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.2 #1My 14-30mm f/4 Z tests
snapsy wrote:
Just added vignetting results to the OP with the Singh-Ray Vari ND 82mm filter.
The Vari-ND is probably not a good way to test vignetting on a SWA. It is one fat filter, and one that does not work particularly well at 14-16mm anyway. I just screwed on a slim Haida 3 stop ND on mine and compared subjectively in the corners (with correction enabled). While you could definitely see additional vignetting, it was quite smooth and tolerable, and a small price to pay for not having to lug around a WonderPana system.
Still, it is somewhat disappointing that Nikon took such liberties at 14mm with a lens at this price point.
Just added vignetting results to the OP with the Singh-Ray Vari ND 82mm filter.
The Vari-ND is probably not a good way to test vignetting on a SWA. It is one fat filter, and one that does not work particularly well at 14-16mm anyway. I just screwed on a slim Haida 3 stop ND on mine and compared subjectively in the corners (with correction enabled). While you could definitely see additional vignetting, it was quite smooth and tolerable, and a small price to pay for not having to lug around a WonderPana system.
Still, it is somewhat disappointing that Nikon took such liberties at 14mm with a lens at this price point.
Apr 24, 2019 at 10:35 PM
p.2 #2My 14-30mm f/4 Z tests
GroovyGeek wrote:
The Vari-ND is probably not a good way to test vignetting on a SWA. It is one fat filter, and one that does not work particularly well at 14-16mm anyway. I just screwed on a slim Haida 3 stop ND on mine and compared subjectively in the corners (with correction enabled). While you could definitely see additional vignetting, it was quite smooth and tolerable, and a small price to pay for not having to lug around a WonderPana system.
Still, it is somewhat disappointing that Nikon took such liberties at 14mm with a lens at this price point.
It was strictly a test of the filter's vignetting - it wasn't meant to test vignetting of the lens. I did a separate vignetting test of the lens in the OP.
snapsy wrote
Just added vignetting results to the OP with the Singh-Ray Vari ND 82mm filter.Still, it is somewhat disappointing that Nikon took such liberties at 14mm with a lens at this price point.
It was strictly a test of the filter's vignetting - it wasn't meant to test vignetting of the lens. I did a separate vignetting test of the lens in the OP.
Apr 24, 2019 at 10:55 PM
p.2 #3My 14-30mm f/4 Z tests
snapsy wrote:
The Vari-ND is probably not a good way to test vignetting on a SWA. It is one fat filter, and one that does not work particularly well at 14-16mm anyway. I just screwed on a slim Haida 3 stop ND on mine and compared subjectively in the corners (with correction enabled). While you could definitely see additional vignetting, it was quite smooth and tolerable, and a small price to pay for not having to lug around a WonderPana system.
Still, it is somewhat disappointing that Nikon took such liberties at 14mm with a lens at this price point.It was strictly a test of the filter's vignetting - it wasn't meant to test vignetting of the lens. I did a separate vignetting test of the lens in the OP.
Understood, but the way it was written may have left some with the impression that any ND filter will cause significant vignetting. At least for the Haida Slim Pro II filters that is not the case, and any similarly thin filter should behave that way.
An aside - since the 14-30 Z is likely to be my primary lens for the foreseable future, I have slapped 82mm adapter rings on every other lens I am likely to use regularly. I was ***shocked*** to discover that Breakthrough photography actually has a reasonably priced product in their catalog
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01J6ZKGQM/
This is no small feat, particularly since they want to convince potential customers to shell out $35 for an adapter ring, and apparently there are hundreds of takers of that value proposition out there
https://www.amazon.com/Breakthrough-Photography-Step-Up-Machined-Electroplated/dp/B01CZA8BAS/
This is even more surprising in light of Nikon asking for $25 for the LC-82B, which would have caused me to peg any similar BT product at around $50
(takes out flack jacket and retreats in anticipation of incoming projectiles from the BT groupies :-)
GroovyGeek wrote
snapsy wrote
Just added vignetting results to the OP with the Singh-Ray Vari ND 82mm filter.Still, it is somewhat disappointing that Nikon took such liberties at 14mm with a lens at this price point.
Understood, but the way it was written may have left some with the impression that any ND filter will cause significant vignetting. At least for the Haida Slim Pro II filters that is not the case, and any similarly thin filter should behave that way.
An aside - since the 14-30 Z is likely to be my primary lens for the foreseable future, I have slapped 82mm adapter rings on every other lens I am likely to use regularly. I was ***shocked*** to discover that Breakthrough photography actually has a reasonably priced product in their catalog
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01J6ZKGQM/
This is no small feat, particularly since they want to convince potential customers to shell out $35 for an adapter ring, and apparently there are hundreds of takers of that value proposition out there
https://www.amazon.com/Breakthrough-Photography-Step-Up-Machined-Electroplated/dp/B01CZA8BAS/
This is even more surprising in light of Nikon asking for $25 for the LC-82B, which would have caused me to peg any similar BT product at around $50
(takes out flack jacket and retreats in anticipation of incoming projectiles from the BT groupies :-)
Apr 25, 2019 at 12:04 AM
p.2 #4My 14-30mm f/4 Z tests
I ran some tests on what the impact of vignetting corrections in cases of substantial under-exposure, for example if you are shooting landscapes into the sun and need to under-expose substantially to keep highlights under control.
The quick test was a fairly uniformly illuminated room, which I shot at 14mm, f/4, ISO=800, at -3eV and then brought up +3eV in PS. I then cropped out two areas from the under-exposed image - one fairly far away from the corner, the other one in the extreme lower right corner. These are images #2 and #3. In real life the extreme lower corner is closest to the illumination and the brightest part of the scene. The vignetting correction is clearly affecting the ability to recover shadows in the corners even at moderate ISO.
I then repeated the tests at ISO=3200. As expected, the corner impacts are even more significant there. These are images #4 and #5.
Sigh, I shoot into the sun quite often and am going to have to think about this lens really hard over the coming weeks, while I am still within the return window.
14mm, f/4, ISO=800, EV=-3 brought up 3 stops in PS, whole image
14mm, f/4, ISO=800, EV=-3 brought up 3 stops in PS, crop away from corners
14mm, f/4, ISO=800, EV=-3 brought up 3 stops in PS, crop in extreme lower right corner
14mm, f/4, ISO=3200, EV=-3 brought up 3 stops in PS, crop away from corners
14mm, f/4, ISO=3200, EV=-3 brought up 3 stops in PS, crop in extreme lower right corner
The quick test was a fairly uniformly illuminated room, which I shot at 14mm, f/4, ISO=800, at -3eV and then brought up +3eV in PS. I then cropped out two areas from the under-exposed image - one fairly far away from the corner, the other one in the extreme lower right corner. These are images #2 and #3. In real life the extreme lower corner is closest to the illumination and the brightest part of the scene. The vignetting correction is clearly affecting the ability to recover shadows in the corners even at moderate ISO.
I then repeated the tests at ISO=3200. As expected, the corner impacts are even more significant there. These are images #4 and #5.
Sigh, I shoot into the sun quite often and am going to have to think about this lens really hard over the coming weeks, while I am still within the return window.
14mm, f/4, ISO=800, EV=-3 brought up 3 stops in PS, whole image
14mm, f/4, ISO=800, EV=-3 brought up 3 stops in PS, crop away from corners
14mm, f/4, ISO=800, EV=-3 brought up 3 stops in PS, crop in extreme lower right corner
14mm, f/4, ISO=3200, EV=-3 brought up 3 stops in PS, crop away from corners
14mm, f/4, ISO=3200, EV=-3 brought up 3 stops in PS, crop in extreme lower right corner
Apr 25, 2019 at 02:00 AM
p.2 #5My 14-30mm f/4 Z tests
GroovyGeek wrote:
I ran some tests on what the impact of vignetting corrections in cases of substantial under-exposure, for example if you are shooting landscapes into the sun and need to under-expose substantially to keep highlights under control.
