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.3 #1My 14-30mm f/4 Z tests
suteetat wrote:
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...Show more →
Looks like Zone A is Nikon's trump card.
From other thread.
RustyBug wrote:
My experience with historic Nikon WA / UWA lenses has been that Nikon has favored central (Zone A) sharpness over corners (Zone C), or over distortion. In that regard, the move to such a short flange distance for the MILC (i.e. shorter than Canon MILC) plays to their preference for Zone A, allowing for compromises elsewhere to varying degree.
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...Show more →
Looks like Zone A is Nikon's trump card.
From other thread.
RustyBug wrote:
My experience with historic Nikon WA / UWA lenses has been that Nikon has favored central (Zone A) sharpness over corners (Zone C), or over distortion. In that regard, the move to such a short flange distance for the MILC (i.e. shorter than Canon MILC) plays to their preference for Zone A, allowing for compromises elsewhere to varying degree.
Apr 26, 2019 at 07:08 PM
p.3 #2My 14-30mm f/4 Z tests
RustyBug wrote:
suteetat wrote
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.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/32765622797_ee7c1e05cd_o.jpg16-30 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.
From other thread.
RustyBug wrote
My experience with historic Nikon WA / UWA lenses has been that Nikon has favored central (Zone A) sharpness over corners (Zone C), or over distortion. In that regard, the move to such a short flange distance for the MILC (i.e. shorter than Canon MILC) plays to their preference for Zone A, allowing for compromises elsewhere to varying degree.Pick your poison. When Nikon produced 24-70/2.8e VR, with slightly less sharpness in zone A but much better zone C than its predecessor and competitors, people cried foul. Now Nikon went with zone A and B and sacrificed extreme zone C, people still cried foul. Very tough crowd. May be Nikon shoots itself in the foot a bit by promoting advantage of Z mount but decided to release more conservative, somewhat budget-size oriented product first rather than going all out with top of the line lenses that showcase Z mount in the best possible light. In a way 24-70/2.8 S is really the only lens that seems to validate Z mountthe right way. For me, not having a bulbous front element and still producing excellent lens that competes well with its competitor with some advantage and disadvantage is a fine achievement.
Apr 26, 2019 at 08:43 PM
p.3 #3My 14-30mm f/4 Z tests
+1 @ Choose your poison(s).
Just a matter of knowing what & where they are. Then you can make your decisions and adjust accordingly. Personally, I took to other glass that was even across the frame (Canon / Olympus), but have kept a couple trusty AIS wides for central sharpness alts, too.
The Z has me thinking about a return trip.
Just a matter of knowing what & where they are. Then you can make your decisions and adjust accordingly. Personally, I took to other glass that was even across the frame (Canon / Olympus), but have kept a couple trusty AIS wides for central sharpness alts, too.
The Z has me thinking about a return trip.
Apr 26, 2019 at 08:46 PM
p.3 #4My 14-30mm f/4 Z tests
suteetat wrote:
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.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/32765622797_ee7c1e05cd_o.jpg16-30 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.Looks like Zone A is Nikon's trump card.
From other thread.
Pick your poison. When Nikon produced 24-70/2.8e VR, with slightly less sharpness in zone A but much better zone C than its predecessor and competitors, people cried foul. Now Nikon went with zone A and B and sacrificed extreme zone C, people still cried foul. Very tough crowd. May be Nikon shoots itself in the foot a bit by promoting advantage of Z mount but decided to release more conservative, somewhat budget-size oriented product first rather than going all out with top of the line lenses that showcase Z mount in the best possible light. In a way 24-70/2.8 S...Show more →
I think Nikon has actually done a great job in the roll out. The 50 f/1.8 S is a phenomenal lens. The 35 f/1.8 S is a very good lens. The 24-70 f/4 S is way better than the competition from Sony and yes it has compromises but I like the balance of compromises Nikon chose a lot. The 14-30 f/4 S is also a strong offering, yeah it relies on software correction a bit too much but that is far better than making the lens 750g, IMO. It is better, IMO, than the Sony FE 16-35 f/4 and almost as good as the excellent Sony G 12-24 f/4, which is probably Sony's best zoom. So, I would give them grades of an A for the 50 S, a B+ for the 35 S, an A- for the 24-70 f/4 S, and a solid B for the 14-30. Not a bad start at all. No real losers at all and when the 50 f/0.95 comes out, which will be soon, they can show wha the mount can do and the 24-70 f/2.8 S, which looks like another solid A is already showing that.
