Nikon Z 14-30 f/4 S lens review with samples

[@AykutArgun]

Absolutely best value I spent on a lens. It has a whole of a lot more use than a 14-24, I find myself using it at 30mm very often. The range is incredibly useful. As always, big thanks for an amazing review!

[@paulthomas8986]

Nikon's Z lenses are optically amazing. Thanks for continuing to reviews them.

[@thomsn5670]

I think its price tag is justified. The combination of ultra-wide zoom, constant aperture, small and light build and being an OEM product does make it an attractive option even for the price. Also it is often to get for less then the official retail price.

[@patrick.771]

It costs about the same as the Fuji 10-24 APS-C lens. The Fuji is also great (except flaring) so I also think the Nikon price is okay.

[@cohoonatube]

Thanks again for the great review Chris! Looking seriously into the Z system... feels like the best blend of all of them. Truly appreciate your faithful thoroughness (and your book collection) Brother.

[@alveus_]

Definitely by far the most interesting lens for landscape photography in recent years. Thinking about getting into the Z system just for this lens.

[@leodelizy3822]

I genuinely can't believe how small it is... Looks lovely!

[@thomasanderson5929]

Wait until you see the size of the Panasonic 9mm f/1.7..... or the Laowa 6mm f/2. Micro Four Thirds cameras really shine for backpacking photography.... so small and light, and an absolute BLAST to use. Makes photography a lot more fun.

[@vladaisakovic]

@@thomasanderson5929 We do not count toys

[@pierrevilley6675]

@@thomasanderson5929 Well, if you compare the laowa 6mm F/2 to its Full frame equivalent (14mm F/4 Zero-D), you'll find that their sizes are pretty close. The FF one is 40g heavier and 7mm longer, but 3mm thinner. So really, nothing noticeable. And yes, F/2 on MFT=F/4 on full frame (because even though the MFT will be at 1000 ISO when the FF will be at 4000, both will have the same noise, FoV and DoF as the MFT has 1/4 of the area of the FF). For the 9mm 1.7, there isn't any strict full frame equivalent (18mm F/3,4 would be a pretty odd lens)

[@wilteduk007]

I have the lens and can confirm Christopher's findings, it's a spectacular lens. It can be bought in the UK currently for £869 from Grays of Westminster, making it an even better lens for the money.

[@BTurner.]

Just got one off Amazon yesterday for £809. A bargain.

[@simonp8088]

I am a Sony guy but i had this lens when i had my Nikon z6 system. I absolutely love this lens and wish i could use it on my Sony system. Sony’s 16-35 f4 lens is very poor imo. But this Nikon lens is a gem!

[@chamithathukorala1985]

What about 16 35GM

[@simonp8088]

Not as wide. And one stop brighter. I actually have the 16-35gm and to me it’s not amazing or anything.

[@cohoonatube]

Curious with the af improvements to the Z6ii/7ii and the upcoming Z9... any thoughts of returning to Nikonia land? As a Z6ii owner, I saw it as a stop gap for the A7IV, but am loving the Nikon system sans the odd af issue. Am still looking seriously into Thursday's A7IV launch. What glass are you using with Sony? Love their Zeiss Batis.

[@simonp8088]

@Chad: i have always loved Nikon. It’s easy to fall in love with as it’s more than the sum of its parts. I’ve thought about it but I’m now too heavily invested in Sony. With Sony, after i wrote the above comment i actually got rid of the Sony 16-35. I just wasn’t digging the images i was getting out of that lens. Replaced with sigma 14-24 dg dn, which is vastly superior imo. And more cost effective to boot. I use this lens for real estate. Other lenses I’m using are the Sony 20g, sigma 85/1.4 dg dn and Sony 200-600. All very spectacular lenses with a different function.

