As a landscape photographer who’s spent countless hours in the field with both of these lenses, I’m excited to share my comprehensive comparison of the Nikon 14-30mm f/4 S and the Nikon 16-35mm f/4G ED VR. When I first made the switch to Nikon’s Z system, I found myself grappling with this exact decision – and let me tell you, it’s not as straightforward as you might think!
I’ve tested both lenses extensively in real-world conditions, from the golden hour landscapes of Utah’s national parks to the bustling streets of European cities. What I discovered might surprise you, and I’m here to help you make an informed decision that could save you hundreds of dollars while getting you the perfect lens for your photography style.
Quick Overview: The Contenders
Before we dive deep into the nitty-gritty details, let me give you a quick snapshot of what we’re dealing with here:
Nikon NIKKOR Z 14-30mm f/4 S
- Mount: Nikon Z
- Announced: January 2019
- Price: Around $1,300
- Weight: 485g (17.1 oz)
- Length: 85mm (3.3 inches)
- Filter Size: 82mm
- Weather Sealing: Yes
- Image Stabilization: No (relies on IBIS)
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR
- Mount: Nikon F (requires FTZ adapter for Z cameras)
- Announced: February 2010
- Price: Around $1,260
- Weight: 680g (24 oz)
- Length: 125mm (4.9 inches)
- Filter Size: 77mm
- Weather Sealing: Yes
- Image Stabilization: Yes (VR II)
Right off the bat, you can see some key differences. The 14-30mm is significantly lighter and more compact, while the 16-35mm offers built-in vibration reduction. But there’s so much more to consider!
Build Quality and Design: First Impressions Matter
When I first unboxed both lenses, the difference in build quality was immediately apparent. Let me break down what I found:
Nikon Z 14-30mm f/4 S: Modern Mirrorless Design
I absolutely love the feel of the 14-30mm in my hands. It’s noticeably lighter at just 485g, making it a dream for hiking and travel photography. The magnesium alloy construction gives it a premium feel without the bulk. What really impressed me was the compact design – at just 85mm long, it’s incredibly portable.
The weather sealing is top-notch, with gaskets at all the critical points. I’ve shot with this lens in light rain and dusty conditions without any issues. The zoom ring is smooth but firm, and the focus ring is perfectly damped for manual focus adjustments.
One feature I discovered that’s become essential for my workflow is the internal zooming design. Unlike many wide-angle lenses, the 14-30mm doesn’t extend when you zoom, which means I can use filters without worrying about vignetting or the lens hitting my filter holder.
Nikon 16-35mm f/4G ED VR: The DSLR Workhorse
The 16-35mm feels like a traditional DSLR lens – solid, substantial, and built like a tank. At 680g, it’s noticeably heavier, and the 125mm length makes it quite a bit longer. The build quality is excellent, with professional-grade weather sealing that’s proven itself in countless professional shoots.
However, when adapted to a Z camera via the FTZ adapter, the balance feels off. The lens is front-heavy, and I found myself needing to support the lens more than the camera body during extended shooting sessions.
The zoom mechanism is smooth, but the lens does extend when zooming to 35mm, which can be problematic for filter users. The focus ring is well-damped, though not quite as precise as the Z lens.
My Verdict: For handheld shooting and travel, the 14-30mm wins hands down. The weight difference alone makes it my go-to for long days in the field. However, if you’re primarily shooting from a tripod and need the extra reach to 35mm, the 16-35mm’s build quality is still excellent.
Optical Performance: Where the Rubber Meets the Road?
This is where things get really interesting! I spent weeks testing both lenses side by side, and the results might surprise you. Let me break down the performance at different focal lengths.
At 14-16mm: The Wide End Battle
The Nikon 14-30mm has a clear advantage here, offering that extra 2mm at the wide end. But how does it perform?
Nikon Z 14-30mm at 14mm:
- Center sharpness: Excellent wide open at f/4
- Corner sharpness: Good wide open, improves significantly by f/5.6
- Distortion: Noticeable but easily correctable in post
- Vignetting: Moderate at f/4, improves when stopped down
Nikon 16-35mm at 16mm:
- Center sharpness: Very good at f/4, excellent at f/5.6
- Corner sharpness: Soft wide open, needs f/8 for best results
- Distortion: Less than the 14-30mm at equivalent focal lengths
- Vignetting: Similar to the 14-30mm
I discovered that the 14-30mm maintains better corner-to-corner sharpness throughout its range, especially when shooting wide open. For landscape photography where I often shoot at f/8-f/11, both lenses perform excellently, but the 14-30mm has a slight edge in overall clarity.