The quick test was a fairly uniformly illuminated room, which I shot at 14mm, f/4, ISO=800, at -3eV and then brought up +3eV in PS. I then cropped out two areas from the under-exposed image - one fairly far away from the corner, the other one in the extreme lower right corner. These are images #2 and #3. In real life the extreme lower...Show more →
How often do you expect to shoot -3EV underexposed into the sun at ISO 3200 and f/4?
I ran some tests on what the impact of vignetting corrections in cases of substantial under-exposure, for example if you are shooting landscapes into the sun and need to under-expose substantially to keep highlights under control.
The quick test was a fairly uniformly illuminated room, which I shot at 14mm, f/4, ISO=800, at -3eV and then brought up +3eV in PS. I then cropped out two areas from the under-exposed image - one fairly far away from the corner, the other one in the extreme lower right corner. These are images #2 and #3. In real life the extreme lower...Show more →
How often do you expect to shoot -3EV underexposed into the sun at ISO 3200 and f/4?
Apr 25, 2019 at 04:02 AM
p.2 #6My 14-30mm f/4 Z tests
Hmmm....Jim Kasson over on DPR has some concerning initial observations from his copy...
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62594132
I'm still very interested in this lens, but given the significant performance "quirks" identified so far and the relative high cost, I'll let my perorder go and be content to observe from the sidelines for now.
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62594132
I'm still very interested in this lens, but given the significant performance "quirks" identified so far and the relative high cost, I'll let my perorder go and be content to observe from the sidelines for now.
Apr 25, 2019 at 06:26 AM
p.2 #7My 14-30mm f/4 Z tests
Never. But I expect to be shooting night scenes at these settings with some regularity. And with those significant fraction of the frame is significantly underexposed almost by definition.
snapsy wrote:
The quick test was a fairly uniformly illuminated room, which I shot at 14mm, f/4, ISO=800, at -3eV and then brought up +3eV in PS. I then cropped out two areas from the under-exposed image - one fairly far away from the corner, the other one in the extreme lower right corner. These are images #2 and #3. In real life the extreme lower corner is closest to the illumination and the brightest part of the scene. The vignetting correction is clearly affecting the ability to recover shadows in the corners even at moderate ISO.
I then repeated the tests at ISO=3200. As expected, the corner impacts are even more significant there. These are images #4 and #5.
Sigh, I shoot into the sun quite often and am going to have to think about this lens really hard over the coming weeks, while I am still within the return window.How often do you expect to shoot -3EV underexposed into the sun at ISO 3200 and f/4?
snapsy wrote:
GroovyGeek wrote
I ran some tests on what the impact of vignetting corrections in cases of substantial under-exposure, for example if you are shooting landscapes into the sun and need to under-expose substantially to keep highlights under control.The quick test was a fairly uniformly illuminated room, which I shot at 14mm, f/4, ISO=800, at -3eV and then brought up +3eV in PS. I then cropped out two areas from the under-exposed image - one fairly far away from the corner, the other one in the extreme lower right corner. These are images #2 and #3. In real life the extreme lower corner is closest to the illumination and the brightest part of the scene. The vignetting correction is clearly affecting the ability to recover shadows in the corners even at moderate ISO.
I then repeated the tests at ISO=3200. As expected, the corner impacts are even more significant there. These are images #4 and #5.
Sigh, I shoot into the sun quite often and am going to have to think about this lens really hard over the coming weeks, while I am still within the return window.
Apr 25, 2019 at 08:49 AM
p.2 #8My 14-30mm f/4 Z tests
GroovyGeek wrote:
Never. But I expect to be shooting night scenes at these settings with some regularity. And with those significant fraction of the frame is significantly underexposed almost by definition.
The quick test was a fairly uniformly illuminated room, which I shot at 14mm, f/4, ISO=800, at -3eV and then brought up +3eV in PS. I then cropped out two areas from the under-exposed image - one fairly far away from the corner, the other one in the extreme lower right corner. These are images #2 and #3. In real life the extreme lower corner is closest to the illumination and the brightest part of the scene. The vignetting correction is clearly affecting the ability to recover shadows in the corners even at moderate ISO.