People should understand the mount gives them flexibility in design, but it doesn't allow them to break the laws of physics. There are still tradeoffs between correction and size and if you want everything corrected by the lens it is going to get a lot bigger--see Zeiss Milvus and Otus lenses and Sigma Art lenses. Nikon has a very smart roll out, IMO. Make a nice set of small lenses that complement the size of the system. Then closely follow with the wide aperture lenses the most demanding users will want (14-24 f/2.8, 24-70 f/2.8, 70-200 f/2.8, 50 f/1.2). Keep the small lenses small by compromising with some software correction. Make the fast aperture premium lenses without such compromises and let them be a bit bigger. Seems like a great strategy to me.
RustyBug wrote
suteetat wrote
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.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/32765622797_ee7c1e05cd_o.jpg16-30 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.
From other thread.
RustyBug wrote
My experience with historic Nikon WA / UWA lenses has been that Nikon has favored central (Zone A) sharpness over corners (Zone C), or over distortion. In that regard, the move to such a short flange distance for the MILC (i.e. shorter than Canon MILC) plays to their preference for Zone A, allowing for compromises elsewhere to varying degree.I think Nikon has actually done a great job in the roll out. The 50 f/1.8 S is a phenomenal lens. The 35 f/1.8 S is a very good lens. The 24-70 f/4 S is way better than the competition from Sony and yes it has compromises but I like the balance of compromises Nikon chose a lot. The 14-30 f/4 S is also a strong offering, yeah it relies on software correction a bit too much but that is far better than making the lens 750g, IMO. It is better, IMO, than the Sony FE 16-35 f/4 and almost as good as the excellent Sony G 12-24 f/4, which is probably Sony's best zoom. So, I would give them grades of an A for the 50 S, a B+ for the 35 S, an A- for the 24-70 f/4 S, and a solid B for the 14-30. Not a bad start at all. No real losers at all and when the 50 f/0.95 comes out, which will be soon, they can show wha the mount can do and the 24-70 f/2.8 S, which looks like another solid A is already showing that.
People should understand the mount gives them flexibility in design, but it doesn't allow them to break the laws of physics. There are still tradeoffs between correction and size and if you want everything corrected by the lens it is going to get a lot bigger--see Zeiss Milvus and Otus lenses and Sigma Art lenses. Nikon has a very smart roll out, IMO. Make a nice set of small lenses that complement the size of the system. Then closely follow with the wide aperture lenses the most demanding users will want (14-24 f/2.8, 24-70 f/2.8, 70-200 f/2.8, 50 f/1.2). Keep the small lenses small by compromising with some software correction. Make the fast aperture premium lenses without such compromises and let them be a bit bigger. Seems like a great strategy to me.
Apr 27, 2019 at 05:46 AM
p.3 #5My 14-30mm f/4 Z tests
Steve Spencer wrote:
People should understand the mount gives them flexibility in design, but it doesn't allow them to break the laws of physics. There are still tradeoffs between correction and size and if you want everything corrected by the lens it is going to get a lot bigger--see Zeiss Milvus and Otus lenses and Sigma Art lenses.
People should also understand that the design of retrofocus WA lenses (i.e. WAs for DSLR) is not the same as the design of WA lenses for cameras with no mirrox box.
To make it clearer, let's compare the 17.64 oz Zeiss ZM 15/2.8 to the 31 oz Zeiss Milvus ZF.2 15/2.8.
P.S.: neither the ZM 15/2.8 nor the Milvus 15/2.8 have a bulbous front element ...
Edited on Apr 27, 2019 at 07:34 AM · View previous versions
People should understand the mount gives them flexibility in design, but it doesn't allow them to break the laws of physics. There are still tradeoffs between correction and size and if you want everything corrected by the lens it is going to get a lot bigger--see Zeiss Milvus and Otus lenses and Sigma Art lenses.
People should also understand that the design of retrofocus WA lenses (i.e. WAs for DSLR) is not the same as the design of WA lenses for cameras with no mirrox box.
