Nikon Z 28-75mm f/2.8 lens review with samples 

@Man in Dandism Lego landscapes?

24-200? wouldnt that be even better for landscape?

@@sh4rkhappy Yes, the 24-200 offers great range, definitely a lens that can handle most situations. I had one and sold it to get the 24-120 F4. I felt the 24-200 was giving up a bit more sharpness than I wanted, but it is an excellent lens for a superzoom.

Who uses the corners? Most folks don't.

I have this on my Z5 and it’s been great! I shot a party last week and it did everything I needed it too. Lightweight, good focal range, constant 2.8, definitely should consider it!

Agree too. I also considering this lens and the 24-120mm.but I ended up with 24-120 longer zoom range, better sharpness and cheaper. if I need faster lens I use my prime lens instead.

Not a chance to happen in the next 1-2 years with all these manufacturing issues and component shortages... They won't be better than the originals anyway. The manual faster lenses of Mitakon & 7Artisans are great even on manual focus :P

@@dicekolev5360 But cheaper maybe.

@@Hornwiesel Yeah, better value is the real "ask" here. I'm not optimistic that we'll have those options within a year or so, but I bet they'll come none the less. And this lens' performance, build and external controls don't warrant the price. The best thing about Sigma and Tamron's offerings is that they meet or exceed the build and optical quality, plus offer different levels of control, i.e., more external buttons and switches. $1200 US is higher than a cat's back for what you get in this case. That applies to all manufacturers, not just Nikon. Had they priced it down there with the Tamron or Sigma, that would be a different story.

well, this lens is the Tamron G1, so you pay +50% for the rebadging.

For whatever reason Nikon chose to use the first version of Tamron 28-75 and not the G2. I personally use Sigma 28-70 with ZTE adapter, which is better optically and smaller/lighter lens.

It's slightly sharper

agree

In my view 28-75 and 24-200 make a better choice. You cover common indoor and outdoor shooting situations. The 24-120 is neither here nor there, slow for indoors and short for outdoors.

@@USGrant21st if you want indoor shooting then I would skip the 28-75 and get a prime. Better image quality, just use your feet to move. The primes will outperform and have better bokeh. This is a bad lens on Nikons terms. They just want to sell a "2.8" std zoom to "please" people. But I would still pick the 24-120 over this for outdoors all day. Prime+ 24-200 or Prime + 24-120.

@@coltoncyr2283 I already have 24/1.8 and 35/1.8 primes. But 2.8 zoom is often sufficient when shooting indoors. And you can't understate the importance of zoom flexibility. The problem with 24-120/4 as I mentioned is that its use cases are very limited, it's neither good for indoors because it's slow nor outdoors, because it's short. Which means you still need faster zoom and longer zoom, in which case 24-120/4 becomes redundant.

What did you choose

Which one you are using for wedding ?

@@indianweddingcinematic-sin9447 The 28-75mm. I don't need the sharpest corners for portraits, but I want the shallower depth of field. AF is quick and it's very lightweight. But I use a 70-200mm f/2.8 on a second body.

@@markusschlevogt Looks good choice of lens. Are u happy with the performance of 28-75mm ? I shoot mostly wedding videos . Share ur feedback brother

I'm thinking of doing the same..i love the 24-70 f2.8 but would rather have the option of 24-120 for landscape and travel while keeping 28-75 for indoor/events!

@@indianweddingcinematic-sin9447 On the Z9, the 28-75 give me around 95% performance of the 24-70 for photo-work. For video I can't see any difference. AF is fast and on point, sharpness is on the same level but dang, this thing is so much lighter. Especially for gimbal work, you can feel the difference. I would say the two things, the 28-75 is "most worse" against the 24-70 is vignetting and corner sharpness, but both could be very pleasing for wedding, depends on your shooting/photo style. And you've seen the video, this is a Z-lens.... it's damn good ;)

the only reasonable lens like that is the Sigma 24-70 2.8 DG DN which is fantastic value for money (top of the line 24-70 2.8 for $1100 or so) but i generally agree, although the mirrorless lenses are typically very good quality they usually cost far too much

i remember when manufacturers started switching to Mirrorless system and released new mount with mini flange distance they said new mount will help them to make lenses more affordable. reality is completely opposite lol.

Well you can always adapt..

Have to agree, the prices are the big problem with mirrorless. This one, the price is just far too high IMO to consider a purchase. I think most buyers have expectations, and the cost of lenses has gone far beyond sensible. It is of course possible to adapt lenses, and that might be the better option. Building a native MILC system ground up, would cost a small fortune. Too many good deals on SLR mount gear, to not consider that.

