Nikon has just announced a new lens for the Z6 and Z7 cameras: the NIKKOR 14-30mm f/4S. This lightweight, ultra-wide zoom is in line with the lens roadmap released by Nikon last year and shows a stark contrast with Canon’s approach to new glass for mirrorless bodies.
This is certainly a small lens: at a mere 3.5-inches long when retracted, and weighing in at only 1.07 lbs (485 g), Nikon is clearly tapping into the idea that mirrorless users appreciate smaller, lighter lenses, even if that means making a few compromises along the way. If the success of the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 for Sony’s mirrorless cameras is anything to go by, the market is happy to forego some “pro” aspects if it means affordability, a small size, and less weight to carry. This might be where Nikon is making a mistake: at just $879, the Tamron 28-75mm is a lot of lens for very little money; the NIKKOR 14-30mm is still going to cost you well over a thousand dollars. As Jared Polin points out, pro shooters expect f/2.8, and f/4 should mean that the price reflects this. At a shade under $1300, many might wait for the price to drop before investing, preferring to stick with their existing glass via an adapter.
As Ted Forbes of Art of Photography notes, the lens does seem to offer excellent edge to edge sharpness, and landscape photographers have plenty to be excited about. They don’t need such fast glass, will appreciate the light weight, and will love the fact that this new lens will accept a filter on the front. Many lenses of this focal range have a bulbous front element, making filters somewhat awkward, and Nikon has worked hard to resolve this.
While Canon and Sigma seem to be busy creating huge, expensive lenses, Nikon seems to be of the opinion that early adopters would prefer affordability. With the exception of the NIKKOR Z 58mm f/0.95 S Noct, Nikon’s releases this year are much more conservative: their primes are all going to be f/1.8 and Z6 and Z7 shooters won’t be able to complete their holy trinity (wide zoom, standard zoom, telephoto zoom) of f/2.8 until 2020.
Is Nikon choosing the right path here? It doesn’t create as much drama but it might make the Nikon Z line more accessible to those switching to mirrorless, especially given the dramatic improvements when it comes to shooting video. Your thoughts in the comments, please!
![New Tamron 17-35mm Full-Frame Lens Coming Soon [Rumor]](https://cdn.fstoppers.com/styles/small-16-9/s3/lead/2018/08/tamron_17-35mm.jpg)
Its like Nikon doesn't want us to buy their lenses and utilize them for astrophotography. I really don't understand any move they have made lately within mirrorless. Tamron is always much more affordable and the sharpness of their lenses paired with a very wide aperture always allows me to use them for many different types of photography including astro, where Nikon leaves me wanting more and for a much more reasonable price.
I think that astro is a small enough niche that you might have to wait. They don't even have a lot of general purpose "bread and butter" lenses available yet.
I guarantee you Nikon is not thinking about astrophotography.
“Too expensive and not fast enough” for a minute I thought you were telling the truth about the cameras they released and not just the lenses.
But then I realized we all know it’s both now anyways... Good reporting!
😂
nice childish reactions from surely the self claimed geniuses of the world.
Are you seriously adults ? or just childs trying to be the biggest bad ass guy in video games forums ?
Bloody hell Eric, any Nikon Z series postings you're straight on it with your sarcy comments. I like the Z series, I like the Fuji X series, I like the Sony A series, I'm not that keen on Canon but hey ho but that's as personal taste. I however don't pounce on reviews like you do, we know you are a Sony user , I'm a Nikon / Fuji user. I'm sorry I must be a complete "see you next Tuesday" for not being a Sony user and I can only apologise ( spelt correctly with an 's')
I like to make “sarcy” comments. If they weren’t true, I wouldn’t make them.
So far, all this “Holy New Mount”, Nikon “groundbreaking” (their words, not mine) technology has led to an expensive lens nobody will buy and this one... a lack luster excuse for a wide zoom. B&H already having sales including the Z6/7 indicates the main problem.
Nikon isn’t stupid and they clearly know what they’re doing. If people continue to be awestruck by tiny flickers of hope, they’ll throttle their technology like they have been for the past few years.
Happy shooting 🤙
Nikon philosophy with the z-mount seems to be: SUPER LARGE BIG GULP with tiny straw.
I suspect in two years time Sony will be remembered for the Walkman...
“The Sony Walkman didn’t represent a breakthrough in technology so much as it did a breakthrough in imagination.“ - The History Channel
Can’t make that up so going along with your trolling, it has already happened.
Trolling? I'm just being sarcy...
Although I´d be happy if the lens were at under thousand I can't follow your arguments. Mirrorless is for small and light and especially super wideangle for landscape which will be shot 90% at even smaller apertures isthe perfect reason for f 4.0. You have to carry less than 50% of a 2.8 lens, can use filters and have as the few samples show probably stunning sharpness and great color with good correction, not to speak of the reasonable cheaper price. For me this seems a great lens and perhaps for some reason enought to chose the Z system. What Nikon should do from my point of view is updating the roadmap with a stunnningly good 4.0/70-200 to accompany the 14-30 and 24-70.