To make it clearer, let's compare the 17.64 oz Zeiss ZM 15/2.8 to the 31 oz Zeiss Milvus ZF.2 15/2.8.
P.S.: neither the ZM 15/2.8 nor the Milvus 15/2.8 have a bulbous front element ...
Edited on Apr 27, 2019 at 07:34 AM · View previous versions
Apr 27, 2019 at 07:32 AM
p.3 #6My 14-30mm f/4 Z tests
Ripolini wrote:
People should also understand that the design of retrofocus WA lenses (i.e. WAs for DSLR) is not the same as the design of WA lenses for cameras with no mirrox box.
To make it clearer, let's compare the 17.64 oz Zeiss ZM 15/2.8 to the 31 oz Zeiss Milvus ZF.2 15/2.8.
Yep, that is part of the flexibility of mirrorless. You don't have to design around a swinging mirror and that helps a lot with WA where the mirror was a huge impediment to design.
Steve Spencer wrote
People should understand the mount gives them flexibility in design, but it doesn't allow them to break the laws of physics. There are still tradeoffs between correction and size and if you want everything corrected by the lens it is going to get a lot bigger--see Zeiss Milvus and Otus lenses and Sigma Art lenses.To make it clearer, let's compare the 17.64 oz Zeiss ZM 15/2.8 to the 31 oz Zeiss Milvus ZF.2 15/2.8.
Yep, that is part of the flexibility of mirrorless. You don't have to design around a swinging mirror and that helps a lot with WA where the mirror was a huge impediment to design.
Apr 27, 2019 at 07:34 AM
p.3 #7My 14-30mm f/4 Z tests
Ripolini wrote:
P.S.: neither the ZM 15/2.8 nor the Milvus 15/2.8 have a bulbous front element ...
Not entirely true though. Zeiss 15/2.8 Classic that I have has a small bulbous front element in front but it is small enough
and Zeiss made a big ring/hood in front that you can put a filter in front of it. A picture of a Milvus 15/2.8 shows the same thing so the front element on Zeiss Milvus is definitely not flat.
P.S.: neither the ZM 15/2.8 nor the Milvus 15/2.8 have a bulbous front element ...
Not entirely true though. Zeiss 15/2.8 Classic that I have has a small bulbous front element in front but it is small enough
and Zeiss made a big ring/hood in front that you can put a filter in front of it. A picture of a Milvus 15/2.8 shows the same thing so the front element on Zeiss Milvus is definitely not flat.
Apr 27, 2019 at 06:04 PM
p.3 #8My 14-30mm f/4 Z tests
A quick comparison to Zeiss 15/2.8 ZF.2 .
I don't remember any detail now but I think Milvus 15/2.8 just has some upgrade coating and body otherwise the formula stays the same as teh Classic, is this correct? If not, please let me know.
My copy was from 5-6 years ago that I bought used from a friend.
I used manual focus on both to be consistant and use focus magnifier to the same building on both lenses and took several pictures after refocusing to make sure that I can reproduce the result consistantly. Ibis off, 5s delay...........
Nikon was set to 15mm. Both shot at F4
Left column is Nikon, right is Zeiss. From top to bottom, left top corner of the frame, slightly off center where I manual focused and center of left border edge. I lifted brightness of the left border picture by the same amount on both lens in photoshop as it is under a strong shadow when I took the picture. Otherwise no other adjustment in PS except to cut and paste and convert to jpg. Lens profile was used for Nikon.
14-30 vs 15Z by Suteetat S, on Flickr
Surprisingly, beside the slightly off center where both is pretty much a tie, my 24-30 seems to have better edge and corner than my Zeiss Classic.
I don't remember any detail now but I think Milvus 15/2.8 just has some upgrade coating and body otherwise the formula stays the same as teh Classic, is this correct? If not, please let me know.
My copy was from 5-6 years ago that I bought used from a friend.
I used manual focus on both to be consistant and use focus magnifier to the same building on both lenses and took several pictures after refocusing to make sure that I can reproduce the result consistantly. Ibis off, 5s delay...........
