my curiosity about it
There's an animated GIF in the OP showing the effect on extreme edge resolution from the correction at 14mm.
RustyBug wrote
Thanks.So ... What would you say the 14mm corrected FOV winds up being? 14.5mm, 15mm, 15.5mm, 16mm, etc.
Not sure about the absolute focal length distances - the effort required to calculate that exceeds my curiosity about it
There's an animated GIF in the OP showing the effect on extreme edge resolution from the correction at 14mm.
Apr 23, 2019 at 05:22 PM
p.1 #9My 14-30mm f/4 Z tests
snapsy wrote:
So ... What would you say the 14mm corrected FOV winds up being? 14.5mm, 15mm, 15.5mm, 16mm, etc.Or, the resolution reduction (depending on how you might correct) ?Not sure about the absolute focal length distances - the effort required to calculate that exceeds my curiosity about it
There's an animated GIF in the OP showing the effect on extreme edge resolution from the correction at 14mm.
Yup, thanks. Just wondered if you had determined that already. Thanks again.
RustyBug wrote
RustyBug wrote
Thanks.So ... What would you say the 14mm corrected FOV winds up being? 14.5mm, 15mm, 15.5mm, 16mm, etc.
There's an animated GIF in the OP showing the effect on extreme edge resolution from the correction at 14mm.
Yup, thanks. Just wondered if you had determined that already. Thanks again.
Apr 23, 2019 at 06:11 PM
p.1 #10My 14-30mm f/4 Z tests
I believe Nikon claims that the wide Z-mount would enable them to produce superior wide angle lenses. Looking at the results of this test, I don't think that my Nikon 14-24/2.8 shows this kind of distortion, not to mention my Zeiss zf 15/2.8 or 25/2 primes. Using the two Zeiss lenses in the DX crop mode gives me additional focal lengths of 21 and 35 mm, one to two stops faster and with much better IQ.
Apr 23, 2019 at 06:34 PM
p.1 #11My 14-30mm f/4 Z tests
GiantTristan wrote:
I believe Nikon claims that the wide Z-mount would enable them to produce superior wide angle lenses. Looking at the results of this test, I don't think that my Nikon 14-24/2.8 shows this kind of distortion, not to mention my Zeiss zf 15/2.8 or 25/2 primes. Using the two Zeiss lenses in the DX crop mode gives me additional focal lengths of 21 and 35 mm, one to two stops faster and with much better IQ.
It's beginning to look like Nikon may have compromised a bit too much with the 14-30S trying to keep it small and light with a flat front element. Since the 14-30/4S is primarily a landscapers lens, Nikon might have been better to stick to, say, 16-30 or so to yield better corners. But there's little doubt the 14-24/2.8S will easily best the old 14-24G model.
I believe Nikon claims that the wide Z-mount would enable them to produce superior wide angle lenses. Looking at the results of this test, I don't think that my Nikon 14-24/2.8 shows this kind of distortion, not to mention my Zeiss zf 15/2.8 or 25/2 primes. Using the two Zeiss lenses in the DX crop mode gives me additional focal lengths of 21 and 35 mm, one to two stops faster and with much better IQ.
It's beginning to look like Nikon may have compromised a bit too much with the 14-30S trying to keep it small and light with a flat front element. Since the 14-30/4S is primarily a landscapers lens, Nikon might have been better to stick to, say, 16-30 or so to yield better corners. But there's little doubt the 14-24/2.8S will easily best the old 14-24G model.
Apr 23, 2019 at 07:54 PM
p.1 #12My 14-30mm f/4 Z tests
Gary Irwin wrote:
It's beginning to look like Nikon may have compromised a bit too much with the 14-30S trying to keep it small and light with a flat front element. Since the 14-30/4S is primarily a landscapers lens, Nikon might have been better to stick to, say, 16-30 or so to yield better corners.
If so, this will be a big blow to Nikon. The competition right now is fierce and there is little room for mediocre lenses even if it's smaller and accepts filters. Hopefully, things will start to balance themselves out as more copies are tested and reviewed. I'll have this lens soon but I won't have it long if it proves to be less capable than similar UWA zooms.