[@segercliffhanger]

Just acquired the 24-120 F4, the midrange zoom brother of the one you're testing here and shot a chess tournament with it. I thought I'd be wide enough with 24mm to catch crowds watching the players. But it turns out, I want to get closer but can't. So, the 14-30 would be even more perfect here than the 24-120 (of which everyone should get one). Reviews like yours are just such great pools of information to obtain the right kind kind of new understanding of the meaning of the extra stop mirrorless photography brings because of its larger flange. Is better or just bigger? I can say, it's better. Mirrorless cameras protrude the wondrous darkness deeper, like every proper visual innovation. Together with AI to denoise and sharpen up, yeah, a new world :). You're also the kind of photographer I like. There's humor and humbleness right next to your extremely useful systematic testing procedures and I like that :). Keep going!

[@hairuwang2812]

As a Sony FE 1635 F4 user, I'm so jealous about this lens. The size, the zoom range and the image quality !

[@ElementaryWatson-123]

One year makes a huge difference. The new Sony 16-35/4 G lens is significantly better optically, smaller, lighter, and even cheaper.

[@Riskbreaker2009]

Yeah the new Sony PZ 16-35mm G is smaller lighter and sharper also is internal zooming so its great for video in a gimble

[@thomaspampillonia5163]

@@Riskbreaker2009 In no case better..., if you don't make video the PZ engine is crap, impossible to see the focal length on the optics, when starting it doesn't keep the focal length... not for photographers but videographer.

[@flyingfishh9362]

Thanks for the excellent review! This lens is one of the reasons why I went to Z - UWA, sharp, light, can use with circular filters. It hasn't disappointed me. That it can use with filters (I use KASE magnetic) so conveniently is huge. I even used it for astrophotography. Its control of coma is outstanding.

[@chrisroot7182]

Sold my Nikon F mount 14-24 F2.8 and bought this. Absolutely no regrets!

[@shadyninja1]

Thanks for keeping my faith in this lens. I bought one brand new for £427 from a major UK store. I won't sell it for a very long time.

[@patrick.771]

what a deal :) you can sell it in 10 years for the same price ;-)

[@shadyninja1]

@@patrick.771 certainly, as long as I don't drop it. Now it stays on my camera more than the Nikon Z 35mm 1.8 s.

[@apexepicmoments927]

@APERTURE ADE May I ask where did you get it from? That's a really good price. Thanks

[@shadyninja1]

@@apexepicmoments927 Dixon's travel at The airport. The deal was done for about a week. The guy who informed me of this deal bought 2 and sold one to mob cameras for £769

[@airjaff]

@@shadyninja1 lucky guy, that place is normaly over priced

[@gbye007]

Thanks for your excellent lens reviews. This lens is truly a joy to use in the range 16-24mm and f/8 for landscape with the Z7 II. Its very sharp at these focal lengths presumably because it has less lens corrections for distortion. Unfortunately I still lust after the 14-24 f2.8S lens for astro use, because of the extra stop of light and the low coma in the corners. And of course for another stop and a third of light you could get the 20mm f1.8S for astro as well - so many choices. However, if astro is not on your checklist the 14-30 is the one to get. It's brilliant as a general travel and hiking wide-angle zoom.

[@suhail451]

I have this lens. Had the Sony 16-35 before I switched to the Nikon Z system. No comparison.

[@xander2drax]

Thanks!

[@christopherfrost]

Thanks for your support!

[@Hydrabmol]

Thank you very much Chris! I had really been looking forward to your review of this amazing lens!

[@starbase218]

DigitalRev outro tune!!!!! Brings back good memories. ;)

[@JeremyPayne]

Amazing lens, I had the Nikkei 16-35mm on a d800 sold that now have 14-30mm on z6 and it's sharp, it craps on the 16-35mm. Price wise it's pretty good and as a landscaper f4 is fine.

[@L4busaures]

Love it! Great video. Please keep reviewing Nikon Z lenses

[@cincyphotopro2001]

what ND filter do you recommend

[@starbase218]

I think this is going to be my lens if and when I finally switch to the Z system. I love the dramatic landscapes at 14mm. An 82mm filter thread is not what I prefer - all my filters are 77mm - but I could change them.