I then repeated the tests at ISO=3200. As expected, the corner impacts are even more significant there. These are images #4 and #5.
Sigh, I shoot into the sun quite often and am going to have to think about this lens really hard over the coming weeks, while I am still within the return window.How often do you expect to shoot -3EV underexposed into the sun at ISO 3200 and f/4?
Vignetting wouldn't be noticeable in most night scenes.
Never. But I expect to be shooting night scenes at these settings with some regularity. And with those significant fraction of the frame is significantly underexposed almost by definition.
snapsy wrote
GroovyGeek wrote
I ran some tests on what the impact of vignetting corrections in cases of substantial under-exposure, for example if you are shooting landscapes into the sun and need to under-expose substantially to keep highlights under control.The quick test was a fairly uniformly illuminated room, which I shot at 14mm, f/4, ISO=800, at -3eV and then brought up +3eV in PS. I then cropped out two areas from the under-exposed image - one fairly far away from the corner, the other one in the extreme lower right corner. These are images #2 and #3. In real life the extreme lower corner is closest to the illumination and the brightest part of the scene. The vignetting correction is clearly affecting the ability to recover shadows in the corners even at moderate ISO.
I then repeated the tests at ISO=3200. As expected, the corner impacts are even more significant there. These are images #4 and #5.
Sigh, I shoot into the sun quite often and am going to have to think about this lens really hard over the coming weeks, while I am still within the return window.
Vignetting wouldn't be noticeable in most night scenes.
Apr 25, 2019 at 09:11 AM
p.2 #9My 14-30mm f/4 Z tests
snapsy wrote:
Vignetting wouldn't be noticeable in most night scenes.
But noise associated with a forced 3 stop recovery would. Unless I took a dusk image and then a night image and am blending them together most of the time a night scene requires a good amount of shadow recovery to bring out important detaiIs. The Nikon vignetting correction would stack on top of that.
I understand that in night scenes you can get away with a fairly heavy handed noise reduction. I also acknowledge that the 14-30 has value to many, myself included, even with its warts. I am just surprised at the amount of compromise Nikon accepted in the optical design of a $1300 lens. It is not only the heavy handed vignetting correction, but also similarly aggressive distortion correction.
I am getting a sense that with all these compromises the 14-30 will occupy a space in the Z lineup similar to that of the 16-35 in the F lineup - lots of compromises that are enough to drive down the overall value substantially. The 16-35 currently retails for $1100 but selling a minty used one for more than $650 is slow going.
Vignetting wouldn't be noticeable in most night scenes.
But noise associated with a forced 3 stop recovery would. Unless I took a dusk image and then a night image and am blending them together most of the time a night scene requires a good amount of shadow recovery to bring out important detaiIs. The Nikon vignetting correction would stack on top of that.
I understand that in night scenes you can get away with a fairly heavy handed noise reduction. I also acknowledge that the 14-30 has value to many, myself included, even with its warts. I am just surprised at the amount of compromise Nikon accepted in the optical design of a $1300 lens. It is not only the heavy handed vignetting correction, but also similarly aggressive distortion correction.
I am getting a sense that with all these compromises the 14-30 will occupy a space in the Z lineup similar to that of the 16-35 in the F lineup - lots of compromises that are enough to drive down the overall value substantially. The 16-35 currently retails for $1100 but selling a minty used one for more than $650 is slow going.
Apr 25, 2019 at 12:03 PM
p.2 #10My 14-30mm f/4 Z tests
GroovyGeek wrote:
I am getting a sense that with all these compromises the 14-30 will occupy a space in the Z lineup similar to that of the 16-35 in the F lineup - lots of compromises that are enough to drive down the overall value substantially. The 16-35 currently retails for $1100 but selling a minty used one for more than $650 is slow going.
I believe when the dust settles this will not end up being true at all. The 16-35 f4 can't compete with the F mount 14-24 f2.8 in terms of IQ but from what I've seen so far the 14-30 f4 not only competes but might be a noticeably better lens in most ways. To over emphasize the compromises of the 14-30 f4 while at the same time marginalizing the advantages is a mistake in my opinion. This is especially true when those compromises aren't being quantified in most if not all of the comments I've seen.
