Nikon Z 17-28mm f/2.8 Review

Nikon users have several ultra-wide lenses to choose from today. Aside from all the various F-mount and third-party lenses that can be adapted to the Z system, there is also the Nikon Z 14-30mm f/4, Z 14-24mm f/2.8 S, and Z 20mm f/1.8 S.

All three of those lenses are great choices in their own right. As you’ll see below, they also tend to match or beat the Nikon Z 17-28mm f/2.8 in sharpness. I’d argue that you should choose between these lenses in terms of focal length, maximum aperture, and price more than any optical qualities (even though the 14-24mm f/2.8 S and 20mm f/1.8 S are serious optical gems).

Nikon Z 17-28mm f/2.8 vs Nikon Z 14-30mm f/4 S

Compared to the Nikon Z 17-28mm f/2.8, the Nikon Z 14-30mm f/4 S targets a similar weight and price point, but it has a longer zoom range on both ends. The narrower f/4 maximum aperture is the obvious tradeoff, but which lens performs better? Here they are in terms of sharpness, starting with 17mm on the 17-28mm f/2.8:

We actually never tested the 14-30mm f/4 S at 17mm in the lab, but we did test it at both 16mm and 18mm. Here are those results:

The 16mm and 18mm performance on the Z 14-30mm f/4 S are extremely comparable, so it’s no stretch to picture where the 17mm result would lie.

Head-to-head against the Nikon Z 17-28mm f/2.8, neither lens has a huge advantage at these focal lengths, although the performance characteristics are certainly different. The 17-28mm f/2.8 is much weaker in the center at 17mm. The corner performance also favors the 14-30mm f/4, although not by a drastic amount. But because of the significant field curvature on the 14-30mm f/4 S, it has a clearly weaker midframe performance than the 17-28mm f/2.8, especially at f/4.

What about the performance at 24mm? Here are those charts:

The story is pretty similar at 24mm, with the center and corners both favoring the 14-30mm f/4 S, especially at f/5.6. However, the midframe still belongs to the 17-28mm f/2.8 due to its lower level of field curvature. Overall, my verdict is the same: a draw, but with different strengths and weaknesses of each lens.

Finally, here’s how both lenses perform at the long end of their zoom range:

This time, the 17-28mm f/2.8 looks a bit better than the 14-30mm f/4 S in the center, since it beats it at f/4 and roughly ties it throughout the rest of the zoom range. The midframe performance also belongs to the 17-28mm f/2.8 once again. As for the corners, I clearly prefer the 14-30mm f/4 S at f/4, but the results narrow at f/5.6, and by f/8, the two lenses are equal there, too.

Overall, it’s a pretty balanced comparison. As a landscape photographer who favors uniform sharpness across the frame, I could see an argument either way – the 14-30mm f/4 S for its better corners, or the 17-28mm f/2.8 for its better midframe (and still solid corners).

Nikon Z 17-28mm f/2.8 vs Nikon Z 14-24mm f/2.8 S

The other f/2.8 ultra-wide zoom for the Nikon Z system is the 14-24mm f/2.8 S, a high-end, $2500 lens. Because of the difference in price, it’s interesting to see what you’re giving up with the 17-28mm f/2.8 besides the wider view of 14mm.

For the first comparison, here’s 17mm on the 17-28mm lens compared to 16mm and 18mm on the 14-24mm lens:

As with the Nikon Z 14-30mm f/4 S, we didn’t test our copy of the Nikon Z 14-24mm f/2.8 S at 17mm in the lab, so I’ve shown both the 16mm and 18mm performance above. It doesn’t matter which of the two you look at, though – the 14-24mm f/2.8 S beats the 17-28mm f/2.8. This is apparent at every aperture and portion of the frame. Not that I’m surprised, since the Nikon Z 14-24mm f/2.8 S is one of the best lenses I’ve ever tested, and one of only two lenses I’ve ever given a perfect 5.0 star rating.

Here are both lenses at 20mm:

This time, the comparison is a lot closer. The Nikon Z 14-24mm f/2.8 S still blows away the 17-28mm f/2.8 in the center, reaching some of the highest values we’ve ever measured in a zoom. But in the midframe and corners, the 17-28mm f/2.8 holds its own, even beating the 14-24mm f/2.8 S depending on the aperture. The f/2.8 corner result in particular surprised me, with the 17-28mm f/2.8 a bit ahead. That said, stopping down to some more common landscape apertures of f/5.6 and f/8 shows that the 14-24mm f/2.8 S is still king.

Finally, here are both lenses at 24mm:

Even though the Nikon Z 17-28mm f/2.8 is arguably at its best at 24mm, the Nikon Z 14-24mm f/2.8 S is still the better lens. Its central sharpness at this point is simply ridiculous. That said, the corner performance on both lenses is very similar at f/2.8 and f/4, and it isn’t until f/5.6 that the 14-24mm f/2.8 pulls away. My takeaway is that the 17-28mm f/2.8 performed better than expected against the stunning 14-24mm f/2.8 S, even though it’s clearly not as sharp overall.

Nikon Z 17-28mm f/2.8 vs Nikon Z 20mm f/1.8 S

How does the 17-28mm f/2.8 – a non-S zoom – compare to perhaps Nikon’s best ultra-wide prime ever, the 20mm f/1.8 S? It loses, of course. Here are the results from both lenses:

Comparing the center-frame performance of both lenses is practically a joke, with the 20mm f/1.8 S easily winning that contest. Even at f/1.8, the prime lens’s central performance is a good bit higher than the zoom ever gets! The midframe results are certainly closer, though, especially at f/5.6 and beyond. (The 17-28mm f/2.8 actually ekes out a win at f/16 in the midframe, not that it matters.)

As for the corners, the Nikon Z 20mm f/1.8 S is once again the sharper lens, this time at every aperture. Still, it’s not that the 17-28mm f/2.8 puts up a bad performance in the corners. At f/2.8, it remains completely usable. It’s just that the Nikon Z 20mm f/1.8 S is so good. Overall, the 17-28mm f/2.8 never had much of a chance in this comparison, but it put up a better fight than I expected.

The next page of this review sums up everything and explains the pros and cons of the Nikon Z 17-28mm f/2.8. So, click the menu below to go to “Verdict”: