GroovyGeek wrote:
2) The sunstars are busy, and IMO fugly. This is clearly seen in the images fotografur posted.
I actually hate sunstars. I posted these over two years ago when the lens was relatively new to show what this small, compact, inexpensive lens can do.Thanks.
It's any wonder why less and less people post images here.
GroovyGeek wrote:
it is very likely than over 70% of the images on my website from the last 3 years are from the 14-24S. Before that came out the same percentage was from the 14-30S.
Daan B wrote:
I wonder how the 14-30 optics compare against the 17-28 2.8? They are in the same price range.
I am super interested in this question as well. I'm in the market for an ultra wide. I know that the different between 14mm and 17mm is quite noticeable when viewing images side-by-side. I am also interested in the new Voightlander 15mm f4.5 Z-mount lens w/ communication contacts.
I'd like a sharp ultra wide for landscapes, but am very pleased with the 24-120S at 24mm.
For the record, I had the 14-30 f4 and used it for about 2 years, but never loved the lens. It is possible that mine was not a great copy, or that I had not been in locations where I felt 14mm was warranted. When I did use the lens to photograph coastal scenes with blue skies &/or a prominent sunrise, I found the light fall-off to be a challenge to correct. This was significant enough that I would actually crop the images to about 20mm to eliminate the strong vignetting.
Like I said, this may have been a "my lens" issue rather than something universal.
I purchased the 14-30 when it was first released. I basically felt that at 14mm it was unusable (just not very sharp at all), it lacked micro contrast, and it's build quality left a lot to be desired. I sold it and picked up the 14-24 which I have been very happy with.
That said, I have since seen that an awful lot of people love the lens. So, I've never really been sure if I just had a bad copy, or if there is some sample variation with this lens. If purchasing, I'd suggest making sure it can be returned if not satisfied.
Daan B wrote:
I wonder how the 14-30 optics compare against the 17-28 2.8? They are in the same price range.
Here you go!
Looks like a draw, Z 14-30 with significant better central and slightly better edge sharpness but due to significant field curvature with the clearly weaker midframe performance.
Apart from such tendencies, in the end it probably boils down to the question, what is more important for your work, f/2.8 or the additional focal range on the wide and the long end, since especialy those extra 3mm on the wide end can make a big difference.
It's a pretty noticeable improvement over the F-mount 14-24/2.8G. A perfect companion to the Z6/Z7, but a bit lightweight and unbalanced on the Z9.
With the risk of sounding like Ken Rockwell, optically comparing it to any other pro grade lens is really is splitting hairs and borderline pointless. Contrast, resolution, rectilinearity (when corrected), chromatic aberrations, color, veiling flare (coatings), etc, is all top notch. For the price it's pretty unbelievable, and the size and light weight means it's coming with you and you'll actually have it on hand. It will also take filters without complicated adapters and rigs, which is another major benefit.
It *is* a somewhat clinical lens, without a lot of mojo - but that's usually a good thing IMO.
The 14-30 S stays in my hiking kit for its focal range and excellent ergonomics. I find its IQ quite good and best at 16-18mm, but very usable at other focal lengths. As for sunstars, I kept my Canon 16-35 f/4 (from my Canon shooting days), which I use with a Fringer adapter on my Z bodies. It has the sunstar look I prefer. As others have stated, sunstar preferences are highly subjective.
i use the lens a fair bit. i do minor tweaking in DXO for perspective at times. this shot yesterday was at the old FT Monmouth in NJ before the buildings are removed for the new Netflix Campus to be built. Hence the little red X's
doesn't seem "unbalanced" to me on my Z9
NIKON Z 9NIKKOR Z 14-30mm f/4 S lens16mmf/8.01/200s220 ISO0.0 EV
NIKON Z 9NIKKOR Z 14-30mm f/4 S lens25mm1/200s72 ISO
NIKON Z 9NIKKOR Z 14-30mm f/4 S lens16mm1/200s72 ISO
POST DxO edit
NIKON Z 9NIKKOR Z 14-30mm f/4 S lens30mmf/8.01/320s64 ISO0.0 EV
PRE DxO edit
NIKON Z 9NIKKOR Z 14-30mm f/4 S lens30mmf/8.01/320s64 ISO0.0 EV
OwlsEyes wrote:
... I had the 14-30 f4 and used it for about 2 years, but never loved the lens. It is possible that mine was not a great copy, or that I had not been in locations where I felt 14mm was warranted. When I did use the lens to photograph coastal scenes with blue skies &/or a prominent sunrise, I found the light fall-off to be a challenge to correct. This was significant enough that I would actually crop the images to about 20mm to eliminate the strong vignetting.
Uhmmm .... which raw converter did you use? With Capture One I have no problem with corner light fall-off correction. I have several pictures posted in the specific image thread so I'll not re-post them here.
Now, coming back to OP question, I have never used the lenses he wishes to compare to the 14-30/4 S; however, I have the Zeiss ZF.2 21/2.8 and I can tell that I do not see much difference with the 14-30/4 S at 21 mm on my Z6. The Zeiss has slightly higher micro-contrast and better color rendition, but we're splitting hairs (my 14-30 copy has better rendition at intermediate focal lengths though).