I am getting a sense that with all these compromises the 14-30 will occupy a space in the Z lineup similar to that of the 16-35 in the F lineup - lots of compromises that are enough to drive down the overall value substantially. The 16-35 currently retails for $1100 but selling a minty used one for more than $650 is slow going.
I believe when the dust settles this will not end up being true at all. The 16-35 f4 can't compete with the F mount 14-24 f2.8 in terms of IQ but from what I've seen so far the 14-30 f4 not only competes but might be a noticeably better lens in most ways. To over emphasize the compromises of the 14-30 f4 while at the same time marginalizing the advantages is a mistake in my opinion. This is especially true when those compromises aren't being quantified in most if not all of the comments I've seen.
Apr 25, 2019 at 12:32 PM
p.2 #11My 14-30mm f/4 Z tests
The relevant comparison for the 14-30Z will be the 14-24Z, not the 14-24g. I doubt that Nikon will take similar liberties with a ~$3k lens, though until yesterday I would have said the same about a $1.3k lens.
The potential benefits of the 14-30Z are undeniable. Unless mine turns out to be as decentered as Snapsy's I am keeping it, as I just can't see myself going back to a 14-24g behemoth. As I have said before, this lens is THE reason I bought a mk1 Z camera. Part of the reason for the handwringing (from me at least) is the combination of price and all the glowing early access reviews, which either were not allowed to talk about this or were oblivious to it. That set a high bar.
The potential benefits of the 14-30Z are undeniable. Unless mine turns out to be as decentered as Snapsy's I am keeping it, as I just can't see myself going back to a 14-24g behemoth. As I have said before, this lens is THE reason I bought a mk1 Z camera. Part of the reason for the handwringing (from me at least) is the combination of price and all the glowing early access reviews, which either were not allowed to talk about this or were oblivious to it. That set a high bar.
Apr 25, 2019 at 02:49 PM
p.2 #12My 14-30mm f/4 Z tests
GroovyGeek wrote:
But noise associated with a forced 3 stop recovery would. Unless I took a dusk image and then a night image and am blending them together most of the time a night scene requires a good amount of shadow recovery to bring out important detaiIs. The Nikon vignetting correction would stack on top of that.
I understand that in night scenes you can get away with a fairly heavy handed noise reduction. I also acknowledge that the 14-30 has value to many, myself included, even with its warts. I am just surprised at the amount of compromise Nikon accepted in...Show more →
Again, with a night scene you typically don't see the vignetting so there's nothing to correct, so I'm not following your argument. You could simply turn off the Vignetting correction setting in the camera for those scenarios, which will prevent the Z from embedding the correction profile into the raw.
snapsy wrote
Vignetting wouldn't be noticeable in most night scenes.I understand that in night scenes you can get away with a fairly heavy handed noise reduction. I also acknowledge that the 14-30 has value to many, myself included, even with its warts. I am just surprised at the amount of compromise Nikon accepted in...Show more →
Again, with a night scene you typically don't see the vignetting so there's nothing to correct, so I'm not following your argument. You could simply turn off the Vignetting correction setting in the camera for those scenarios, which will prevent the Z from embedding the correction profile into the raw.
Apr 25, 2019 at 03:13 PM
p.2 #13My 14-30mm f/4 Z tests
I would like to contribute a little to this thread. So I throw in corner shot at 100% corner crop at 800x800 for 14-30/4 and throw in 14-24/2.8 and Sigma Art 14/1.8 for comparison. To my surprise, Sigma Art appears to be the worse. May be I just have a bad copy. I pretty much only use the Sigma for Milky Way shot. Oh well.....
I open NEF file in PS so whatever baked in lens correction is on. I did increase brightness in 14-30 @F4 a little bit due to vignette but did not adjust anything in F8 shot. All shot on tripod with 5s delay.
test 14-30 by Suteetat S, on Flickr
To my eyes, the corner, around400x400 pixel right in the corner, there is no contest, 14-24/2.8 is clearly better at F4 than 14-30 at F4 and still better than 14-30 even stepping down to F8 a little. However, once you pass the 500-600 pixel mark from the corner, I actually think that 14-30 at F4 has a slight edge over 14-24/2.8 at F4.