Nikon was set to 15mm. Both shot at F4
Left column is Nikon, right is Zeiss. From top to bottom, left top corner of the frame, slightly off center where I manual focused and center of left border edge. I lifted brightness of the left border picture by the same amount on both lens in photoshop as it is under a strong shadow when I took the picture. Otherwise no other adjustment in PS except to cut and paste and convert to jpg. Lens profile was used for Nikon.
14-30 vs 15Z by Suteetat S, on FlickrSurprisingly, beside the slightly off center where both is pretty much a tie, my 24-30 seems to have better edge and corner than my Zeiss Classic.
Apr 27, 2019 at 06:13 PM
p.3 #9My 14-30mm f/4 Z tests
Added a comparison to the OP between Adobe ACR and Capture NX-D in terms of how they apply Nikon's built-in geometric lens correction profile (direct link).
Apr 27, 2019 at 07:46 PM
p.3 #10My 14-30mm f/4 Z tests
Ripolini wrote:
People should also understand that the design of retrofocus WA lenses (i.e. WAs for DSLR) is not the same as the design of WA lenses for cameras with no mirrox box.
To make it clearer, let's compare the 17.64 oz Zeiss ZM 15/2.8 to the 31 oz Zeiss Milvus ZF.2 15/2.8.
P.S.: neither the ZM 15/2.8 nor the Milvus 15/2.8 have a bulbous front element ...
However, lens design for mirrorless analog film cameras is easier than lens design for mirrorles for digital sensors, meaning that with digital, you cannot take full advantage of the smaller flange distance due to the requirement of keeping angles of incidence low (i.e. light rays hitting the sensor perpendicular to the plane).
Steve Spencer wrote
People should understand the mount gives them flexibility in design, but it doesn't allow them to break the laws of physics. There are still tradeoffs between correction and size and if you want everything corrected by the lens it is going to get a lot bigger--see Zeiss Milvus and Otus lenses and Sigma Art lenses.To make it clearer, let's compare the 17.64 oz Zeiss ZM 15/2.8 to the 31 oz Zeiss Milvus ZF.2 15/2.8.
P.S.: neither the ZM 15/2.8 nor the Milvus 15/2.8 have a bulbous front element ...
However, lens design for mirrorless analog film cameras is easier than lens design for mirrorles for digital sensors, meaning that with digital, you cannot take full advantage of the smaller flange distance due to the requirement of keeping angles of incidence low (i.e. light rays hitting the sensor perpendicular to the plane).
Apr 27, 2019 at 08:25 PM
p.3 #11My 14-30mm f/4 Z tests
AcuteShadows wrote:
People should also understand that the design of retrofocus WA lenses (i.e. WAs for DSLR) is not the same as the design of WA lenses for cameras with no mirrox box.
To make it clearer, let's compare the 17.64 oz Zeiss ZM 15/2.8 to the 31 oz Zeiss Milvus ZF.2 15/2.8.
P.S.: neither the ZM 15/2.8 nor the Milvus 15/2.8 have a bulbous front element ...However, lens design for mirrorless analog film cameras is easier than lens design for mirrorles for digital sensors, meaning that with digital, you cannot take full advantage of the smaller flange distance due to the requirement of keeping angles of incidence low (i.e. light rays hitting the sensor perpendicular to the plane).
Yes, we also need some advances in sensors to realize the potential of the smaller flange distance, e.g. the promise of "organic sensors" that should be less sensitive to problems caused by angled light rays. And there is the potential issue of the thickness of sensor cover glass, IR block / AA filter etc.
Ripolini wrote
Steve Spencer wrote
People should understand the mount gives them flexibility in design, but it doesn't allow them to break the laws of physics. There are still tradeoffs between correction and size and if you want everything corrected by the lens it is going to get a lot bigger--see Zeiss Milvus and Otus lenses and Sigma Art lenses.To make it clearer, let's compare the 17.64 oz Zeiss ZM 15/2.8 to the 31 oz Zeiss Milvus ZF.2 15/2.8.
P.S.: neither the ZM 15/2.8 nor the Milvus 15/2.8 have a bulbous front element ...
Yes, we also need some advances in sensors to realize the potential of the smaller flange distance, e.g. the promise of "organic sensors" that should be less sensitive to problems caused by angled light rays. And there is the potential issue of the thickness of sensor cover glass, IR block / AA filter etc.