[@victorlim5077]

Great Review, Christopher. I sense you really wanted to give it a HIGHLY RECOMMENDED. :-)

[@Mr09260]

I have this lens in my Suite of 4 S Lenses for my Z7 >> brilliant but I had to get the 20mm F1.8 for Milky way

[@alexmohammadi3828]

$1100 for a 14-30 f4 is a steal considering the Sony comparison (12-24 f4) is $1700. Are you saying it’s expensive compared to what’s on the market or just expensive in general? Because yeah, $1100 is a lot of money. But not for a 14-30 f4 lens with great image quality

[@christopherfrost]

The Sony lens goes as wide as 12mm making it pretty specialist. But yes, in some ways you're correct in saying that the 14-30mm lens's unique properties add to its value

[@Vinterloft]

The Fuji 10-24 is the exact same price and focal range (1mm less on wide end, 2mm more on closed end) but has stabilization, better build quality, less distortion and aberration and also has a filter thread and weather sealing. And the bonus is you get to put it on a camera that costs less while giving you more for your money.

[@alexmohammadi3828]

@@Vinterloft in general, APS-C lenses will always cost less.

[@romanpul]

@@christopherfrost I have both the Z 14-30 f4 and the Sony 12-24 f4. The Nikon is actually a bit wider than it says on the lens. When you put frames from both lenses next to each other at their respective wide end there is barely any difference in the viewing angle. Compared to the Sony the Nikkor is a real steal

[@JPStaats]

@@Vinterloft Why are you comparing an APC lens with a full frame lens? They are two completely different animals.

[@andreasrau4541]

Great help to make a decision. Thank you and best light! Greetings from Germany, Raule!

[@tridinh1011]

That pop in and out thing was really cool to play with lol

[@konsamprincesingh7763]

A very detailed review. Believe it or not i have watched this so many times. Was planning to buy this. But with the release of 17-28 constant 2.8 f am a little undecided. Could you do a review on this new lens.

[@simonmoore3727]

Thanks Chris. I can finally let go of my f 14-24 2.8 which I was romantically attached to but always struggled with. Another on the point review.

[@Eikenhorst]

This lens on its own, is one of the main reasons why I am considering investing in the Z system. I absolutely love some of the (especially 3rd party) lenses for the E mount, but nothing compares to this (yet). Only the Canon 14-35mm comes close, but isn't as great at 14mm.

[@AlexandrMezin]

Great review! As usual :) Could you please review 24-200?

[@nataliepanagiotidou1642]

Love your reviews! Really helpful in deciding on what lens is good for my job. I was wondering thought, if you would recommend this lens for real estate/ interior photography. I own a z6ii. If not, what lens would you recommend?! Thanks

[@jeffhowe2892]

I love your reviews and value your conclusions. Thank you :0)

[@davidguedj4489]

I have the Iris 15mm f2.4 and the Nikon 24mm f1.8 and search for a solution to only have 1 lens. You think quality image is like what I have today ? Prime lens are always better then zoom lenses. thanks David

[@theonlyredspecial]

It’s extremely sharp and the images are great that I have taken in the past. It’s a fair chunk of change but I think it’s worth it.

[@Greetz108]