For me, I think the trade off is well worth it. Sacrificing a small portion in the extreme corner, (500x500 x 4 which is 1mp if my math is correct) for size, weight and filter compatibility is reasonable. The rest of the 45mp, if anything, 14-30 is better than 14-24/2.8 except for 1 stop advantage that 14-24 has.
PS
14-30 test 2 by Suteetat S, on Flickr
Here are shots at left border about halfway between top and bottom corner. I increased brightness of 14-30 shot a little bit otherwise no other adjustment in PS.
I open NEF file in PS so whatever baked in lens correction is on. I did increase brightness in 14-30 @F4 a little bit due to vignette but did not adjust anything in F8 shot. All shot on tripod with 5s delay.
test 14-30 by Suteetat S, on FlickrTo my eyes, the corner, around400x400 pixel right in the corner, there is no contest, 14-24/2.8 is clearly better at F4 than 14-30 at F4 and still better than 14-30 even stepping down to F8 a little. However, once you pass the 500-600 pixel mark from the corner, I actually think that 14-30 at F4 has a slight edge over 14-24/2.8 at F4.
For me, I think the trade off is well worth it. Sacrificing a small portion in the extreme corner, (500x500 x 4 which is 1mp if my math is correct) for size, weight and filter compatibility is reasonable. The rest of the 45mp, if anything, 14-30 is better than 14-24/2.8 except for 1 stop advantage that 14-24 has.
PS
14-30 test 2 by Suteetat S, on FlickrHere are shots at left border about halfway between top and bottom corner. I increased brightness of 14-30 shot a little bit otherwise no other adjustment in PS.
Apr 25, 2019 at 06:02 PM
p.2 #14My 14-30mm f/4 Z tests
GroovyGeek wrote:
The relevant comparison for the 14-30Z will be the 14-24Z, not the 14-24g. I doubt that Nikon will take similar liberties with a ~$3k lens, though until yesterday I would have said the same about a $1.3k lens.
The potential benefits of the 14-30Z are undeniable. Unless mine turns out to be as decentered as Snapsy's I am keeping it, as I just can't see myself going back to a 14-24g behemoth. As I have said before, this lens is THE reason I bought a mk1 Z camera. Part of the reason for the handwringing (from me at least) is the...Show more →
There was a "gag order" (from Nikon) for reviewers to not publish any uncorrected images ... i.e. publish ONLY camera corrected images (according to one reviewer).
That was my clue that we'd have to find out about the warts on our own.
The relevant comparison for the 14-30Z will be the 14-24Z, not the 14-24g. I doubt that Nikon will take similar liberties with a ~$3k lens, though until yesterday I would have said the same about a $1.3k lens.
The potential benefits of the 14-30Z are undeniable. Unless mine turns out to be as decentered as Snapsy's I am keeping it, as I just can't see myself going back to a 14-24g behemoth. As I have said before, this lens is THE reason I bought a mk1 Z camera. Part of the reason for the handwringing (from me at least) is the...Show more →
There was a "gag order" (from Nikon) for reviewers to not publish any uncorrected images ... i.e. publish ONLY camera corrected images (according to one reviewer).
That was my clue that we'd have to find out about the warts on our own.
Apr 25, 2019 at 07:30 PM
p.2 #15My 14-30mm f/4 Z tests
suteetat wrote:
I would like to contribute a little to this thread. So I throw in corner shot at 100% corner crop at 800x800 for 14-30/4 and throw in 14-24/2.8 and Sigma Art 14/1.8 for comparison. To my surprise, Sigma Art appears to be the worse. May be I just have a bad copy. I pretty much only use the Sigma for Milky Way shot. Oh well.....
I open NEF file in PS so whatever baked in lens correction is on. I did increase brightness in 14-30 @F4 a little bit due to vignette but did not adjust anything in F8 shot. All...Show more →
Thank you for posting these, are they taken at 14mm? Almost all of the samples I've seen so far were taken at 14mm so if you happened to take any at other focal lengths please post those if you can.