Apr 28, 2019 at 04:46 AM
p.3 #12My 14-30mm f/4 Z tests
suteetat wrote:
Not entirely true though. Zeiss 15/2.8 Classic that I have has a small bulbous front element in front but it is small enough
and Zeiss made a big ring/hood in front that you can put a filter in front of it. A picture of a Milvus 15/2.8 shows the same thing so the front element on Zeiss Milvus is definitely not flat.
Well, even my Zeiss ZF.2 35/2 doesn't have a "flat" front element. With "bulbous" I mean a front element that does not allow screwing a filter in front of it (see Nikon 14/2.8 vs Zeiss ZF.2 15/2.8).
AcuteShadows wrote:
However, lens design for mirrorless analog film cameras is easier than lens design for mirrorles for digital sensors ...
Similarly to Zeiss ZF.2 15/2.8, the Zeiss ZM 15/2.8 is designed for today digital cameras.
--
P.S.: sensor microlenses can be designed in order to reduce the issues related to large angles of incidence: see here; however I have no info about Z6/Z7 sensors microlenses' design; it would be interesting to know if Nikon has adopted some technical solution for UWA lenses (I mean, to collect at best the light rays coming with large angles of incidence), considering the much hyped short flange-to-sensor distance ...
Edited on Apr 28, 2019 at 07:41 AM · View previous versions
Not entirely true though. Zeiss 15/2.8 Classic that I have has a small bulbous front element in front but it is small enough
and Zeiss made a big ring/hood in front that you can put a filter in front of it. A picture of a Milvus 15/2.8 shows the same thing so the front element on Zeiss Milvus is definitely not flat.
Well, even my Zeiss ZF.2 35/2 doesn't have a "flat" front element. With "bulbous" I mean a front element that does not allow screwing a filter in front of it (see Nikon 14/2.8 vs Zeiss ZF.2 15/2.8).
AcuteShadows wrote:
However, lens design for mirrorless analog film cameras is easier than lens design for mirrorles for digital sensors ...
Similarly to Zeiss ZF.2 15/2.8, the Zeiss ZM 15/2.8 is designed for today digital cameras.
--
P.S.: sensor microlenses can be designed in order to reduce the issues related to large angles of incidence: see here; however I have no info about Z6/Z7 sensors microlenses' design; it would be interesting to know if Nikon has adopted some technical solution for UWA lenses (I mean, to collect at best the light rays coming with large angles of incidence), considering the much hyped short flange-to-sensor distance ...
Edited on Apr 28, 2019 at 07:41 AM · View previous versions
Apr 28, 2019 at 05:04 AM
p.3 #13My 14-30mm f/4 Z tests
suteetat wrote:
A quick comparison to Zeiss 15/2.8 ZF.2 .
I don't remember any detail now but I think Milvus 15/2.8 just has some upgrade coating and body otherwise the formula stays the same as teh Classic, is this correct? If not, please let me know.
My copy was from 5-6 years ago that I bought used from a friend.
I used manual focus on both to be consistant and use focus magnifier to the same building on both lenses and took several pictures after refocusing to make sure that I can reproduce the result consistantly. Ibis off, 5s delay...........
Nikon was set to 15mm. Both...Show more →
Wow... better still we are comparing a zoom to a classic prime
A quick comparison to Zeiss 15/2.8 ZF.2 .
I don't remember any detail now but I think Milvus 15/2.8 just has some upgrade coating and body otherwise the formula stays the same as teh Classic, is this correct? If not, please let me know.
My copy was from 5-6 years ago that I bought used from a friend.
I used manual focus on both to be consistant and use focus magnifier to the same building on both lenses and took several pictures after refocusing to make sure that I can reproduce the result consistantly. Ibis off, 5s delay...........
Nikon was set to 15mm. Both...Show more →
Wow... better still we are comparing a zoom to a classic prime
Apr 28, 2019 at 05:24 AM
p.3 #14My 14-30mm f/4 Z tests
charles.K wrote:
Wow... better still we are comparing a zoom to a classic prime
I was rather surprised by the result. I guess I never really pixel peep at my Zeiss before.
I even went as far to check lower right corner of both 14-30 and Zeiss 15/2.8 to see if result is consistant
as the upper left corner and the result is the same.