I would be happy if you would also test sun stars (from the real sun) in your reviews in the future. Sun stars from artificial light sometimes behave differently compared to the real sun. For example, I think of the Nikon 14-30mm f4 S in particular: lights on the Christmas tree look fantastic (see here: "DPReview TV: The great ultra-wide sunstar shootout"). But at the same settings with the real sun, the sun stars seem a bit jumpy and form less defined rays. You have to google for sample images. Furthermore, it is important that the atmosphere is free of any haze, dust, clouds, so that you get sun stars (whether beautiful or less beautiful). Of course, all sun stars can gain a boost towards beauty when the sun hangs in the dense treetop with lots of leaves or scratches another edge of an object (mountain, house wall, etc.). However, this type of test is rather less meaningful. As a landscape photographer I like to position the sun in the sky without an object scratching the sun. Okay, sometimes the sun hangs between branches etc. ;-) I would also like to point out something else: The sun stars also change with the focal length of the lens. For example, the new Nikon 24-70 f4 S has a nice sun star with defined lines at 24mm and f22, but no defined rays emerge at 35mm, 50mm and 70mm (anything above 24mm). Despite the closed aperture, these rays appear to have fanned out. I hope you understand my request Chris. Therefore, I would be happy if you consider all focal lengths with a closed aperture in your reviews and use the right sun (free atmosphere) as the light source. I've seen a lot of reviews here on KZbin and unfortunately the sun stars are very often neglected! As a landscape photographer who wants really nice sun stars (bless the old Nikon 20mm f1.8!), it's difficult to find this info on a number of websites. I think this adds even more value to your reviews. I hope I'm not alone with my thoughts and desires and would appreciate a "thumbs up" so Chris can read this. So thanks again for everything and may God bless you!

[@KW_photography01]

Thanks you for your sharing, I would like to ask, if the push-pull structure is used frequently, will it become loose after a few years?

[@vagabundian5457]

Heey Christopher Thank you for the reviews, on both z mount wide angle versions! Do you think as a architecture photographer is the more expensive version (14-24 f2.8) worth it? I have to decide which one I buy for my client projects. Thank you very much:)

[@Jackourd]

Beautiful compact lens, will occupied very lil space in camera bag, gr8 for landscape

[@warrenbarnes9653]

Might be a good general purpose zoom lens on the apsc Nikon Z50. I wish you could have tested it on the crop sensor. Thank you for the video, Father Chris.

[@patrick.771]

YES! Thanks a lot! Now I'm gonna buy it :)

[@arunashamal]

Is nikon S line means it has something to do with video. Unlike Canon or Sony, Nikon z lenses seems like they don't have any major focus breathing... Seems like Nikon is pushing for video in a major way..

[@VishnuMoosath]

Hi. Why don't you review the z 17-28? Or compare this one and that?

[@mannypart2]

Don't feel $1100 is excessive for this lens, especially considering its performance.

[@haydennettleton3272]

For a new price it's not to bad but compared to the great value second hand Nikkor dslr lenses that are avaliable it seems expensive.

[@jimwlouavl]

I agree. It’s a great lens.

[@michael-4k4000]

I think it’s priced fairly

[@RahulKumar-pf2us]

Is The S series lens equal to L series lens for canon?

[@thephotoyak]

​@@RahulKumar-pf2us yes

[@anthonybodin5848]

Hi sir christopher im your biggest fan, your the best camera reviewer in the world. I'd like to ask some recommendations, which should i buy for wide angle lens for my sony a7iii? Can you recommend me something, im thinking about the sony 20mm 1.8g or tamron 17-28 2.8. i usually do photos and a little video.

[@christopherfrost]

Depends what you want to do exactly. That Tamron lens should be great although I haven't tested it yet

[@stavros.a9061]

with all that distortion do you think it does for indoor shots or cityscapes?

[@tor2919]

I don’t understand why anyone would ever turn off lens corrections for distortion. It’s a massive advantage with modern digital cameras. You can make huge gains to image quality and size by allowing easily corrected distortion. Reminds me of the debate around fly by wire aircraft a long time ago. By making the airplanes aerodynamically unstable you made huge gains in manoeuvrability. This was met with a lot of skepticism and resistance initially, but the gains where too large to ignore.

[@okaro6595]

Correcting always reduces image quality so if the distortions are small and the subject does not have straight lines then it would make sense. Of course with raw you get the option anyway. Yes, in general lenses with digital correction make sense as it allows more freedoms to design the lenses. On compact cameras that has been the norm over 10 years (when cameras with 24-28 mm equivalent lenses became widely available). With DSLRs the optical viewfinder makes correcting harder. Also introducing it in an old mount would produce compatibility issues. It is better to use it on mirrorless so that all bodies using a mount support it. I have the corrections on on my EOS M50. No need to think what focal length to use to minimize distortions or to post process.