I would like to contribute a little to this thread. So I throw in corner shot at 100% corner crop at 800x800 for 14-30/4 and throw in 14-24/2.8 and Sigma Art 14/1.8 for comparison. To my surprise, Sigma Art appears to be the worse. May be I just have a bad copy. I pretty much only use the Sigma for Milky Way shot. Oh well.....
I open NEF file in PS so whatever baked in lens correction is on. I did increase brightness in 14-30 @F4 a little bit due to vignette but did not adjust anything in F8 shot. All...Show more →
Thank you for posting these, are they taken at 14mm? Almost all of the samples I've seen so far were taken at 14mm so if you happened to take any at other focal lengths please post those if you can.
Apr 25, 2019 at 07:41 PM
p.2 #16My 14-30mm f/4 Z tests
RustyBug wrote:
The potential benefits of the 14-30Z are undeniable. Unless mine turns out to be as decentered as Snapsy's I am keeping it, as I just can't see myself going back to a 14-24g behemoth. As I have said before, this lens is THE reason I bought a mk1 Z camera. Part of the reason for the handwringing (from me at least) is the combination of price and all the glowing early access reviews, which either were not allowed to talk about this or were oblivious to it. That set a high bar.There was a "gag order" (from Nikon) for reviewers to not publish any uncorrected images ... i.e. publish ONLY camera corrected images (according to one reviewer).
That was my clue that we'd have to find out about the warts on our own.
If the warts aren't visible in the corrected images then why do you need to find out about them?
GroovyGeek wrote
The relevant comparison for the 14-30Z will be the 14-24Z, not the 14-24g. I doubt that Nikon will take similar liberties with a ~$3k lens, though until yesterday I would have said the same about a $1.3k lens.The potential benefits of the 14-30Z are undeniable. Unless mine turns out to be as decentered as Snapsy's I am keeping it, as I just can't see myself going back to a 14-24g behemoth. As I have said before, this lens is THE reason I bought a mk1 Z camera. Part of the reason for the handwringing (from me at least) is the combination of price and all the glowing early access reviews, which either were not allowed to talk about this or were oblivious to it. That set a high bar.
That was my clue that we'd have to find out about the warts on our own.
If the warts aren't visible in the corrected images then why do you need to find out about them?
Apr 25, 2019 at 07:43 PM
p.2 #17My 14-30mm f/4 Z tests
RobCD wrote:
The potential benefits of the 14-30Z are undeniable. Unless mine turns out to be as decentered as Snapsy's I am keeping it, as I just can't see myself going back to a 14-24g behemoth. As I have said before, this lens is THE reason I bought a mk1 Z camera. Part of the reason for the handwringing (from me at least) is the combination of price and all the glowing early access reviews, which either were not allowed to talk about this or were oblivious to it. That set a high bar.There was a "gag order" (from Nikon) for reviewers to not publish any uncorrected images ... i.e. publish ONLY camera corrected images (according to one reviewer).
That was my clue that we'd have to find out about the warts on our own.If the warts aren't visible in the corrected images then why do you need to find out about them?
Well, for those using software other than OEM ... good to know what you're gonna be up against.
RustyBug wrote
GroovyGeek wrote
The relevant comparison for the 14-30Z will be the 14-24Z, not the 14-24g. I doubt that Nikon will take similar liberties with a ~$3k lens, though until yesterday I would have said the same about a $1.3k lens.The potential benefits of the 14-30Z are undeniable. Unless mine turns out to be as decentered as Snapsy's I am keeping it, as I just can't see myself going back to a 14-24g behemoth. As I have said before, this lens is THE reason I bought a mk1 Z camera. Part of the reason for the handwringing (from me at least) is the combination of price and all the glowing early access reviews, which either were not allowed to talk about this or were oblivious to it. That set a high bar.
That was my clue that we'd have to find out about the warts on our own.
Well, for those using software other than OEM ... good to know what you're gonna be up against.