Despite software correction and extreme corner is not quite up to standard of the rest of lens' coverage, I am a
very happy camper with this lens.
Wow... better still we are comparing a zoom to a classic prime
I was rather surprised by the result. I guess I never really pixel peep at my Zeiss before.
I even went as far to check lower right corner of both 14-30 and Zeiss 15/2.8 to see if result is consistant
as the upper left corner and the result is the same.
Despite software correction and extreme corner is not quite up to standard of the rest of lens' coverage, I am a
very happy camper with this lens.
Apr 28, 2019 at 07:04 AM
p.3 #15My 14-30mm f/4 Z tests
suteetat wrote:
I was rather surprised by the result. I guess I never really pixel peep at my Zeiss before.
It would be interesting to compare the 14-30/4 to the Zeiss ZM 15/2.8 and to the Voitgtlander 15/4.5 Heliar III.
I was rather surprised by the result. I guess I never really pixel peep at my Zeiss before.
It would be interesting to compare the 14-30/4 to the Zeiss ZM 15/2.8 and to the Voitgtlander 15/4.5 Heliar III.
Apr 28, 2019 at 08:59 AM
p.3 #16My 14-30mm f/4 Z tests
Ripolini wrote:
It would be interesting to compare the 14-30/4 to the Zeiss ZM 15/2.8 and to the Voitgtlander 15/4.5 Heliar III.
I don't have the ZM version. I don have th e15/4.5 Heliar in M mount somewhere but only V2 though.
Technically if I remember correctly, V3 was made with thicker sensor in mind for Sony. However, Z7 should play
better with V2 version than Sony because of the thinner sensor cover but I am not sure if there is any other
significant difference between V2 and V3. Also I am not sure how V3 would perform on thinner sensor cover camera
like Leica or Z7.
suteetat wrote
I was rather surprised by the result. I guess I never really pixel peep at my Zeiss before.I don't have the ZM version. I don have th e15/4.5 Heliar in M mount somewhere but only V2 though.
Technically if I remember correctly, V3 was made with thicker sensor in mind for Sony. However, Z7 should play
better with V2 version than Sony because of the thinner sensor cover but I am not sure if there is any other
significant difference between V2 and V3. Also I am not sure how V3 would perform on thinner sensor cover camera
like Leica or Z7.
Apr 28, 2019 at 09:32 AM
p.3 #17My 14-30mm f/4 Z tests
I think this is going to be my last test as I don't have anything else in this range for ultra wide.
This time it is against Leica WATE @ 16mm F4. ( actually exif on 14-30 reads 15.5, oh well).
Manual focus for both to the same building using magnifier, ibis off, 5s delay shutter, tripod......
Leica WATE has long been my favourite small, light ultrawide lens that works well with my A7r i/ii/iii.
Since it is well accepted that it is pretty much the only wide angle Leica lens that works well with Sony, with Z7 thinner sensor cover, no reason to think that it would not perform well.
Nikon is left column, Leica WATE right column.
Top: upper left corner, middle: middle of left edge, bottom: slightly off center where I manual focus.
For Leica left upper corner shot, I had to increase brightness significantly but not on the 14-30. I increased brightness by the same amount for both 14-30 and WATE on left edge shot.
Leica was opened in PS without lens profile correction. I tried Leica lens profile and it affects only distortion and minimally correct for Vignette but I did not see any improvement in corner performance otherwise. 14-30 is with lens correction.
14-30 vs wate by Suteetat S, on Flickr
14-30 corner is much better, left edge shows less vignette than WATE, hard to tell about sharpness. I already push brightness bar all the way to the right in both and WATE shot is still quite dark. But I would give an edge to 14-30. Also (slightly off) center sharpness is in favor of 14-30 here.
Dont know what more I could want from 14-30. So far I dont see it as inferior to any lens that I compare it to side by side. The other lenses are either bigger, heavier, more expensive, do not take filters or better in IQ in certain areas but worse in other. Of course, some other lenses are faster or wider as well. However, I think 14-30/4 really seems to have the best compromise of the lot, I think.
This time it is against Leica WATE @ 16mm F4. ( actually exif on 14-30 reads 15.5, oh well).
Manual focus for both to the same building using magnifier, ibis off, 5s delay shutter, tripod......