@@MB-dq2gz Just refuse to buy into any system where the brand refuses to allow 3rd party glass.

This lens tamron lens, nikon rebrand it

​@@HussainAli-pv7kkactually no. Different elements and group layouts.

Z8 will probably have Sony’s 61mp sensor this will struggle in the corners

@@jukeboxjohnnie Maybe the 24-120 F4 then... although corners aside, I do find this lens more compelling

@@jukeboxjohnnie hopefully it will be a stacked sensor.

@@opwanncanopie I would stretch to the 24-70 2.8 for a Z8 I think. Lenses hold value better than cameras anyway

@@jukeboxjohnnie Well... with the R5 canon ships it with the 24-105 f4, so I was thinking that would be the comparable. The cost of a 24-70 + Z8 would be in the 8-9k range.

Just like Canon also has very good, very expensive and heavy L line lenses, and then they have low quality variable aperture lenses, not really anything in between. In some way Nikon is providing an in-between step by producing low quality third party lenses like this one, that sit right between. This doesn't compete with their own 24-70 f/2.8, they don't want that (and why they likely didn't want the better G2 version) but it does provide a way for certain people to move to Z mount and having a fast constant aperture lens without breaking the bank, something Canon doesn't offer.

@@Eikenhorst trying to extract a mid range 50mm prime from Canon is like trying to get blood out of a stone! I know there is a f1.4 on the horizon but I think it's going to be an expensive L lens. A high quality f1.8 would be nice.

I stand corrected, they did end up offering the Tamron G2 version, even under Tamron's own brand, instead of just copying their design and slab their logo on it and charge a premium for that.... Not sure they sell any of these 'native' Nikon lenses in 2024 anymore

The 24-120 is really impressively sharp (for a zoom lens). At 24mm wide open it is actually sharper than the Z24mm f1.8 prime stopped down to f4. And it stays sharper while stopping down both lenses

@@romanpul It's into 2022 atm the best 24-120 F4 Zoom being avialable, from any brand. Sonys FE 24-105 F4 isn't that great.

@@marcp.1752 Yeah, I currently have it on order and can‘t wait to get my hands onto it.

Good points but everyone needs to remember, the 24-120 is an ‘S’ branded lens, so it should perform better. I think Nikon ‘dropped the ball’ on this 28-75 lens; It is available and at much reduced prices. One can get it at the Nikon Refurbished store for a little over $600 USD. Do keep in kind, having the constant F2.8 aperture is a big deal. Twice the light as an F4.0 lens. I think the 28-75 has its place, where the faster aperture, lighter weight, and lack of focus breathing, is an asset. Nikon’s pricing is a strange phenomenon, as the 24-120 is so close in price to the 24-70 F4.0? Yes, when bought as a kit, the 24-70 F4.0 is the better bargain. It is lighter, more compact, but the 24-120 is obviously the way to go, if buying the lens outright. As always, YMMV. Peace

@@georgedavall9449 nikon pricing of the 24-70 F4 is a trick to sell more lens+body kit. Basically they sell it in kit for the price it is worth and sell it alone for an insane amount so people buying it in kit think their getting it for a good price.

I think Nikon probably limited the close up distance over the Tamron original G1 version. And Nikon also probably added their own coatings which explains the better contrast.

@@victorlim5077 At 75mm the close focus distance is the same, so that does not explain it.

@@Bayonet1809 Interesting. Can't be the coatings. Doubt the Nikon coatings would improve the close up performance.

@@victorlim5077 I rather think that they changed the focus group and the aperture pupil (and maybe the coating of the inside of the barrel)

You may have to wait for 3-4 years

Share your feelings on this lens. Too much of a compromise, given the price.

@@lazyliquid the 24-120 f/4 is full of compromises too.

@@admintilburgers no, everybody is loving it.

Gotta pay the Nikon tax on all Z mount glass.

But its not a rebranded Tamron. It clearly performs better and is a Nikon supported product with Z ecosystem integration.

Well Nikon mount is quite large and I am guessing the manufacturer needs to make larger optics to make it work with the larger mount and hence the higher price tag. I am wondering how much better is this lens compared to Tamron. Also note that Chris expects the best of the best. So i am pretty sure this lens is not as bad. I have seen some sample portrait pictures at DPReview and the pictures from this lens looks stunning. For me if I had to choose between this or the 24-70 F4, I rather get this f2.8 lens. This allows for more light, lower iso and faster shutter speed. I trade that over higher ISO anytime.