At 20-24mm: The Sweet Spot
This is where both lenses really shine, and interestingly, they’re very closely matched.
Nikon Z 14-30mm at 24mm:
- Center sharpness: Outstanding across all apertures
- Corner sharpness: Excellent at f/5.6 and beyond
- Chromatic aberration: Well-controlled
- Coma: Minimal, great for astrophotography
Nikon 16-35mm at 24mm:
- Center sharpness: Excellent, comparable to the Z lens
- Corner sharpness: Good, but needs to be stopped down more for best results
- Chromatic aberration: Slightly more noticeable than the Z lens
- Coma: More pronounced, not ideal for night photography
I found that for general landscape and architectural photography, both lenses deliver stunning results at these focal lengths. However, if you’re into astrophotography like I am, the 14-30mm’s superior coma control makes it the clear winner.
At 28-35mm: The Telephoto End
Here’s where the 16-35mm has the advantage with its extended range.
Nikon Z 14-30mm at 30mm:
- Center sharpness: Excellent
- Corner sharpness: Very good
- Distortion: Minimal
- Overall performance: Consistent with the rest of the range
Nikon 16-35mm at 35mm:
- Center sharpness: Very good
- Corner sharpness: Good, benefits from stopping down
- Distortion: Well-controlled
- Overall performance: Slightly softer than at wider focal lengths
The 16-35mm gives you that extra 5mm of reach, which can be useful for certain compositions. However, I found that the image quality at 35mm isn’t quite as good as the 14-30mm at 30mm. It’s a trade-off between reach and quality.
Technical Specifications Deep Dive
Let me get technical for a moment and share some hard data I’ve gathered from my testing and research:
Sharpness Measurements (Based on DXOMark Data)
- Nikon Z 14-30mm f/4 S: 17 P-Mpix
- Nikon 16-35mm f/4G ED VR: 19 P-Mpix
Wait, that seems counterintuitive, right? The 16-35mm scores higher on paper, but in real-world use, I found the 14-30mm to produce sharper images. Here’s why: the DXOMark score is measured on different camera bodies (Z7 vs D800E), and the Z lens benefits from newer sensor technology and better lens-camera communication.
Transmission and Light Gathering
- Nikon Z 14-30mm: 4.1 TStop
- Nikon 16-35mm: 4.6 TStop
The 14-30mm is more efficient at transmitting light, which means slightly better low-light performance despite both having the same f/4 aperture rating.
Distortion Control
- Nikon Z 14-30mm: 1% distortion
- Nikon 16-35mm: 0.5% distortion
The 16-35mm has better distortion control, which is great for architectural photography. However, modern software correction makes this less of an issue than it used to be.
Vignetting
- Nikon Z 14-30mm: -1.7 EV
- Nikon 16-35mm: -1.1 EV
The 16-35mm has less vignetting, which can be beneficial for certain styles of photography. Personally, I don’t mind a bit of vignetting and often add it in post-processing for artistic effect.
Chromatic Aberration
- Nikon Z 14-30mm: 15 μm
- Nikon 16-35mm: 10 μm
The 16-35mm has better chromatic aberration control, which is noticeable in high-contrast situations. However, the difference isn’t dramatic enough to be a deal-breaker for most photographers.
Real-World Performance: My Field Experience
Numbers and charts are great, but what really matters is how these lenses perform in the field. Let me share some of my experiences:
Landscape Photography: My Primary Use Case
For landscape photography, which makes up about 70% of my work, the Nikon Z 14-30mm has become my go-to lens. Here’s why:
Weight and Portability: On a recent 5-day backpacking trip in the Sierra Nevada, the weight difference between these lenses became crucial. The 14-30mm saved me nearly 200g, which doesn’t sound like much until you’re carrying it up 3,000 feet of elevation gain.
Filter Compatibility: This is huge for landscape photographers. The 14-30mm’s internal zoom design means I can use my 82mm filter system without vignetting, even at 14mm. With the 16-35mm, I need special filter systems or have to deal with vignetting issues.
Weather Sealing: I’ve shot both lenses in rain, snow, and dusty conditions. Both held up well, but I give the edge to the 14-30mm for its more modern sealing design.
Architectural Photography: Straight Lines Matter
When I’m shooting architecture, distortion control becomes critical. Here, the 16-35mm has a slight advantage with its lower distortion numbers. However, I found that with in-camera corrections on the Z system, the 14-30mm produces excellent results with minimal effort.
Pro Tip: If you shoot a lot of architecture, consider investing in a tilt-shift lens. Both these wide-angle zooms are good, but neither can match the perspective control of a dedicated tilt-shift lens.
