Pixel peeping has never done me any favors...^ I’m of the same opinion if you bothers you that much but pixel peeping into the corners isn’t a healthy pastime.
I am very satisfied with mine. After shooting with it for about four months, I sold my 14-24mm f/2.8G. Some sample images are in this thread:Anyone using this lens?
I purchased one yesterday and am not sure what to think yet. Corner sharpness seems unimpressive and generally not even as good as the 14-30.
BTW, if I take a brick wall shot, I do not see this problem, so yes it does have something to do with foreground which is closer to the frame than the background
Yes I realize this.The foreground (in post #10) is out of the frame of sharpest focus and shouldn't be expected to be sharp. The field curvature just accentuates this.
I don't think you've tested it adequately.
Have you looked at the link I shared? Above . . .Yes I realize this.
So what you are saying is that since the flowerbed isn't sharp to begin with, the field curvature on top of that is just making it look worse?
I actually HAVE tested by shooting only a flat surface and looking at both the center and the edges. The results are pretty good.
What I am still not understanding is why a $2400 lens behaves like this when one half its price (the 14-30) doesn't, or at least deals with it much better. Is the extra glass in the 2.8 lens contributing to making this a difficult task for a lens?
Yes I have checked this thread out but most of the corners in these photos are either very dark, or water and therefore difficult to evaluate. Plus, I cannot see the EXIF info, so I don't know what apertures were used. I have been seeing that using at least F8 or F11 does a good job at cleaning the smearing up.If you haven't already done so, check out this: https://www.nikoncafe.com/threads/nikon-z-14-24-f-2-8-s.325732/
Yes, I've noticed it, and I am satisfied. I have never used the 14-30mm f/4S, though, and I know that is a very well-regarded lens.They sharpen up quite a bit by F11.
Have you noticed this before, and are you ok with this performance?
As you noted, the issue is not present when shooting a brick wall - only when there are OOF foreground elements. For me, this seems perfectly reasonable. Even if it were to be shown that the 14-30mm f/4S shot wide open is optically better than the 14-24mm f/2.8S stopped down to f/4, I would not regret my choice to wait for and pay a premium for the faster glass, because I do find f/2.8 valuable in my use case. And, of course, it still stops down to f/11 and sharpens up the entire frame when I need that kind of performance.It's also consistent with the rest of the wall at that edge which seems to be falling just outside the depth-of-field.
I don't think you are being to critical - that's your prerogative as the buyer. But I wonder: if one tested the 14-24mm f/2.8G with such rigor, would the results be the same, better or worse?Am I being too critical and should I just live with this lens or should I take advantage of being able to do the exchange. My fear is that another one may be no better and possibly even worse.
During the time I had both, my testing was not rigorous - just enough to convince myself that the S was optically equivalent or better. Like you, I am drawn to the smaller form factor. FWIW one optical quality that the S improves over the G is coma, which is quite noticeable in night sky images.My wife owns the 14-24G and a D850. I may at some point do the test with that combo just to satisfy my (and your) curiosity. Using that lens with the FTZ adapter though is not an option for me. The G version is just too bulky and heavy for me and that adapter makes for an even bigger, heavier lens.