Do you own a mirrorless camera ? Your argument about “small and light” doesn’t make sense to me because it omits the bigger and real reasons to go mirrorless.
Not to mention I shot a landscape this morning at 5am at Donner Pass at 2.8. The argument about only shooting landscapes at F/9+ is ridiculous.
A “stunningly good F4”... yea, you can keep that. Did you forget the lie of how the new mount will enable incredibly fast lenses ?
Im fine with the speed and price. I just wish it was wider on the wide end like 10mm or at least 12mm... Either that or commit the other way and make it a 14-35.
They're attempting to improve optics in the Z line. I think they stopped at 30mm in service to that goal.
I'm guessing that it's less an optical issue and more a size/weight issue.
I would agree with you but then we'd both be wrong! 😂
Whatever the case, I think by 2022/2023, the Z system is going to be an pretty exciting option for MILC shooters. It's just pretty rough going with the barebones array of native lenses right now. Hopefully, Nikon survives long enough to really show what they can do because I love me some NIKKOR glass (even if it's starting to get obscenely expensive).
I thought you switched to Sony!? I can't imagine switching from Nikon. Not because they're the best or anything but, the differences from any system to any other are so small, it wouldn't be worth the time or expense.
I'm currently using Sony because they have the most mature full frame MILC system at the moment, but I keep a close eye on Nikon developments because if I'm going to switch systems, it's likely going to be back to Nikon. I just want to see how the system matures before making a final decision. It also gives me a few years to save up. :)
I miss Nikon ergonomics and weathersealing. LOL
Actually, I'm lucky enough to have just got my filthy mitts on a 14-30mm to give feedback to Nikon.
I'll be trying out working situations next to it's fatso cousin. The 14-24 is by far my most used lens for aircraft / car interiors.
Dead curious!
Looking forward to getting your thoughts. I'm really interested in seeing what they do with the 20mm f/1.8, especially given that I wrote this article last year: https://fstoppers.com/originals/lens-should-exist-never-will-268949
Please detail Nikon's claim of minimal focus breathing. Since many in this comment section have nothing better to do than cry like babies that it doesn't do this, or doesn't do that for their own selfish needs (read- "I will never use this lens or ML Z body to do something, but I watched a YT video that someone else complained about, so I must whine too"). Many people complain about the f4 as being too slow (like that MORON FRO KNOWS nothing clown, but if these people used a ML camera they will realize that it's irrelevant. You're looking at a video screen so it can compensate for dim conditions.
As far as I can see so far, their claim is true. I'm not seeing any focus breathing on this sample lens.
It's not a final retail model, it's an internal test one, with permission granted to show that I'm using it, but images produced are for internal use, unfortunately.
So far, I'm Very impressed. I'll be shooting some tight vehicle interiors tomorrow and switching from this to the 14-24 to see how the compare.
I should add: personally, I don't think $1300 is necessarily a lot of money for this lens. Rather, Tamron has set a pretty tough marker when it comes to prosumer lenses.
My biggest issue as full time photographer is that buying off-brand is a hit and miss affair when it comes to being bailed out in the event of equipment failure. Much less an issue if you're not relying on kit of course.
+10
Yeah, absolutely, and that's a big difference when it comes to prosumer stuff. I think the rule that you get what you pay for is true for the vast majority of stuff in the world of photography.
YGWYPF is the most quoted and useless rhetoric. Provide examples, preferably quantified.
Sigma 17-50 preventing the D500 from going in standby in less than a full minute, with VR on during that time. Cheaper than the Nikkor, but that’s what you risk when going off-brand.
Sigma 10mm not focusing in live view on the D500, same for some firmware versions of the 10-20mm, same for the older 150mm macro on multiple bodies,...
Tamron 85mm not compatible with auto-fine tune.
Etc.
Etc.
Etc.
Cheaper, work well when everything is okay, but more chances that you run into incompatibilities. You pay more for quasi-certainty that it will keep on being compatible.
I’m not even talking about consistency in ergonomics that is better with one brand only. Sigma isn’t even very consistent between lenses when it comes to the way you zoom out or in. Not a huge deal, but you pay less, and what you get is more effort to adapt. Whether all that is worth the difference is up to each individual buyer.
Couple that with the simple fact that many will tend to not go off-brand just because of the image they think it projects... Nikon being more expensive makes sense. I hate it, but it makes sense.
Er, no thanks. I've got better things to do. Sorry! 😂
Nikon is doing good. A couple of firmware updates and there cameras will focus much better, I sure hope they nail eye-af. Look forward to that. The stupid 0.95 is joke to me, but the rest seems to be a good start. Most pros will not dive into this system with new lenses anyway, the have adapter and lenses all ready.
I shoot with Sony but when the price on the Z6 is down I for sure will try it out.
The Tamron is fine but there is to much vignetting. Its compact. Hopefully so are the new lenses Nikon is making.
