I have shot both extensively.IF you need a top flight mid zoom, you can't do better than the 24-70 2.8.In every criteria it is quite probably the best mid zoom on the planet. But it is not cheap and might not be needed.The F/4 version is excellent, better than either the 24-70 2.8 G or E versions which I also have.
The 14-30 is slower in aperture but it compares very well to the famous 14-24 2.8. Corner to corner, an important criteria for landscape and architecture photography, is better with the smaller, lighter and better suited to filters and ND filters since it has a front element recessed so it accepts standard screw on filters. I am a big fan of the 14-30 because it is the perfect travel wide angle and fitts and carry-on or camera bag. Unless someone really needs 2.8, it is hard to justify the higher cost of the 14-24 2.8. For a long time it was the best ultra-wide angle available. But since that time the lower cost Tamron 15-30 2.8 had excellent VR and $500 cheaper. I sold my 14-24 some time ago but bought a Tamron last year and find it to be very impressive in feel, build, optics and 5 stops of VR. Then enter Z cameras with the gigantic flange and the shortest flange distance so ultra wide lenses can be smaller and simpler. The f/4 14-30 S lenses is too small, too light and too good to be ignored. As a travel lens, I think it is the best option on the market for any mount. If you need a sharp wide angle and do not need faster than f/4, I say it ticks all the right boxes.
What do you shoot that would benefit from f/2.8 in a mid zoom? I do a lot of low light and portraiture and events where 24-70 is very useful but find I really do not need 2.8 when the excellent 1.8 85 , 35 and 50mm primes that are super. I did a shoot tonight, portrait and boudoir session tonight and took only a SB900, the Z6, a 24-70 f/4, 85 1.8 S, and 50 1.8 S that fit in a small sling bag. I have not edited them but the images looked great on the monitor. Every image was taken with the 24-70 f/4 or the 85 1.8.
No lens is magic, they are tools and like all tools, they assist the craftsmen but do not make the results. What do you shoot and in what conditions?
This has been an interesting read.
I just sold ALL my DX lenses, and my D7500 so I’ve cleared TJR slate for the z6.
I was quite keen on the f2.8 S trinity. The reviews of the 24-70 f2.8 S have been outstanding....more so than any other lens that I’ve researched.
But....now I’m wondering if for me, an enthusiastic amateur, the f4 “trinity” might be as good an option. Hmmmmm
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
This has been an interesting read.
I just sold ALL my DX lenses, and my D7500 so I’ve cleared TJR slate for the z6.
I was quite keen on the f2.8 S trinity. The reviews of the 24-70 f2.8 S have been outstanding....more so than any other lens that I’ve researched.
But....now I’m wondering if for me, an enthusiastic amateur, the f4 “trinity” might be as good an option. Hmmmmm
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I get pumped up about the 2.8 trinity too. But I really like my 24-70 f4. I really think i am going to stay in the f4 world for the 24-70 and the 14-30 to manage my costs, but the 70-200 f2.8... I really like the thought of that lens. I am just thinking about how I use the lenses. I like to use the 70-200 in indoor arenas for horse shows and such and the Tamron I use now sees a lot of use in f stops below 4. The other two lenses do not.
It's good to know your most used settings/focal lengths to focus (ha, ha) your spending on the right lenses. I rarely shot below 20mm, that's why I ordered that instead of the 14-30. I want the best quality at the range I shoot the most. I'm also tempted by the 70-200, but I want to see what the specs are for the 100-400 first.
For a general comment. I bought a 24-70 2.8 S and it is on another level above the F mount, sold a F mount E type that covered it. Yeah it is great but the little f/4 version gets used daily on far more shots because it is with my in my light sling bag. Shooting for personal pleasure in jazz clubs, random people who become new acquaintances. If someone forced me to have only one zoom lens, I would pick the f/4 because it is going to get the rare shot opportunities because it is with me all the time. The 2.8, as good as it is, at f/4 is impossible to tell a difference at less than 100% pixel peeping. For commercial shoots where I take a large backpack or rolling case, the 2.8 is a primary go to lens. The only lenses in my slign bag that is with me everywhere, it is the 85 1.8 S, 24-70 f/4, and a wide prime like the 24 1.8s or none at all. Add a SB900 and flash controller and I am ready to handle almost anything I run across.
The 70-200 2.8 S will be ordered using cash from selling off more F lenses but it is not compact at all, larger than a F mount version. I hope a f/4 70-200 that is small and light like the well regarded F mount f/4 version I hardly see the in use or for sale so I suspect it never sold well. Using an FTZ to a f/4 70-200 F mount would make it longer than some 2.8 versions. The Tamron 70-200 2.8 is more compact but not light. I seldom use any F mount lenses now. I still have 3 full frame Nikon DSLRs so will keep a few.
Consider any remaining F lenses as temporary fill ins, to be replaced by better optics of the S glass. The non-S glass is also pretty good but not sealed as well, and not up to the corner to corner sharpness and lack of fringing that S glass is becoming famous for. For those who stop down a lot for greater depth of field, pro F glass is a fine substitute because they get better in the corners slower than 4 or 5.6. The fringing on fast F primes that limit edge detail pretty much disappears stopped down to 5.6. But most of us do not buy fast primes to shoot 5.6. A lot of subjects to not benefit that much from corner to corner sharpness, such as portaits that are limited to the center pf the frame, but anything where the edges or even bokah is within the final frame crop, at 5.6, the S lenses still embarrass some pretty pricey fast F mount lenses. The 85 for example shot wide open just begins to have oval bokah balls in specular highlights, like a 10% horizontal narrowing of the circles bu still no sign of onion rings.
These reasonably priced S primes are changing shooting preferences from zooms to primes. A lot of people are shifting to zooming with feet because they are so pleasant to use and what they do to our attention to framing and perspective. That shift might not have started if S lenses were not as stellar as they are.
These reasonably priced S primes are changing shooting preferences from zooms to primes. A lot of people are shifting to zooming with feet because they are so pleasant to use and what they do to our attention to framing and perspective. That shift might not have started if S lenses were not as stellar as they are.