[@bearbearingston7696]

Absurd distortion but the size is great and those colors are amazing. Also that pizza looks lovely.

[@opalyankaBG]

Pretty much all UWA lenses (designed for mirrorless) now have significant distortion. What matters if the corners are still sharp after the image is stretched out :)

[@jimwlouavl]

Good review. I’m thinking it would be better to switch to my 24-120 for 30mm when I can and use this as a 14-24/28.

[@saffuanstudio]

I really hope in the future u will take portrait picture as a sample too.. so i can see the look of it.. thanks..

[@coltoncyr2283]

Finally it's here!!!!!

[@jimwlouavl]

That's an amazing lens and looks quite a bit better than my Nikon 16-35 f/4 AF-S lens.

[@trinkfix]

Hey Chris nice review again. If you compare it with the Tamron 17-35mm F2.8-4 Di OSD on the same aperture like F5,6-11 (beside of the 3mm more range) would you say then the Nikkor Z is still far better or just a littlebit - I mean it's more them double of the price but also double in terms of imagequality?

[@DjCjFoto]

Great review, as always, and great lens! I'm wondering, if you're gonna get a chance to review Fuji 70-300mm, any soon... thanks?

[@christopherfrost]

I will sometime soon, yes

[@DjCjFoto]

@@christopherfrost Thanks for reply...but how soon, any idea? I would like to buy it, but I'm still not convinced. I trust a lot to your opinion.

[@Thomas-fk6ep]

Which nd filter system do you recommend for this 14-30mm?

[@fotoarray532]

I love to use this lens. It also makes it so easy to use filters. I have found out that for some landscape shots, it makes sense to disable the distortion correction (i.e. in C1) to get an even wider angle and less smearing in the corners. The slight fisheye effect looks very good when you have round elements, such a flowers near the corners - they stay round.

[@AgnostosGnostos]

It more and more common these days for lens manufacturers to rely on in camera digital corrections instead of making optically decent lenses. No wonder why full frame f/2.8 zoom lenses are so expensive.

[@markedel6771]

Love your review. I need your advice. Sony 70-350 vs Sigma 100-400.

[@uhoh7541]

I'm an amateur with a Z6II and Z9. I bought this lens bc i didn't think the f2.8 from the 14-24 would be useful as i usually shoot f8-f16 while shooting that wide. I'm hearing the 14-24 f2.8 is a lot sharper with less distortion and wondering if i should sell my 14-30 then buy the 14-24. Any advice would be appreciated and i should add that I've been happy with images taken with the 14-30 so far. I usually use it on landscapes where the distortion isn't as noticeable and have noticed some slight softness on the edges at 14mm (this seemed worse on my Z6, but could be placebo). I also have the other 2 of the Z 'trinity' and why not complete that if I've already dropped this much $.

[@mauriliosampaiojr.774]

Is she good at making 4K videos? I did not find any video samples with this lens.

[@oshoosho8466]

After this wonderful lens, Tamron 17-28 f/2.8 should be your next specimen😎

[@uncle0eric]

I'm tempted by this, but since I have the FTZ converter, I'm also tempted by the AF-S NIKKOR 14-24mm F2.8G ED. I wonder if that extra bit of aperture makes much difference?

[@opalyankaBG]

Totally up to you. The F mount 14-24 is a large and heavy lens, too.

[@quasarcreator]

this z mount lens is miles smaller and essentially just as good optically. If you need the f2.8 then go for it, but I think you'd find the 14-30 to be much more practical

[@uncle0eric]

Thanks! I think I've decided to go for the 14-30.

[@bl00me18]

Hey Chris! Great review as always. Just one remark from me: In all these lenses that highly rely on digital correction of distortion, wouldn't it be a good idea to measure their real viewing angle after correction? I mean if this lens is more of a 16-18mm lens after that distortion correction, it wouldn't be that spectacular anymore, right?