Astrophotography: Chasing the Stars
This is where the Nikon Z 14-30mm really shines (pun intended!). I’ve spent many nights under the stars with both lenses, and the difference is noticeable:
Coma Control: The 14-30mm has significantly better coma control, which means stars appear as points rather than comet-shaped blobs in the corners of your images. This is crucial for Milky Way photography.
Light Transmission: The slightly better light transmission of the 14-30mm means you can capture more star detail in the same exposure time.
Weight: When you’re hiking to a remote location for astrophotography, every gram counts. The lighter weight of the 14-30mm makes it the clear choice for overnight trips.
Travel Photography: The Ultimate Test
For travel photography, versatility and portability are key. I recently took both lenses on a 10-day trip through Italy, and here’s what I discovered:
The 14-30mm was my primary lens 80% of the time. Its wider angle was perfect for capturing the grand architecture of Rome and Florence, and the lighter weight made it ideal for walking around cities all day.
The 16-35mm came out when I needed that extra reach. For tighter compositions in crowded streets or when I wanted to compress the background slightly, the 35mm end was useful.
Battery Life: Interestingly, I found that using the 14-30mm resulted in slightly better battery life on my Z7. I suspect this is because the lens communicates more efficiently with the camera body.
Autofocus Performance: Speed and Accuracy
In today’s fast-paced photography world, autofocus performance can make or break a shot. Here’s how these lenses compare:
Nikon Z 14-30mm f/4 S: Mirrorless Precision
The autofocus on the 14-30mm is nothing short of spectacular. Using Nikon’s latest STM (Stepping Motor) technology, it’s:
- Virtually silent: Perfect for video and wildlife photography
- Lightning fast: Acquires focus almost instantly in good light
- Accurate: Rarely misses focus, even in challenging conditions
- Smooth: Great for video work with no hunting or jerking
I’ve used this lens for everything from fast-moving street scenes to delicate macro work, and the autofocus has never let me down.
Nikon 16-35mm f/4G ED VR: DSLR Reliability
The 16-35mm uses Nikon’s SWM (Silent Wave Motor) technology, which was state-of-the-art when it was released in 2010. It’s:
- Quiet: But not as silent as the Z lens
- Fast: But noticeably slower than modern mirrorless lenses
- Accurate: Generally reliable, but can hunt in low light
- Slightly audible: You can hear it working, which might be an issue for video
When adapted to a Z camera via the FTZ adapter, the autofocus performance is good but not great. There’s a noticeable lag compared to native Z lenses.
My Experience: For action photography, video work, or any situation where autofocus speed is critical, the 14-30mm is the clear winner. The difference is especially noticeable in low light conditions.
Image Stabilization: IBIS vs VR
This is an interesting comparison because we’re looking at two different approaches to image stabilization:
Nikon Z 14-30mm: No Built-in VR, But…
The 14-30mm doesn’t have built-in vibration reduction, but that’s not necessarily a disadvantage. Nikon Z cameras have excellent in-body image stabilization (IBIS) that works with any lens. I’ve found that the combination of the Z7’s IBIS and the 14-30mm’s light weight makes for incredibly stable handheld shots.
In my testing, I can reliably get sharp images at 1/15th of a second at 14mm, which is impressive for a lens without built-in stabilization.
Also Read: Canon SL2 vs SL3
Nikon 16-35mm: VR II Technology
The 16-35mm features Nikon’s VR II (Vibration Reduction) technology, which provides up to 2.5 stops of stabilization. When used on a DSLR, this is excellent. However, when adapted to a Z camera, you get the benefit of both the lens VR and the camera’s IBIS.
The Surprising Result: In my testing, the combination of the 16-35mm’s VR and the Z camera’s IBIS didn’t provide significantly better stabilization than the 14-30mm with just IBIS. The weight difference seems to offset the stabilization advantage.
My Verdict: For most handheld shooting situations, both systems work excellently. The 14-30mm’s lighter weight makes it easier to hold steady, while the 16-35mm’s VR provides extra security for very slow shutter speeds.
Price and Value: Getting the Most Bang for Your Buck
Let’s talk money, because at the end of the day, we all want to make smart investments in our gear.
Current Pricing (as of November 2025)
- Nikon Z 14-30mm f/4 S: ~$1,300
- Nikon 16-35mm f/4G ED VR: ~$1,260
On paper, they’re similarly priced, but there are some important considerations:
The Adapter Factor
If you’re shooting with a Z camera and considering the 16-35mm, you’ll need to factor in the cost of an FTZ adapter (~$250). This brings the total cost to around $1,510, making the 14-30mm the more economical choice.
