It's a great lens, love using it. The 2.8 version is just too expensive maybe.

Yes good point. Also worth thinking I could get the 20mm 1.8 for low light and still save £700 if I already own the 14-30. Obviously it doesn't have that 14mm look. But in low light 1.8's are much better than 2.8's?

@@russandloz A F1.8 is 1.5 stops better than a f2.8 in low light when shooting wide open. Sigma makes a 14mm F1.8, if you really want 14mm.

Interesting, when would you use the 2.8 version?

@@russandloz I bought it to use for Astro photography. I went this summer to a starry night ranch in colorado only to realize that I chose a night with a full moon. I will have to wait till next summer to get my milky way shot. I plan to use it for only that and any indoor shoots. I could have purchased the 20 instead, but decided to spend the extra money for the zoom. Maybe a good decision or not. Only time will tell. Right now, I plan to keep it. Just acquired the 100-400 Z lens. Haven’t had an opportunity to really use it properly but will this winter in Wyoming. We are going to Yellowstone in the winter. Hoping to photograph the animals in a winter landscape.

@@ericerickson6537 Fair enough. I recently got the 20 1.8z instead of the 14-24 and really enjoying it so far. Soon to make a video on it.

Yes good advice. Leave the 2.8 at the store and save money too. But do you feel 20mm is wide enough?

@@russandloz I basically never shoot my Z 14-30 wider than 17-18mm for stills. The barrel distortion is too high wider than that, and the Z 14-24 f2.8 has the same problem albeit to a somewhat lessor degree. For video, I basically never shoot wider than 20mm for the same reason, and again the Z 14-24 f2.8 is in the same boat. I feel that one can come to just accept it for stills. So its a little distorted and stretched in the corners, so what. Its art. But for video this is not an art look I am interested in. So, for me, I buy the ultra wide to wide zoom lens for what it gets me above 20mm and not below it. I suspect I am not alone, and this is why the 16-35mm (or thereabouts) f4's and variable's have traditionally been so much more popular than the 14-24 f2.8's. Its not just the price. Its a lot more useful lens in practical terms. Maybe for some its the price. The Z 20 f1.8 is essentially a zoom lens. I feel 100% comfortable cropping in post to an effective 35mm with that lens. If the Z 20 f1.8 had been available first, I might not have bought the Z 14-30 f4.

Wow thats impressive and maybe lucky

@@russandloz And a bit of embarrassing for taking the fall.

Lightroom has a new denoise feature too. But it’s easier to get it right on the shoot

Yes it is a bit lighter which is welcomed but it is quite a bit longer than the 14-30 if thats a consideration

It really is impressive. Maybe in lower light I can shoot a slower shutter speed to emulate the 2.8.

@@russandloz with the ff mirrorless nowedays a bit higher iso doesn't hurt either

@@russandloz It's true the newer cameras do better in low light so f/4 vs f/2.8 isn't as important as it was long ago. One thing the 2.8 does better than the 4 is background blur for artistic effect, but short focal lengths don't do that well anyway, so we're not losing much there, if anything. It does seem like the wide angle zoom lens is a good place to save size, weight and money compared to the "pro" f/2.8 lens. In the 24-70 size and 70-200, the 2.8 is really doing something for you. It doesn't seem as important, if at all, in the wide zoom. At least according to all the reading and thinking I've done so far:-)

@@jefflastofka9289 yes its true, wide shallow depth of field is less important unless you need to shoot in low light.

Interesting thanks. I didn’t notice the dust spots, I’ll also have to check my sensor for dust too. I have been changing lenses in the field more often.

@@russandloz If you're seeing dust spots in focus, they're on the sensor, not the lens. Dust on the outside of the lens, or even inside the lens, does almost nothing usually. It's not in focus. I've seen guys do tests by putting more and more dirt and scratches on lenses until something visible happens. It's amazing how much it takes before it shows up. I'm sure you could find the tests with a little searching. The guys who buy and sell used lenses professionally know about the dust thing, too. It's not the problem most people think it is. Dust on the sensor, though, perfect focus, instant problem. I have this lens, too. It seems very nice but I haven't used it much yet.

@@jefflastofka9289 interesting. Like I said it was probably as I’m changing lenses more in the field.

@@FMJP The wide angle difference sounds like a good clue, but maybe it has to do with the types of pictures when using that lens. Maybe your other pictures hide more dust specs and your wide angle photo subjects tend to reveal more? It's the same sensor in each case so that shouldn't vary. And plenty of real world tests have shown us we can't see dust on the lens (unless it's a ridiculous amount). It could even be related to the types of places where you change one lens vs the other lenses. Or something else we're not thinking of yet.

Yes, the z lenses are so much better!

I did exactly that as well, and I agree that the Z is much better !

Yes the extra focal length is nice to have, though I understand the 14-24 then turns into the 24-70 and so on

I’ve never used the 17-28. But depends if you need lower light capability or a wider focal length. Both will be good. Could use 14-30 with slower shutter speeds if the scene is still with a tripod.

Thank you so much for replying! Yeah, that’s my debate.. I mean, I know even with 17mm it will be quite wide and 2.8 is something most photographers go for. And I also thought that how often I would use the 14mm with the distortion and all. 🤔

Yes in low light 2.8 will always be better, hence why I traded the 14-30 for the 14-28 2.8

If there's movement in the images (leaves, branches, vehicles, animals, people, water) your stitching won't work well. Also, with the ultra wide angle you can do really nice perspective emphasizing shots like getting REALLY close to a hood ornament on a car and seeing the body curves severely angled compared to our normal perception. Panoramas are nice, but they have limits. Having the ultra wide lens is still a necessary thing for some uses.

Ummm if you want to try all that extra work, and the perspective will not be the same. A 18mm shot vs three 50mm etc will not look the same.