Apr 25, 2019 at 07:50 PM
p.2 #18My 14-30mm f/4 Z tests
During my lunch break today I did some measurebating with a nice brick wall at the office. The mosaics below are at 14mm, in the upper left, upper center, upper right and lower left, lower center, and lower right portions of the frame. All images are hand-held but in bright sunshine, min shitter speed was 1/100. At this point I am satisfied that my copy does not look decentered (at least not grossly so, though there is a very slight issue in the lower left corner). I need to do a few more careful tests at infinity focus, but from what I saw today things are OK there too.
I also took similar snaps over the entire focal range of the 14-30 and 24-70, but don't have the patience to put them together for posting here. The 14-30 at 16mm looks quite similar, and cleans up by 20mm both in therms of the slight blurring and the vignetting. The 24-70 wide open is marginally better in the corners at 24mm, but not dramatically so.
14mm, f/4
14mm, f/11
I also took similar snaps over the entire focal range of the 14-30 and 24-70, but don't have the patience to put them together for posting here. The 14-30 at 16mm looks quite similar, and cleans up by 20mm both in therms of the slight blurring and the vignetting. The 24-70 wide open is marginally better in the corners at 24mm, but not dramatically so.
14mm, f/4
14mm, f/11
Apr 25, 2019 at 09:40 PM
p.2 #19My 14-30mm f/4 Z tests
RobCD wrote:
suteetat wrote
I would like to contribute a little to this thread. So I throw in corner shot at 100% corner crop at 800x800 for 14-30/4 and throw in 14-24/2.8 and Sigma Art 14/1.8 for comparison. To my surprise, Sigma Art appears to be the worse. May be I just have a bad copy. I pretty much only use the Sigma for Milky Way shot. Oh well.....I open NEF file in PS so whatever baked in lens correction is on. I did increase brightness in 14-30 @F4 a little bit due to vignette but did not adjust anything in F8 shot. All shot on tripod with 5s delay.
To my eyes, the corner, around400x400 pixel right in the corner, there is no contest, 14-24/2.8 is clearly better at F4 than 14-30 at F4 and still better than 14-30 even stepping down to F8 a little. However, once you pass the 500-600 pixel mark from the corner, I actually think that 14-30 at F4 has a slight edge over 14-24/2.8 at F4.
For me, I think the trade off is well worth it. Sacrificing a small portion in the extreme corner, (500x500 x 4 which is 1mp if my math is correct) for size, weight and filter compatibility is reasonable. The rest of the 45mp, if anything, 14-30 is better than 14-24/2.8 except for 1 stop advantage that 14-24 has.
Yes all were taken at 14mm as I wanted to compare 14-30 against my Sigma Art 14/1.8 as well.
Apr 25, 2019 at 11:00 PM
p.2 #20My 14-30mm f/4 Z tests
Here is an informal test against Sony A7r iii + 12-24/4@ 14mm.
Z7 is with 14-30/4@ 14mm. Both at F4, ibis off (VR off on Z7, steady shot off on Sony), tripod, shutter release delay, RAW file with no adjustment added, opened in PS both with software correction on.
left column in Sony and right column is Nikon.
From top to bottom, left upper corner, left edge halfway between top and bottom, slightly off center where I used smallest focus point to AF. It was not dead center as in 14mm frame there is a building that is significantly closer to me than other buildings in the background dead center.
16-30 vs 12-24 by Suteetat S, on Flickr
Sony has better extreme corner, edge is a close call either way, slight edge for Nikon for slightly off center.
Z7 is with 14-30/4@ 14mm. Both at F4, ibis off (VR off on Z7, steady shot off on Sony), tripod, shutter release delay, RAW file with no adjustment added, opened in PS both with software correction on.
left column in Sony and right column is Nikon.
From top to bottom, left upper corner, left edge halfway between top and bottom, slightly off center where I used smallest focus point to AF. It was not dead center as in 14mm frame there is a building that is significantly closer to me than other buildings in the background dead center.
16-30 vs 12-24 by Suteetat S, on FlickrSony has better extreme corner, edge is a close call either way, slight edge for Nikon for slightly off center.
Apr 26, 2019 at 06:39 PM