[@fwfeo]

Could you please test Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 Art? I think it's one of the best optical performers out there for a very reasonable price and fantastic build quality!

[@steventhomas231]

I would love this for landscapes. One of the few innovative lenses so far for the z series. Would make a great carry round lens. But the price!!

[@Vinterloft]

Almost identical focal range to the Fuji 10-24 F2.8 which also has filter thread but adds better build quality, OIS, less aberration and distortion for the same price, so innovative

[@lilnape2604]

I’ve heard a lot about the vignette and distortion on this lens. If you can live with some cropping of image to correct for those issues then this Z lens is really great option.

[@rws531]

Why would you crop to fix vignetting and distortion instead of just enabling vignetting and distortion correction in Lightroom? Like cropping defeats purpose of wide angle lens.

[@paintspirationsunlimited]

@@rws531 the 14-30 of nikon is actually more like 13mm or 12.5 and the camera in auto settings automotically crops a small portion even in Lightroom. You need a different software to disable their auto corrections

[@lilnape2604]

@@rws531 Lightroom crops the image to fix distortion. Turn on and off distortion control and you’ll see you lose some image. Correcting for vignette is just an exposure change, I didn’t mean to lump the two

[@KevinZJR]

Sony FE mount needs such a great lens!

[@cmduran]

Hopefully Nikon loans you their 70-200mm for the Z mount, I’m hoping to get that lens for myself and your review would definitely help with my decision!

[@NVIK5]

That is the best lens in the Z lineup, just buy it.

[@bar_288]

70-200mm z is probably "THE" best lens.. better than RF & E mount versions

[@cmduran]

@@bar_288 Well then, I just might save up my money and get it as my first Z lens!

[@lilnape2604]

The Z 70-200 is the best zoom lens I’ve used. Essentially perfect and it’s so sharp you can use 1.4x and 2x teleconverters and not think of IQ degradation.

[@NVIK5]

@@lilnape2604 agree, it is flawless.

[@outdoorstories]

Hey Christopher, thanks a lot for the review. Im looking forward to buy this lens since its release. Btw whats your opinion on in-camera distortion correction? I feel like its kinda cheating :)

[@christopherfrost]

It deems to work very well unless there's an extreme problem. But you can sometimes squeeze a little more resolution out by turning it off

[@fwfeo]

The point about pricing is bit misleading if you compare to Sony, Canon and Sigma offerings that are in the similar range, it is actually very good deal!

[@dr.sommer5069]

Hi Chris. Which raw converter have you used for this review?

[@luckgod1857]

maybe you know when the tamron and the sigma will release the lenses for the nikon?

[@christopherfrost]

No idea, hopefully soon

[@frankseophotos9633]

Great review as always! Fuji 10-24 F4 please!

[@pkmexplorers]

Do you think Nikon Z 14-30 is better lens for landscape than Canon R 14-35 f4 ?

[@ScrapYardDog64]

£809 with your link! Great price!

[@wilteduk007]

You had to be quick, gone up now. Grays of Westminster has it for £869

[@jan-martinulvag1962]

For every lens you test you should produce some sort of score table

[@markokeskinen4322]

Damn I want this on the fe mount

[@HR-wd6cw]

I wouldn't necessary call this lens razor sharp at 14mm in the corners. It's acceptably sharp, but much sharper at 24-30mm than at 14mm. It does have good contrast, but I think some ghosting at 14mm in the corners cause it to lose some sharpness (and possibly vignetting, which is a bit unavoidable out of camera). I would say for the "best" performance, avoid using 14mm if you can, and use 16-20mm instead, which on many copies (I tried a few) it's sharper -- I try not to shoot all the way at 14mm unless absolutely needed, and usually will back up a little and shoot at 16 or 20mm instead. 14mm is just not this lens's strong focal length which is a given because ultra wide lenses are hard to design for unless maybe they are primes, but even so it can be tricky, and it's at the widest end of the zoom range, and dwith many zooms, generally the extrems are not the best, although on this one the telephoto end (30mm) is quite good. So it might be an exception, but on the 3-4 copies I've tried over the years, they all suffered at 14mm to about 16mm, even stepped down to f/8. I will say that if you're not zoomed into 100% then you may not notice the slightly softer corners though. And you almost have to zoom in beyond 100% and have something meaningful to compare to to see it (ie. text or something that has a fine line or shape, not a landscape, as this can blur out and hide the softness a little). Regardless it's still a good lens and a good value, since the next other option is about twice the price but you lose 6mm but you do gain a bit more sharpness and 1-stop. This lens (the 14-30) along with the 24-120 (or 24-200) make a nice two-lens travel kit that should cover you for most needs, and even a 2-lens landscape kit.

