Showcase Nikon Z 14-30mm f/4 S

Joined
Mar 11, 2012
Messages
2,083
Location
Melbourne - Australia
I enjoy using the 14-30mm lens, not that I've used it much. Hopefully once things start to ease up with covid-19 restrictions I can get some more use out of it. I've posted this previously, this is one using the 14-30mm at 14mm

49881608706_79204cc6de_h.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Joined
Oct 25, 2007
Messages
6,743
Location
Potomac Falls, VA
New acquisition for me via current Nikon sale. Great images in this thread. Love wide angle.

The 14-30 can really do sun stars!
Sea Ray sun ray.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
1,592
Location
MN, USA
This is a bit of a side remark, but if you have a Z50 you should give the 14-30 a spin on that body. So you get a moderately wide (21 ffeqv) to near 'normal' (45 ffeqv). I happen to really like the 40-45 ffeqv range.

I have no complaints about the sharpness/contrast of the 14-30 on the Z6 - it is actually much better than I expected. On the Z50 it almost feels like a prime sharpness. This is a reduced resolution and pretty strongly processed, but you get the idea:
20200511-17-33-57 copy web.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Joined
Jul 25, 2017
Messages
1,028
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Real Name
Ian
This is a bit of a side remark, but if you have a Z50 you should give the 14-30 a spin on that body. So you get a moderately wide (21 ffeqv) to near 'normal' (45 ffeqv). I happen to really like the 40-45 ffeqv range.

I have no complaints about the sharpness/contrast of the 14-30 on the Z6 - it is actually much better than I expected. On the Z50 it almost feels like a prime sharpness. This is a reduced resolution and pretty strongly processed, but you get the idea:
View attachment 1663631
The EXIF data indicates that it was shot with the kit lens, not the 14-30.
 
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
1,592
Location
MN, USA
The EXIF data indicates that it was shot with the kit lens, not the 14-30.
Hah! Mea Culpa! Let's try this again - different house this time (different time of day and I wanted some light on it):
2020 06 18 06-23 091 1 web.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Joined
May 5, 2005
Messages
30,749
Location
SW Virginia
This is a bit of a side remark, but if you have a Z50 you should give the 14-30 a spin on that body. So you get a moderately wide (21 ffeqv) to near 'normal' (45 ffeqv). I happen to really like the 40-45 ffeqv range.

I have no complaints about the sharpness/contrast of the 14-30 on the Z6 - it is actually much better than I expected. On the Z50 it almost feels like a prime sharpness. This is a reduced resolution and pretty strongly processed, but you get the idea:
View attachment 1663631
The EXIF data indicates that it was shot with the kit lens, not the 14-30.
Hah! Mea Culpa! Let's try this again - different house this time (different time of day and I wanted some light on it):
View attachment 1663666

This is interesting in that, at this scale, it's impossible for me to see any difference in the quality of the two photos. But I'll take your word for it since you have access to the originals.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
1,592
Location
MN, USA
This is interesting in that, at this scale, it's impossible for me to see any difference in the quality of the photos. But I'll take your word for it since you have access to the originals.
Again this is my fault . . . :eek: I've really muddied this whole thing. I didn't mean to compare them and in fact I think the kit lens is no slouch either. You shouldn't let me near a computer either late at night or early in the morning.

The reduced resolution doesn't help either. When I look at them, the leaves are almost perfectly delineated; the roughness of the bark is rendered clearly, the fir needles against the sky are perfectly clear and even the daisies in front are as sharp as I would have expected from a prime.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 19, 2019
Messages
320
Location
Leamington Spa, UK
Real Name
Paul
Boo-boo on my part and shot this at f4, so some DOF challenges - beware if pixel peeping!

50109032243_80a56593ec_o.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

The Almshouses by Paul Kaye, on Flickr
 
Joined
May 11, 2006
Messages
1,002
Location
CHARLOTTE
Real Name
Randy
I’m looking at this on the my phone but I have to admit these pictures really make me think about it Ultra Wide again, I had given up the weight and the size of the 14 to 24 were just too much
 
Joined
Jan 19, 2019
Messages
320
Location
Leamington Spa, UK
Real Name
Paul
I’m looking at this on the my phone but I have to admit these pictures really make me think about it Ultra Wide again, I had given up the weight and the size of the 14 to 24 were just too much
Ultra wide is my thing. Couldn't live without it! I can live without the long stuff though - I marvel at your bird photography though but don't have the skills to do it so well. À chacun son métier !
 
Joined
Jul 25, 2017
Messages
1,028
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Real Name
Ian
I’m looking at this on the my phone but I have to admit these pictures really make me think about it Ultra Wide again, I had given up the weight and the size of the 14 to 24 were just too much
This lens is nothing like the 14-24. Significantly smaller and lighter, yet still optically wonderful.
 
Joined
Nov 11, 2005
Messages
5,505
Location
Houston, TX
Terry,
SinghRay {https://singh-ray.com} makes filters that are "normal" and "thin" to help with vignetting mitigation. Here is another site {https://www.2filter.com} that sells products from many different manufacturers. Then there is {http://www.leefilters.com}, who have been around for ages. Their filters are generally independent of lens size or focal length via filter holder adapters which screw into lens filter threads.

Then there are step-up rings so you can purchase one filter for the largest lens you shoot with (or expect to, in the future) and the use a step-up ring of the appropriate size to adapt the filter threads on front of lens to the size of threads on the "oversize" filter. For example, buy filter with a mounding thread of say 95mm then for your 85mm lens that has 77mm filter threading, you purchase a step-up ring of size 77-95 mm. This way you only buy one "expensive" filter for all your lenses and only step-up rings for each specific lens which are much less expenditure ( I recommend hard brass step-up (Heliopan at B&H) rings over soft aluminum rings (el-cheepo) which easily jam up in filter threads). The net result is the filter has a much larger diameter than most of your lenses so vignetting is impossible. If you buy a "thin" 95 mm filter it may minimally vignette if you mount it on a lens with 95 mm threading.

Looks like I have filled up the rest of your weekend with research...:cool:
Nick
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 19, 2019
Messages
320
Location
Leamington Spa, UK
Real Name
Paul
A couple more from me:

50200424541_670f8e90e1_o.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

RSC Playhouse, Stratford-upon-Avon at dusk by Paul Kaye, on Flickr

50200690832_5793525479_o.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Tramway Bridge, Stratford-upon-Avon by Paul Kaye, on Flickr

50198762187_3258d40822_o.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Blue & Orange by Paul Kaye, on Flickr

50197178867_cb96e3412c_o.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Lakeside Sunset by Paul Kaye, on Flickr

50169808006_5ae4dd8661_o.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Tree on the Moors by Paul Kaye, on Flickr
 
Last edited:

Latest threads

Top Bottom