@@mpgnz73You're drinking too much Flavor Aid. It renders a bit differently on a Nikon camera because Nikon cameras have different biases than Sony cameras. It's the G1 with a Z mount. It has the same optical design as the G1 but Nikon charges more because Nikon. I paid the Nikon tax for many years and was happy to do so. Now I'm happy I don't have to.

@@mlai2546 It's the G1, the published optical design is identical. A larger mount does not require larger optics, the required image circle and the lens aperture determine that. The difference is that Nikon cameras process images differently to Sony cameras so the same lens on a Nikon will result in slightly different images to a Sony. The biggest difference is that there's a big Nikon tax on the Nikon version which means the much improved G2 is cheaper on Sony than the G1 is on Nikon.

I've been actually waiting for this lens. A nice bokeh of 2.8 is my priority and I didn't want to shell out 2k for 24-70 2.8. Yes, the corners are soft, but for portraits it's irrelevant and for landscapes you step down to 5.6 or higher anyway. On top of that you get a twice faster lens than 24-120 or 24-70 f4.

@Man in Dandism Not really. I've been photographing for years (had D800 since it came out in 2012/13) and I always prioritized fast lenses. The only lens above 2.8 was ultra wide or 300mm prime. I shoot wide open most of the time, be it wildlife or my kids, as I mainly prioritize bokeh. I just bought 28-75 f2.8 and I can tell you that I have no complaints, center and mid are absolutely great (I don't need sharp corners in this lens). For landscape I will mainly use 14-30 f4. I don't think I would notice that 28-75 is any worse than 24-70 unless I pixel peep at around 100% which is not what I'm interested in.

yeah for some reason the 24-120 is way more expensive than this lens at least in my country

Not really. The wide open example shows the most extreme case of LoCA. As you stop down it either goes away completley or becomes less apparent. As long as you know the worst case all other apertures will be better

I owned that L lens! It was nice for the time.

I have one and it is crazy sharp

28-75/2.8 is actually sharper at the center than 24-70/4, it only softer at the corners on the wide end. In practice, the corners are rarely of great importance. But you can't beat f/2.8, it's a must if you need to shoot indoors.

@@USGrant21stVR with z mount camera easily solve the indoor f/4 thing

@@tamsaiming2003 it depends on what you are shooting. If you are in a museum then I would agree. If you have people or animals that move then I disagree. My subjects are mostly people, sometimes dogs, and I try to never go longer than 1/140 with any lens, any kind of image stabilization. So for my purposes f/2.8 is a must, I wish somebody would make 24-50/2 just for indoors people shooting.

I am getting this lens over 24-70 f4. Better bokeh of 2.8 is my priority (24-70 2.8 is too pricey for my use). I agree that the corners are soft, but for portraits it's irrelevant and for landscapes you step down to 5.6 or higher anyway. On top of that you get a twice faster lens than 24-120 or 24-70 f4, and it's quite light in terms of weight too.

I purchased the 24-70 F/4 as a kit lens which puts me in an odd position. I have a bunch of 1.8 primes in-between and I was counting on this lens to justify my purchase of it, but for a zoom lens I want to use it for everything and I want it lightweight. This one seems more suitable for subjects and less so for landscapes. That leaves me with the sharper extra 50mm of length 24-120 F/4 which is better for subjects but less flexible indoors when lighting becomes a challenge... I may just hang on to my 24-70 F4 for a while longer until I see a sale or refurb of the 2.8 in a better price range since I have the range covered with primes anyway. 🤔

No definitely not. It's not overly sharp at 2.8 and the F4 is sharper throughout. Unless you need 2.8 then the 24-70mm f4 s is a cut above.

how much 28-75?

I am in the same struggle. How did you decide?

I purchased the F/4 awhile ago. Got an email of a refurbished 28-70mm for $650 and revisited this video and the Matt Irwin video and decided that I will skip buying this one again. I think it would be good for portraiture the corner sharpness at 2.8 will have you using the lens at F/4 to 5.6 without the extra 49mm of range on the much sharper 24-120mm F/4.

tell your clients that they mind their business and judge your pics and not your gear

Well if you are not using the F2.8 Id say S line are normally better

Check out his 24-120mm video, it is sharper overall, bit this one is really sharp in the center.

