Has anyone used this lens and your thoughts? I will be needing a wide angle lens. I want to shoot some waterfall pictures when going back to Oregon and want to take a few more pictures of Multnomah Falls. Last time I was there all I had was a 24x70 f2.8 for my D3S. Now I have the Z9 if that helps. Thx
It's a superb lens and you won't regret buying it. Sharp wide open, sharp across the frame, sharp aty all focal lengths and subject distances. Very little CA and distortion very minimal. Here is my gallery of shots with it: https://pbase.com/lance_b/nikon_z_1424_f28s
A couple of samples:
Z7 + Z 14-24 f2.8S, tripod, 6s f/11.0 at 14.0mm iso64
Z7II + Z 14-24 f2.8S, tripod, 2.5s f/8.0 at 14.0mm iso64
Z7 + Z 14-24 f2.8S, tripod, 1/13s f/8.0 at 24.0mm iso64
This is one of Nikon’s best lenses and I enjoy shooting with it. It is not just ‘a good zoom’, but one that performs like a prime across much of its range from wide open to f/16. If you haven’t seen it, Photography Life has a thorough and accurate review that matches experience with my copy of this lens.
Echoing the others, this is a great lens. I use mine for night sky photography; not much is more revealing of a lens than making images of point light sources (stars) in a field of dark, black sky. This lens has nice, pointy dots for stars.
I also had this lens' predecessor, the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 G for the F-mount. It was a great lens in its day--very clean for stars in the center, with some star elongation toward the corners. The Z version carries that great center quality out to the corners.
I definitely recommend this lens. The obvious alternative, the Nikon Z 14-30 f/4, does not go wide enough for me. And while I've not had one in hand, published images shot near 16mm show mushy edges to my eyes.
--Edited to correct my error, kindly pointed out by ilkka_nissila, that there is no Nikon 16-30/4. I had indeed meant the Nikon Z 14-30 f/4. My thanks to ilkka_nissila for this correction.
Chris S. wrote:
I definitely recommend this lens. The obvious alternative, the Nikon 16-30 f/4, does not go wide enough for me. And while I've not had one in hand, published images shot near 16mm show mushy edges to my eyes.
There is no Nikon 16-30/4. There is a 16-35/4 F-mount and a Z 14-30/4. I assume you're referring to the former regarding the soft edges.
Thanks everyone for posting pictures and links. I just ordered the Z 14-24 f2.8S. I was gonna look at filters for this lens. Someone recommended Nisi 100mm filter holder with like a ND 10stop for doing waterfalls.
A 10 stop is WAY too much for waterfalls. I do a TON of waterfall photography, a lot with the 14-24/2.8, and it is very rare I need more than a polarizer. I heartily recommend using a polarizer for waterfalls because it cuts the reflections on the wet rocks and very much increases contrast and improves color. I usually am shooting in the early daylight hours, so a polarizer plus the light that’s there usually means multi-second exposures. If shooting in bright sunlight, a 3 or 4 stop ND might come in handy, but 10 stops will be just unnecessarily dark.
I would not bother with a separate holder, and just get the 112mm filters that work with the Nikon filter hood that’s included with the lens. I use a Haida 112mm circular polarizer.
Not all were with my Nikon gear, but several are, but almost all of the waterfall photos there are just with a normal circular polarizer and that’s it.
This, for instance, was with the Z8, 14-24/2.8S and just a polarizer (3 shot focus stack):
Also, if you are going to use the filter hood regularly, it may be worth investing in the NISI replacement hood, just because it seals the light better than the Nikon hood (which can sometimes get reflections due to light leaks on the rear if the sun is behind you). I discuss this and show pictures on the first page of my 14-24 review:
Great work! Very impressive images. As far as using the 14-24 with the 112mm CP have you ever needed to add another filter or is that even possible?
Mike
Jman13 wrote:
A 10 stop is WAY too much for waterfalls. I do a TON of waterfall photography, a lot with the 14-24/2.8, and it is very rare I need more than a polarizer. I heartily recommend using a polarizer for waterfalls because it cuts the reflections on the wet rocks and very much increases contrast and improves color. I usually am shooting in the early daylight hours, so a polarizer plus the light that’s there usually means multi-second exposures. If shooting in bright sunlight, a 3 or 4 stop ND might come in handy, but 10 stops will be just unnecessarily dark.
I would not bother with a separate holder, and just get the 112mm filters that work with the Nikon filter hood that’s included with the lens. I use a Haida 112mm circular polarizer.
Not all were with my Nikon gear, but several are, but almost all of the waterfall photos there are just with a normal circular polarizer and that’s it.
Also, if you are going to use the filter hood regularly, it may be worth investing in the NISI replacement hood, just because it seals the light better than the Nikon hood (which can sometimes get reflections due to light leaks on the rear if the sun is behind you). I discuss this and show pictures on the first page of my 14-24 review:
MKuran wrote:
Great work! Very impressive images. As far as using the 14-24 with the 112mm CP have you ever needed to add another filter or is that even possible?
