I finally pulled the trigger on a Z8 and honestly my bank account is screaming at me right now. I have this big trip to Glacier National Park coming up in like three weeks and I realized I dont have anything wider than my 24-120mm kit lens. I really want to capture those massive mountain vistas but I am so stressed about making the wrong choice with how much these lenses cost. I have been looking at the Z 14-30mm f/4 S because its super compact and takes normal filters which would be great for my long exposures by the lakes but then I keep seeing people rave about the 20mm f/1.8 S prime lens. Everyone says the prime is sharper and better for astro if I stay up late for the stars but will I regret not having that extra width at 14mm? I also looked at the 14-24mm f/2.8 but thats just way out of my budget at this point unless I sell my car lol. I just want something that wont weigh me down on 10 mile hikes but still gives me that professional look for my prints. Should I go with the flexibility of the 14-30mm zoom or is the image quality on the 20mm prime really that much better for landscapes?
I have spent way too many hours pouring over MTF charts for these S-line optics. The choice really boils down to your tolerance for corner distortion versus composition flexibility. For Glacier, you might want to consider how often you will actually need that 14mm perspective for those vertical mountain faces. 20mm is fantastic for stars, but it often feels a bit tight when youre standing in a narrow valley. I would suggest watching out for these specific technical points:
^ This. Also, be careful with field curvature on the Nikon NIKKOR Z 14-30mm f/4 S. You dont want soft edges at infinity; please consider the Nikon NIKKOR Z 17-28mm f/2.8 instead.
Big if true
Works great for me