GiantTristan wrote
I believe Nikon claims that the wide Z-mount would enable them to produce superior wide angle lenses. Looking at the results of this test, I don't think that my Nikon 14-24/2.8 shows this kind of distortion, not to mention my Zeiss zf 15/2.8 or 25/2 primes. Using the two Zeiss lenses in the DX crop mode gives me additional focal lengths of 21 and 35 mm, one to two stops faster and with much better IQ.If so, this will be a big blow to Nikon. The competition right now is fierce and there is little room for mediocre lenses even if it's smaller and accepts filters. Hopefully, things will start to balance themselves out as more copies are tested and reviewed. I'll have this lens soon but I won't have it long if it proves to be less capable than similar UWA zooms.
Apr 23, 2019 at 10:02 PM
p.1 #13My 14-30mm f/4 Z tests
I can confirm that at 14mm there is corner softness and heavy corner vignetting when unadjusted. I do not use Nikon's Capture NX-D or Adobe RAW or Lightroom, but use Capture One Pro which does not use automatic correction, nor does it have them available for the 14-30 f4S or the 24-70 f2.8S yet - it does for the 24-70 f4S.
Adjusting for the distortion greatly removes the corner vignetting and some of the corner softness. The edges look pretty good.
My opinion of this lens is that is an extremely sharp lens, great contrast, great colour just let down at 14mm - 15/16mm by the extreme corners but they get better once you dial out the distortion, but not completely. It has hands down better than the old 16-35 f4VR, and is sharper than the old 14-24 f2.8G in all but the corners at 14mm. I think it also has better colour accuracy than the 14-24 f2.8G. It is similar in sharpness to my Tamron 15-30 f2.8 and I think that is high praise for such a small lens like this that doesn't require a bulbous front element and is so small and light.
For me it is still an excellent little lens because at the end of the day, it is rare that I shoot parallel to the ground and will then adjust for keystone in post therefore removing much of the corner issue in most images. Adjusting for distortion pretty much fixes the rest. If we know the limitations, then we can work with them to use this lens at it's best areas and that may mean taking an image at 14mm full well realising that you may need to crop a tad to maybe 15-16mm. As a travel lens it will be perfect for me and dare I say many of us and if you know how to work the lens, it is a superb 16-30, as sharp as any other lens in this range. I would have no hesitation in using it instead of my Tamron 15-30 f2.8 as I may only be giving up 1mm to it at the wide end if I really must and to save over half a kg and much bulk it is a winner.
For those of us that must have the ultimate wide angle that has less to no compromises, then we may have to wait for the 14-24 f2.8S, but it will probably only be the corners at 14 to maybe 16mm that it will be better, possibly not a real difference across the rest of the image.
Just my early opinion after reviewing a few images so far.
Adjusting for the distortion greatly removes the corner vignetting and some of the corner softness. The edges look pretty good.
My opinion of this lens is that is an extremely sharp lens, great contrast, great colour just let down at 14mm - 15/16mm by the extreme corners but they get better once you dial out the distortion, but not completely. It has hands down better than the old 16-35 f4VR, and is sharper than the old 14-24 f2.8G in all but the corners at 14mm. I think it also has better colour accuracy than the 14-24 f2.8G. It is similar in sharpness to my Tamron 15-30 f2.8 and I think that is high praise for such a small lens like this that doesn't require a bulbous front element and is so small and light.
For me it is still an excellent little lens because at the end of the day, it is rare that I shoot parallel to the ground and will then adjust for keystone in post therefore removing much of the corner issue in most images. Adjusting for distortion pretty much fixes the rest. If we know the limitations, then we can work with them to use this lens at it's best areas and that may mean taking an image at 14mm full well realising that you may need to crop a tad to maybe 15-16mm. As a travel lens it will be perfect for me and dare I say many of us and if you know how to work the lens, it is a superb 16-30, as sharp as any other lens in this range. I would have no hesitation in using it instead of my Tamron 15-30 f2.8 as I may only be giving up 1mm to it at the wide end if I really must and to save over half a kg and much bulk it is a winner.
For those of us that must have the ultimate wide angle that has less to no compromises, then we may have to wait for the 14-24 f2.8S, but it will probably only be the corners at 14 to maybe 16mm that it will be better, possibly not a real difference across the rest of the image.
