I chose this lens about 10 months ago over the 14-30. I hate the way the 14-30 retracts and is not ready to shoot until you extend the lens. The 4.0 just gives too much depth of field to suit me. For traveling, the 14-24 just weighs too much. It wasn’t a $ decision. It hits the mark in my book. I leave it on my Z6ii about 90% of the time when I’m not shooting sports.
Adrian
August 14, 2023 3:12 pm
The point about dust in the lens is moot if a filter is attached. In fact it becomes a significant plus in my view as I don’t have to worry about dust and moisture getting into the moving bits.
Chad
July 20, 2023 9:02 am
Hello Spencer!
Thank you for your very thorough review. I have just gotten my first mirrorless (from D850 to Z8) and have been wondering if this lens would be a fine upgrade from the 18-35G that I have used up to this day as my walk-around. I absolutely loved that lens’ performance considering it was not a prime. Looking at your older review of the 18-35G it seems it would definitely be an upgrade, but worth the $1000?
I have the 18-35G for my D850. This lens blows it away for sharpness and versatility. Paired with my 24-120S or 24-200, it rocks. I used to carry the 18-35 and 28-300. These newer Z lenses pushed me to sell my F lenses and body. The lighter weight and the better sharpness make it a no brainier.
Thanks for your help and please excuse my late reply, Kenny!
I did end up buying the 17-28 brand new straight from Nikon; it is a pretty decent lens so far and center sharpness is astounding. Contrast and color rendering are also quite nice. However, looking at some of my older D850 shots with the 18-35 using apertures 3.5-5.6, foreground sharpness (such as landscape shots with rocks/plants etc nearest to the camera), the 18-35G smokes my copy of the Z 17-28 at like apertures (especially when comparing landscape shots in portrait orientation)… the 17-28 is much more smudgy in foreground details.
Rarely would I ever say this, but I wonder if this could be a bad copy?
Sunil Thakkar
May 21, 2023 11:49 am
I have a bit of a dilemma. I own the 20mm 1.8g, which I don’t use much any more because of ftz and it’s not great for video on mirrorless bodies. But on my d850 I used it a lot. I also have the 14-30 for my architecture commercial work, but somehow when I travel I don’t like using a f/4 lens for walk around stuff. I find it limiting. Also for that 14mm is critical. Will the 17-28 be a better fit for walk around travel photography? Or should I just get the 20mm 1.8s.
I have all the other 1.8 primes 35, 50 (both), 85 and the 28mm 1.4e and 105mm 1.4e. Just to give context.
Should I buy the 17-28 2.8 or the 20mm 1.8? They cost nearly the same, 20mm probably a bit cheaper. I travel to Georgia in the summer and was thinking of getting one of these and selling my old 20mm 1.8g before the trip.
The 20mm 1.8g sounds fantastic in terms of image quality, whereas the 17-28 seems more convenient with focal length flexibility.
I’d vote for this. I had a 20 in F mount. This lens is fantastic. I traveled to the Galápagos with it. No regrets. Very versatile when paired with 24-120 or 24-200.
Mark
May 7, 2023 9:25 am
Spencer, in your review of the Nikon 14-30, you mention how Lightroom corrects for distortion, so that the final 14mm field of view is reduced. Does that mean the effective minimum focal length when using Lightroom with 14-30 is not 14mm, but more like 15 or 16mm? That would negate some of the benefit of the 14-30 versus 17-28, if one is interested in less than 17mm….
Good question! The corrected view of the 14-30mm really is 14mm. The uncorrected view is around 12-13mm.
Mike
March 1, 2023 11:10 am
@spencercox, how does the 28mm end of the Z 17-28 compare to the Z 28 2.8? Thank you.
Gerard
February 22, 2023 6:51 pm
I like Tamron and got a few of those, but I would never ever pay Nikon money for a Tamron lens. That’s just dumb.