[@jtes1442]

Just buy this excellent lens used. You'll save plenty that way.

[@djchips]

This lens is on sale $200 off for the whole month of May, it is probably in that highly recommended category for now.

[@احمدشهاب-ك2ذ]

Very nice lens 👌

[@frankfeng2701]

All Sony UWA lenses, as many as they are, are not as tempting as this unique 14-30.

[@ahmadshaarawy1224]

Thanks Chris! .. Physical built, do you also think it is a downgrade from the Nikkor 14-24 or even the 18-35mm?! .. Even Fuji's 10-24mm looks better built to me! .. I'ld love to watch your review of that Fuji. Million thanks anyway for your brilliant and peaceful reviews since that's my first comment, i believe!

[@8bitofit359]

I paid 925 Euros last year thanks to nikons summer promotion. For that price its pretty nice. Altough I don't need it that much.

[@Termidryna]

Thanks.

[@AgnostosGnostos]

Thank you for this insightful review. I wanted to switch to z mount from e-mount just for this lens but after the revealing geometric distortions and strong vignetting with raw files, I am discouraged. I hate when lenses manufacturers cover up optical problems of lenses with in-camera digital corrections.

[@djteknovibe93]

If you don't mind using manual focus all the time the Samyang 14mm f2.8 is a much better option as it's image quality is fantastic and it's price is only around £370 so it's nearly three times cheaper than this lens. Plus the Samyang comes in Z-Mount too.

[@fredmuellerphotographer4532]

Shoot Real Estate with this lens ... thousands of pictures. For me zero need for its big brother 24-14/2.8 as I'm never more open than 5.6 and very sharp. Chris says this is a pricy lens ... not really IMHO. I shot the f mount 2.8 for years. This lens is sharper, has way less flare, and weighs 1/2 that tank, and takes filters. Reasons enough for me to make the leap to Z.

[@diegorivera2711]

OMG, happy to get this nice place at the start of comments! ;-)

[@keith6658]

Great picture quality but the lens looks pretty cheap 🧐

[@regularplayer1]

it was a great lens until i saw the price

[@Stop_Elitists_Wars]

April 2024 & 'Currys' asking £1349 for this Lens. 🤮

[@Vinterloft]

Why are Nikon engineers so bad at playing Battleship? They always pick F4

[@NVIK5]

There is also a 2.8 version..

[@eagleeyephoto8715]

Absolutely hate plastic build and special irritating lens lock feature.Standard of excellence in build seems to be cheap plastic.

[@romanpul]

There is no plastic on this lens except for the lens hood. The whole barrel is all metal. Just some of it is coated on polycarbonate

[@eagleeyephoto8715]

@@romanpul There is polycarbonate (and cheap feel version) all over the place except at the mount itself.

[@romanpul]

@@eagleeyephoto8715 The only thing which is kinda cheap looking plastic is the extending bit (forgot about that). The rest is not

[@eagleeyephoto8715]

@@romanpul Had that lens in use for couple of weeks and it might be me but compared to Nikon F and my Fujifilm apsc and MF lenses the Nikon Z felt a bit cheap.

[@JPStaats]

@@eagleeyephoto8715 You’re confusing lightness with cheapness. The aim of the Z-system is lightweight construction using effective materials. Also comparing this lens to any of its APS-C equivalents is folly.