Just my early opinion after reviewing a few images so far.
Apr 24, 2019 at 01:45 AM
p.1 #14My 14-30mm f/4 Z tests
Lance B wrote:
... it is a superb 16-30, as sharp as any other lens in this range.
...and that's plenty good enough for me.
Thanks as always Lance!
... it is a superb 16-30, as sharp as any other lens in this range.
...and that's plenty good enough for me.
Thanks as always Lance!
Apr 24, 2019 at 06:14 AM
p.1 #15My 14-30mm f/4 Z tests
Thank you for your work, snapsy 
. Can you show us an exposure series with one and two lens filters screwed together?
Someone showed it here, but only with one filter:
https://www.dslr-forum.de/showpost.php?p=15457619&postcount=47
For me it looks very good at 14mm. I expected more vignetting at 14mm.
. Can you show us an exposure series with one and two lens filters screwed together? Someone showed it here, but only with one filter:
https://www.dslr-forum.de/showpost.php?p=15457619&postcount=47
For me it looks very good at 14mm. I expected more vignetting at 14mm.
Apr 24, 2019 at 08:47 AM
p.1 #16My 14-30mm f/4 Z tests
Snapsy, thanks very much for a very useful and clear test. Thanks Lance too, for a very nice summary. Let's keep this lens in perspective. It is the slower and cheaper of the two wide zooms we know about. I think it is clearly superior to the Sony 16-35 f/4, and although maybe not quite as good as the Sony G 12-24 f/4 it isn't too far behind. That lens is much loved, but has a lot of the same type of software corrections we see with this lens. In fact, I think if they were both available for the same system I would not choose between them based on image quality but rather on the range of focal lengths I wanted covered. This is a strong lens for Nikon--a solid B+--and while everyone would like an A or A+ (like I would rate the 50 f/1.8 S) type of lens every time, we simply aren't going to get that with every lens and it is less likely with any zoom. Let's see this lens for what it is--a very good lens, not an exceptional lens--but realize that it is a lens that does allow Nikon to build capacity for their new mirrorless line. Not a bad outcome at all even if we could have hoped for better.
Apr 24, 2019 at 09:18 AM
p.1 #17My 14-30mm f/4 Z tests
Lance B wrote:
I would have no hesitation in using it instead of my Tamron 15-30 f2.8 as I may only be giving up 1mm to it at the wide end if I really must and to save over half a kg and much bulk it is a winner.
It's good to note that Tamron 15-30 is 15mm only on paper - in reality it's closer to 16mm.
I would have no hesitation in using it instead of my Tamron 15-30 f2.8 as I may only be giving up 1mm to it at the wide end if I really must and to save over half a kg and much bulk it is a winner.
It's good to note that Tamron 15-30 is 15mm only on paper - in reality it's closer to 16mm.
Apr 24, 2019 at 09:21 AM
p.1 #18My 14-30mm f/4 Z tests
Just added vignetting results to the OP with the Singh-Ray Vari ND 82mm filter.
Apr 24, 2019 at 01:58 PM
p.1 #19My 14-30mm f/4 Z tests
tek9 wrote:
It's good to note that Tamron 15-30 is 15mm only on paper - in reality it's closer to 16mm.
Good point and I was going to bring that up in my original post above but forgot to mention it. So, in reality, the 14-30 is the equal of the Tamron at the wide end but not at the long end: 30mm compared to 35mm and f4 compared to f2.8. However, for the size and weight saving, the 14-30 is a winner, IMO. I don't use f2.8 anyway!
Lance B wrote
I would have no hesitation in using it instead of my Tamron 15-30 f2.8 as I may only be giving up 1mm to it at the wide end if I really must and to save over half a kg and much bulk it is a winner.Good point and I was going to bring that up in my original post above but forgot to mention it. So, in reality, the 14-30 is the equal of the Tamron at the wide end but not at the long end: 30mm compared to 35mm and f4 compared to f2.8. However, for the size and weight saving, the 14-30 is a winner, IMO. I don't use f2.8 anyway!
Apr 24, 2019 at 08:05 PM