Resale Value
From my experience monitoring the used market, Nikon Z lenses are holding their value better than older F-mount lenses. The 14-30mm will likely have better resale value in 3-5 years compared to the 16-35mm.
Future-Proofing
Nikon has made it clear that the Z mount is the future. Investing in Z lenses means you’re ready for whatever comes next in camera technology. F-mount lenses, while still excellent, are essentially legacy glass at this point.
Bundle Deals
Keep an eye out for bundle deals. I’ve seen the 14-30mm included in Z camera kits that can save you $200-300. The 16-35mm rarely appears in modern bundle deals.
My Recommendation: If you’re shooting with a Z camera, the 14-30mm offers better value when you consider the total cost of ownership, future-proofing, and resale value.
Who Should Buy Which Lens?
After months of testing and real-world use, I’ve developed clear recommendations for different types of photographers:
Buy the Nikon Z 14-30mm f/4 S If:
- You’re primarily a landscape photographer – The wider angle and lighter weight are perfect for outdoor adventures
- You shoot astrophotography – Better coma control and light transmission make it ideal for night skies
- You value portability – The weight and size difference is significant for travel and hiking
- You want the latest technology – Modern optics, better autofocus, and native Z-mount performance
- You use filters regularly – The internal zoom design makes filter use much easier
- You shoot video – Silent autofocus and smooth zooming are perfect for video work
Buy the Nikon 16-35mm f/4G ED VR If:
- You already own F-mount gear – It’s a great addition to an existing F-mount system
- You need the 35mm focal length – The extra reach can be useful for certain compositions
- You shoot mostly from a tripod – The weight difference is less critical for tripod-based work
- You’re on a tight budget – Used copies can be found for significantly less than the 14-30mm
- You prefer traditional DSLR handling – Some photographers prefer the substantial feel of DSLR lenses
- You shoot in extreme conditions – The proven weather sealing has a long track record
Consider Both If:
- You’re a professional with diverse needs – Having both lenses gives you maximum flexibility
- You shoot both landscape and event photography – Each lens excels in different scenarios
- You have the budget – They complement each other well rather than directly competing
My Personal Choice and Why
After all this testing and comparison, I’ve made my choice, and I think it might surprise you.
I sold my 16-35mm and kept the 14-30mm.
Here’s why: The 14-30mm simply fits my shooting style better. As someone who values portability and shoots a lot of landscapes and astrophotography, the advantages of the 14-30mm far outweigh the benefits of the 16-35mm’s extra reach.
I found that I rarely missed the 35mm focal length. When I did need a bit more reach, I either cropped my images or switched to my 24-70mm. The weight savings alone made the decision worth it – I can now carry my camera with the 14-30mm attached all day without fatigue.
The improved autofocus performance and better coma control for astrophotography were the deciding factors. These aren’t just minor improvements – they’ve genuinely improved my photography and made certain shots possible that would have been difficult with the 16-35mm.
Pro Tips for Getting the Most from Your Wide-Angle Lens
Regardless of which lens you choose, here are some tips I’ve learned from years of shooting wide-angle:
Composition Techniques
- Use foreground elements: Wide-angle lenses exaggerate perspective, so include interesting foreground elements to create depth
- Get low: Don’t be afraid to get down low to the ground. This emphasizes the wide perspective and creates dramatic images
- Look for leading lines: Wide-angle lenses are perfect for using natural lines to lead the viewer’s eye through the image
Technical Considerations
- Stop down for sharpness: Both lenses perform best when stopped down to f/8-f/11 for landscape work
- Focus stacking: For maximum sharpness from foreground to background, use focus stacking techniques
- Use a tripod: Even with image stabilization, a tripod will give you the sharpest possible results
Post-Processing Tips
- Correct distortion: Both lenses benefit from distortion correction, especially for architectural work
- Address vignetting: A bit of vignetting can be artistic, but excessive vignetting should be corrected
- Sharpen carefully: Wide-angle lenses can look overly sharpened if you’re not careful with your sharpening settings
Also Read: Canon RF 50mm vs EF 50mm
The Future of Wide-Angle Lenses
As I wrap up this comparison, I can’t help but think about where lens technology is headed. The Nikon Z 14-30mm represents the future – lighter, smarter, and better optically corrected lenses that rely on software for final optimization.
We’re already seeing third-party manufacturers embrace the Z mount with some excellent wide-angle options. Sigma and Tamron are both producing lenses that compete directly with these Nikon options, which is great news for consumers.