Mike
You theoretically can stack filters on the filter hood, though there may be some risk of corner vignetting at 14mm with stacked filters…I’m not sure, as I have not done it with this lens. I’ve not really needed the extra ND for how I shoot.
For amateur use 95% of the time the 14-30 will give you images that are 99% equivalent to the 14-28. The main exceptions are a) astro b) sunstars c) overall flare resistance d) a few more buttons and a display if you use them for special situations e.g. triggering focus shift shooting from awkward stances, etc.
If you won't do these and don't need to print very large you probably don't need the 14-28. An additional consideration against the 15-28 is the large expensive ND filters that take up a good amount of space in a bag. If you are going to buy a 14-28 also buy a NiSi filter adapter and then use a metal grinder to cut off the ridiculous pointless hood petals - they provide zero flare protection and only take up space.
Disclosure: I own both the 14-30 and the 14-28 and use the 14-28 most of the time, mostly because of b) c) and d) above. Objectively I don't need to own the 14-28
The 14-30 is a great alternative if you get a good copy.
I’ve owned three copies of the 14-30, including one I just bought used literally a half hour ago (I’ve been slowly downsizing my kit).
My first copy was decent but had notably soft corners and edges at 14mm. I exchanged that one and got a fairly good second copy, though the 14-24 was still the better lens.
This one I went to get a new one but they had two used copies at the store, so I was able to test. One of the copies again had notably soft corners and edges at the wide end, while the one I got was darn near perfect corner to corner at all focal lengths and is the best of the four copies I tested. Seems it has quite a bit of copy to copy variation, so you should either buy new so you can exchange if needed, or used from somewhere with a return policy, or where you can test it in person.
Jman13 wrote:
so you should either buy new so you can exchange if needed, or used from somewhere with a return policy, or where you can test it in person.
I ended up buying a new 14-24mm f2.8S will be here either Saturday or Monday.
Thanks for everyone’s input it is always appreciated.
The 14-24 is the best UWA I’ve ever used (and I’ve owned about 15 of them) so you should be well pleased. The 14-24 is better than even a good copy of the 14-30, so no worries there.
Thanks when buying something, I usually like to get the best at that time as things evolve so quickly! For me I’ll be its limiting factor 🤣😂🤣.
Mike
Jman13 wrote:
The 14-24 is the best UWA I’ve ever used (and I’ve owned about 15 of them) so you should be well pleased. The 14-24 is better than even a good copy of the 14-30, so no worries there.
I owned the 14-30 which I never really liked because below 16mm the edges and corners have always been mushy on my copy. The 14-24 S on the other side is just really that good imho. Size and weight are still good and only the price is quite high. But you get what you pay for. It's a no-brainer for me actually.
Regarding filters I use the Nisi 100mm Filter Holder For NIKKOR Z 14-24mm f/2.8 S with great success. I had to buy the 100mm square polariser though. The holder has two slots, so you can have a Pol + ND, or a Pol + GradND or ND + GradND. All without vignetting.
It's also possible to attach the regular 100mm V6 holder with three slots, but that results in some vignetting at certain positions. But nothing which could not be fixed in post.
ilkka_nissila wrote:
There is no Nikon 16-30/4. There is a 16-35/4 F-mount and a Z 14-30/4. I assume you're referring to the former regarding the soft edges.
Right you are about the non-existence of a Nikon 16-30/4. Thanks for the correction!
I meant the Nikon Z 16-30mm f/4 Z. Likely typed "16" instead of "14" partly by being tired, and party as a Freudian slip, as I don't think that the 14mm and 15mm settings of this lens would be clean enough at the edges for my use, so I think of it as a 16mm lens. But to be clear, I've not had this lens in hand--am judging it from reviews and other people's shots.
The F-mount 16-35mm f/4 lens you mention, I have indeed owned and shot. I hated it--the corners were nothing close to sharp anywhere near 16mm--corner stars, for example, rendered as lines. I rarely shot this lens, and sold it, unloved.
I find the Nikon Z 14-24mm f/2.8 stellar, in the literal sense. My night-time landscapes include stars, and with this lens, even the corner stars are mostly rendered as points. (Of course, I wish the max aperture were wider that f/2.8.)
Right you are about the non-existence of a Nikon 16-30/4. Thanks for the correction!
I meant the Nikon Z 16-30mm f/4 Z. Likely typed "16" instead of "14" partly by being tired, and party as a Freudian slip, as I don't think that the 14mm and 15mm settings of this lens would be clean enough at the edges for my use, so I think of it as a 16mm lens. But to be clear, I've not had this lens in hand--am judging it from reviews and other people's shots.
The F-mount 16-35mm f/4 lens you mention, I have indeed owned and shot. I hated it--the corners were nothing close to sharp anywhere near 16mm--corner stars, for example, rendered as lines. I rarely shot this lens, and sold it, unloved.
I think one issue with the 14-30/4 is that some testers evaluated the corner sharpness before distortion correction was applied, and this is not how the lens was intended to be used. After distortion correction, the most extreme corners in the image field are cropped out, and thus their softness does not end up contributing to the final image.