Yes, Nikon lenses always have been more expensive than thrid party lenses. A compact affordable lens helps to build the system. And for travelling photographer is it a big advantage. One can be sure that the image quality is outstanding. I shoot Nikon for the past 40 years, because of the lenses. 14 years ago I added a Leica Aspheric Summicron 35/2.0 with a M body to my gear because: the image quality and weight/size. This small lens produces outstanding images for sharpness and character. If the mirrorless system should be for weight/size, I don't see this yet, even a simple 35/2.0 is bigger and heavier than the Summicron. Without surpassnig the image quality. Can somebody explain that to me?
Whose 35/2 are you talking about?
I'd MUCH rather shoot with Nikon's 35/1.8S than the Summicron. Nikon has AF, a control ring, weather sealing, 9 aperture blades, almost 1/4 the cost, only 115g heavier and it also has aspherical elements. Plus you get 45MP and IBIS with a Z7 (which is far cheaper than any Leica M). You will get SHARPER results with a Nikon setup.
If that isn't enough, no doubt CaNikSon or a third party will eventually produce a good pancake lens.
BTW if I truly needed small, light and high quality, I'd shoot with an Olympus EM1ii and a 17mm.
For the weight I agree with you, the size remains. Yes, I shoot the Nikkor 35/2.0 in combination with the Nikkor 85/1.8, beautifull results. The image quality and the character of the Summicron are a complete different story. Yes a M is expensive, but working with rangefinder gives access to possibilities no other system has. The refined construction makes camera almost disappear when you interact with your subject. I still use Nikon because for the qualities of the image. And for me the size of film or sensor matters, APS-C is bottom line. Even the high pixel count of small sensor is high, the larger the film/sensor, the better is the image quality (see Fuji GFX and Hasselblad X1D). Besides it is difficult with small sensors to control your depth of the field naturally. One has to use shorter lens to have have the same view. Have ever shot 6X9 cm slides?
Interesting lens philosophies when looking at Nikon and Canon. Canon has decided to take full advantage of the new mount and produce pro lenses right out of the gate. Nikon has chosen the smaller, lighter, less expensive middle of the road lenses.
My guess is that Canon is banking on the fact that their adapters are very good and allows existing glass to work seamlessly, so why not get right to it and produce top shelf lenses?
Nikon has a terrific adapter as well, but has chosen to build less expensive lenses to get their customers into native glass quickly.
Well, it's a thought! :-)
Nikon believes their "middle of the road lenses" are as good or better than faster alternatives. I don't know if they're right and never will.
And they may be better...right up until you need f2.8. Most of my shooting with that sort of lens is landscapes, so f2.8 isn't needed for me, but others would probably disagree.
And for them, the f/2.8 and faster lenses are coming. Priorities!
For sure! And there is still the 'fall back' that the existing line of Nikon's premium lenses work seamlessly with the Z series because Nikon did a good job on their adapter.
The initial cash outlay is less for Nikon. I think this was quite a conscious decision. Since there are more Canon users out there and the brand recognition seems to be better, Canon can risk operating in the higher tier. Nikon is balancing their modest lineup with the Noct.
In a decade, everyone will have pretty much the same mirrorless lens lineups.
There's nothing "middle of the road" with optical performance if these lenses. The small apertures are obviously for size. The 50mm has already been compared to the OTUS, so not so bad for a "middle of the road" lens. ;-)
Nikon chose to make their new lenses 'slower' to keep costs down. Going from 1.8 to 1.4 seems small, but it costs a lot more to produce, not to mention 1.2. So 'middle of the road' is price and speed, not performance. My 'stay on my camera' lens is a Tamron 35 f1.8. My guess is Tamron decided to make it f1.8 to save on costs.
Yes but you're implying that these are not "pro" lenses, because they don't have a large aperture, whereas apparently Canon's are because they have larger apertures. In reality, both companies have manufactured pro lenses with pro performance, for different reasons.
It seems that I'm not the only one. I've listened to a couple of online reviewers that are a bit disappointed in Nikon's chosen lens path so far.
Look, I only pointed out that Nikon has chosen to make less expensive glass for their new mount than Canon did. I'm quite sure that the new Nikon lenses are just fine and will produce terrific, professional results. No need to get defensive. Heck, if I was starting over and knew what I know now, I'd be at Henry's ordering a D850, the best FF camera on the market.
In the end, we'll find out if Canon has made a mistake producing premium lenses for a fledgling mount. My guess is that Canon will do well with their choice and I'm sure Nikon will also do well. Different strokes.
Well, you said:
"Canon has decided to take full advantage of the new mount and produce pro lenses right out of the gate. Nikon has chosen the smaller, lighter, less expensive middle of the road lenses."
To me that's implying the Canons are "pro" because thet are large aperture and the Nikons are not. Looks pretty cut and dry to me.
And who cares what online reviewers have to say about anything?
I surrender. I said that Nikon's lenses are slower, lighter, and cheaper than Canon's, those are all facts. Take from it what you wish. You don't care about online reviewers, but I certainly struck a nerve. That was not my intention. I just pointed out facts and formed an opinion.
You don't need a fast lens to do astrophotography, you need a star tracker. This lens is small, offers a nice focal range for landscape photograpers and can be equipped with circular filters, the downside is in its price... But I'm quite sure it will drop soon after its release on the market.
A star tracker won't help for astro landscape, which this focal range would excel at.