I wouldn’t be surprised to see Nikon release more wide-angle options for the Z mount in the coming years. A faster 14-24mm f/2.8 already exists, and there’s room for a more affordable wide-angle zoom in the lineup.
Final Thoughts: Making Your Decision
Choosing between the Nikon 14-30mm and 16-35mm isn’t easy, but I hope this comprehensive comparison has helped clarify the strengths and weaknesses of each lens.
If I had to summarize my recommendation:
For most photographers shooting with Nikon Z cameras, the Nikon Z 14-30mm f/4 S is the better choice. It’s lighter, has better autofocus, performs better for astrophotography, and represents the future of Nikon’s lens lineup.
However, if you’re heavily invested in F-mount gear, need the 35mm focal length, or can find a great deal on a used 16-35mm, it’s still an excellent lens that can produce stunning results.
Remember, the best lens is the one that fits your specific needs and shooting style. I encourage you to rent both lenses if possible and test them in your typical shooting conditions before making a final decision.
FAQ: Your Burning Questions Answered
Which lens is better for landscape photography?
The Nikon Z 14-30mm f/4 S is generally better for landscape photography due to its lighter weight, wider angle, better coma control for astrophotography, and more convenient filter compatibility. However, if you frequently need the 35mm focal length, the 16-35mm might be worth considering.
Can I use the 16-35mm on a Z camera?
Yes, you can use the Nikon 16-35mm f/4G ED VR on a Z camera, but you’ll need the FTZ adapter. This adds cost, weight, and can affect autofocus performance compared to native Z lenses.
Which lens has better image stabilization?
This is interesting – the 16-35mm has built-in VR, but the 14-30mm relies on the camera’s IBIS. In practice, both systems work well, but the 14-30mm’s lighter weight makes it easier to hold steady, often negating the 16-35mm’s VR advantage.
Is the 14-30mm worth the extra cost over the 16-35mm?
When you factor in the cost of the FTZ adapter needed for the 16-35mm, the 14-30mm is actually the more economical choice for Z camera users. Add in better resale value and future-proofing, and it’s definitely worth the investment.
Which lens is better for video?
The Nikon Z 14-30mm is significantly better for video work due to its silent autofocus motor, smooth zooming, and lighter weight. The lack of focus breathing and parfocal-like performance make it ideal for video creators.
How do these lenses compare to third-party options?
Third-party options like the Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN Art offer excellent performance but at a higher price point and weight. The Nikon 14-30mm strikes a great balance between performance, weight, and price.
Will Nikon release a Z-mount version of the 16-35mm?
It’s unlikely. Nikon has stated that the Z 14-30mm effectively replaces the 16-35mm for the Z system. The focal length ranges overlap significantly, making a dedicated Z 16-35mm redundant.
Which lens is better for beginners?
The Nikon Z 14-30mm is more beginner-friendly due to its lighter weight, better autofocus performance, and more forgiving optical characteristics. The wider angle also makes composition easier for those new to wide-angle photography.
Related Photography Content
If you found this comparison helpful, you might want to check out these related articles:
- [Nikon Z Lens Guide: Complete 2025 Lineup Analysis]
- [Mastering Wide-Angle Photography: Tips and Techniques]
- [Best Lenses for Landscape Photography in 2025]
- [Nikon Z Camera Settings for Optimal Performance]
- [Astrophotography with Nikon Z: Complete Guide]
Pro Photography Tips Section
Before we wrap up, here are some additional pro tips I’ve learned from years of shooting wide-angle:
1. Embrace the distortion: Instead of fighting wide-angle distortion, use it creatively. Get close to your subjects and use the exaggerated perspective to create dynamic, engaging images.
2. Master hyperfocal distance: Understanding hyperfocal distance is crucial for landscape photography with wide-angle lenses. Learn to calculate it or use apps to ensure maximum depth of field in your images.
3. Shoot in RAW: Both lenses benefit from post-processing, especially for distortion and vignetting correction. Shooting in RAW gives you maximum flexibility in post-production.
4. Use a lens hood: Even though both lenses have excellent coatings, a lens hood will help prevent flare and protect your front element. The 14-30mm’s petal-shaped hood is particularly effective.
5. Clean your lenses regularly: Wide-angle lenses are more susceptible to dust and smudges affecting image quality. Keep your front and rear elements clean for the best results.
Save This Article for Future Reference
Photography gear decisions are important, and lens technology is always evolving. I recommend bookmarking this article so you can reference it later as new lenses are released or as your photography needs change.
I’ll be updating this comparison regularly as I continue to use both lenses in different conditions and as new firmware updates potentially improve their performance. Make sure to check back for the latest information!