Leica WATE has long been my favourite small, light ultrawide lens that works well with my A7r i/ii/iii.
Since it is well accepted that it is pretty much the only wide angle Leica lens that works well with Sony, with Z7 thinner sensor cover, no reason to think that it would not perform well.
Nikon is left column, Leica WATE right column.
Top: upper left corner, middle: middle of left edge, bottom: slightly off center where I manual focus.
For Leica left upper corner shot, I had to increase brightness significantly but not on the 14-30. I increased brightness by the same amount for both 14-30 and WATE on left edge shot.
Leica was opened in PS without lens profile correction. I tried Leica lens profile and it affects only distortion and minimally correct for Vignette but I did not see any improvement in corner performance otherwise. 14-30 is with lens correction.
14-30 vs wate by Suteetat S, on Flickr14-30 corner is much better, left edge shows less vignette than WATE, hard to tell about sharpness. I already push brightness bar all the way to the right in both and WATE shot is still quite dark. But I would give an edge to 14-30. Also (slightly off) center sharpness is in favor of 14-30 here.
Dont know what more I could want from 14-30. So far I dont see it as inferior to any lens that I compare it to side by side. The other lenses are either bigger, heavier, more expensive, do not take filters or better in IQ in certain areas but worse in other. Of course, some other lenses are faster or wider as well. However, I think 14-30/4 really seems to have the best compromise of the lot, I think.
Apr 28, 2019 at 06:26 PM
p.3 #18My 14-30mm f/4 Z tests
Guys and gals, and especially Snapsy, thanks for the deluge of really great information on this. lens. I bought a z7 with the 24-70 f4 mostly to try out mirrorless and hopefully to build a better travel camera set. I took the z to Egypt in February along with the 24-70 kit, 14-24 sigma art, and nikon 70-200 f4. Because of the smaller size lenses (except the sigma) I was able to take a much smaller camera bag than if I had brought the dslr equivalent that I own. I was pretty happy with the results overall...
So for me, while the 14-30 may not be the perfect, pro level lens, for those of us serious amateurs who want a smaller, lighter setup for certain situations, it seems like the compromises of this lens are very livable....So I'll probably be looking for a used one from someone here tossing theirs aside...
So for me, while the 14-30 may not be the perfect, pro level lens, for those of us serious amateurs who want a smaller, lighter setup for certain situations, it seems like the compromises of this lens are very livable....So I'll probably be looking for a used one from someone here tossing theirs aside...
Apr 28, 2019 at 09:33 PM
p.3 #19My 14-30mm f/4 Z tests
Suteetat, since you have both lenses - can you take a sample shot (on a tripod with exactly the same framing @ 14mm) using both 14-30 and 14-24 that would show how much FOV do we lose by those baked in corrections? Not sure if it was shown anywhere in the samples here (I might have missed it). 
Apr 29, 2019 at 03:12 PM
p.3 #20My 14-30mm f/4 Z tests
tek9 wrote:
Suteetat, since you have both lenses - can you take a sample shot (on a tripod with exactly the same framing @ 14mm) using both 14-30 and 14-24 that would show how much FOV do we lose by those baked in corrections? Not sure if it was shown anywhere in the samples here (I might have missed it).
Here it is.
Top is 14-30@14
Middle is 14-24@14 with no lens profile correction.
Bottom is 14-24@14 with lens profile correction.
test 14039 ii by Suteetat S, on Flickr
My understanding is that 14-30 is actually optically wider than 14mm to compensate for lens correction already. To my eyes, I guess it is a touch narrower than uncorrected 14-24mm.
Suteetat, since you have both lenses - can you take a sample shot (on a tripod with exactly the same framing @ 14mm) using both 14-30 and 14-24 that would show how much FOV do we lose by those baked in corrections? Not sure if it was shown anywhere in the samples here (I might have missed it).
Here it is.
Top is 14-30@14
Middle is 14-24@14 with no lens profile correction.
Bottom is 14-24@14 with lens profile correction.
test 14039 ii by Suteetat S, on FlickrMy understanding is that 14-30 is actually optically wider than 14mm to compensate for lens correction already. To my eyes, I guess it is a touch narrower than uncorrected 14-24mm.
Apr 29, 2019 at 06:26 PM