@@MB-dq2gz I commented before his conclusion and I’d watched that video too. That’s my impression too. The 24-120 is better overall. I just wish my store had one for me.

I'm a former Nikon shooter who moved from Nikon DSLRs to Sony mirrorless. Nikon make beautiful gear and I'm glad to see them doing great things with the Z9 that will trickle down to the less expensive models. The #1 reason I moved to Sony instead of Nikon for mirrorless? The excellent 3rd party lens selection. Sony owns a chunk of Tamron and is supportive of 3rd party makers on e mount. If you want 3rd party glass only one of the "big three" offers it. Come to the dark side!

@@IanHobday the thing that made me choose to stay with Nikon as I transition to mirrorless is the flange distance. With the shortest flange distance among the big 3, I can adapt Sony lenses, even with AF (not amazing AF), and there is no geometrical reason why there cannot be a RF to Z adapter. Potentially I could use any lens for any system on Nikon

@@PASquared Cross-brand adapters are fine as a stop-gap measure during a migration. They are a terrible long-term solution. If there is a single lens that you want to adapt then sure, that might be okay for some uses. More than that? Nope, not a good long term solution to poor lens selection, and I think you know that already.

@@PASquared Bottom line, if you want a good selection of 3rd party glass then Sony is the only game in town. I won't consider moving back to Nikon or Canon (which I used until 2008) until the 3rd party situation is equal. I doubt it will ever happen, unfortunately.

@@IanHobday At this point only the Tamron 70-180mm for E Mount, the Canon 28-70 f/2 and Canon 5.2mm VR dual fisheye are the lenses I feel are unmatched by Nikon's current lineup or roadmap, I'm definitely satisfied with the selection and quality of Nikon's other offerings

Nope, they don't. They just released their financial results last week. Just because a company releases a licensed product doesn't mean they are in financial troubles.

@@romanpul "Crucially then, how is Nikon performing in the DSLR and mirrorless segments? Overall, its sales have been dropping year on year, which is worrying in an expanding market. It blames this on parts shortages, but this is at a time when Canon is able to successfully expand its production, and while its longtime-rival accounts for 52% of the ILC market, Nikon has grabbed only 13%. It may try to squeeze as many positives out of the Z9 as it can, but as I’ve noted before, this will add little to its market share on a monthly production run of 3,500 units. In terms of the split between DSLR and mirrorless, we can only glean this by comparison to the BCN Awards (although note that Nikon’s financial year doesn’t match BCN’s calendar year); Nikon potentially dropped DSLR market share (at 33.9%) to some 750,000 units. That doesn’t match with its estimate of shipping 700,000 units this year, which suggests it’s doing worse than we might think. It is possible that it’s actually dropping market share in both DSLR and mirrorless sectors at the same time Canon appears to be gaining share." Source: petapixel.com/2022/02/05/is-nikon-caught-in-a-perfect-storm/

@@mrbaiser4133 Unit marketshare doesn‘t mean a lot if most of the units are lowend D3500 and D5600 with very little margin. And there market is not expanding but decreasing. And those are the units which are breaking away. Loosing units which don‘t generate profit doesn’t really matter. Sales are dropping for years now. Sony for example suspended production of most of their APS-C cameras in 2021 and their camera business generated a loss for the first time in years (unlike Nikon, who made a profit in the first three quarters and had to revise their forecast upwards twice already). And that article is just ridiculous clickbait. Petapixel has lost most of it‘s credibility for years now. If Nikon is doing so badly how come their stockvalue has increased by over 100% within the last year?

Lol just did the opposite switch and I love my Z6 compared to my xt2 which died from heavy rain. Iike the grip better and the ergonomic is great I think.

@@djstuc I do, it is a shame that Nikons Z system is still closed. If it wasn't we could get the Tamron for the same price and Nikon would need to adjust their prices. No competition always hurts the consumer and this comes from someone who is a big fan of Nikon cameras.

@@djstuc Actually, people who are considering buying a lens like this and a FF body will care, since they can get the Tamron, a Sony body and, with the 150€ they have left, get a nice tripod or some filters.

@@djstuc it's actually really hilarious that the only people who grit on Sony have never owned one. Modern cameras are electronic devices. Nikon makes binoculars. Canon at least makes printers, but Sony makes...pretty much everything. 🤷

Sure, because this is literally the old Tamron G1 lens with a Nikon badge on it.

@@tomsquires2926 Literally Nikon makes the machine used to manufacture Sony sensors....