Josiah
February 17, 2023 10:36 pm
“I recommend updating your Nikon Z camera’s firmware to allow linear manual focus” Is that available on my z6? I researched online for a while but could only find a few lenses like the 70-200mm z and 400mm 2.8 tc z that supported it and only on the z9 and the mark ii models. Does every z lens support that on those cameras?
Unfortunately not, it applies to the Z6 II, Z7 II, and Z9 so far. It’s not the end of the world – I still use my Z6 and Z7 all the time for Milky Way photography, you just need to take a bit more time to nail focus on the stars.
Ivan
February 16, 2023 9:28 am
Spencer, will you guys be reviewing the new Nikon 85mm f/1.2? Thanks for this review!
I need to get a bunch of portrait samples with it first! I don’t want to just show my usual landscapes, no one buys a 50mm f/1.2 to photograph mountains.
bg5931
February 15, 2023 4:27 pm
That was quick: In the UK, this lens is already £120 off.
I chose this lens about 10 months ago over the 14-30. I hate the way the 14-30 retracts and is not ready to shoot until you extend the lens.
The 4.0 just gives too much depth of field to suit me. For traveling, the 14-24 just weighs too much. It wasn’t a $ decision. It hits the mark in my book. I leave it on my Z6ii about 90% of the time when I’m not shooting sports.
The point about dust in the lens is moot if a filter is attached. In fact it becomes a significant plus in my view as I don’t have to worry about dust and moisture getting into the moving bits.
Hello Spencer!
Thank you for your very thorough review. I have just gotten my first mirrorless (from D850 to Z8) and have been wondering if this lens would be a fine upgrade from the 18-35G that I have used up to this day as my walk-around. I absolutely loved that lens’ performance considering it was not a prime. Looking at your older review of the 18-35G it seems it would definitely be an upgrade, but worth the $1000?
Thanks for your time!
I have the 18-35G for my D850. This lens blows it away for sharpness and versatility. Paired with my 24-120S or 24-200, it rocks. I used to carry the 18-35 and 28-300. These newer Z lenses pushed me to sell my F lenses and body. The lighter weight and the better sharpness make it a no brainier.
Thanks for your help and please excuse my late reply, Kenny!
I did end up buying the 17-28 brand new straight from Nikon; it is a pretty decent lens so far and center sharpness is astounding. Contrast and color rendering are also quite nice. However, looking at some of my older D850 shots with the 18-35 using apertures 3.5-5.6, foreground sharpness (such as landscape shots with rocks/plants etc nearest to the camera), the 18-35G smokes my copy of the Z 17-28 at like apertures (especially when comparing landscape shots in portrait orientation)… the 17-28 is much more smudgy in foreground details.
Rarely would I ever say this, but I wonder if this could be a bad copy?
I have a bit of a dilemma. I own the 20mm 1.8g, which I don’t use much any more because of ftz and it’s not great for video on mirrorless bodies. But on my d850 I used it a lot. I also have the 14-30 for my architecture commercial work, but somehow when I travel I don’t like using a f/4 lens for walk around stuff. I find it limiting. Also for that 14mm is critical. Will the 17-28 be a better fit for walk around travel photography? Or should I just get the 20mm 1.8s.
I have all the other 1.8 primes 35, 50 (both), 85 and the 28mm 1.4e and 105mm 1.4e. Just to give context.
Should I buy the 17-28 2.8 or the 20mm 1.8? They cost nearly the same, 20mm probably a bit cheaper. I travel to Georgia in the summer and was thinking of getting one of these and selling my old 20mm 1.8g before the trip.
The 20mm 1.8g sounds fantastic in terms of image quality, whereas the 17-28 seems more convenient with focal length flexibility.
I’d vote for this. I had a 20 in F mount. This lens is fantastic. I traveled to the Galápagos with it. No regrets. Very versatile when paired with 24-120 or 24-200.
Spencer, in your review of the Nikon 14-30, you mention how Lightroom corrects for distortion, so that the final 14mm field of view is reduced. Does that mean the effective minimum focal length when using Lightroom with 14-30 is not 14mm, but more like 15 or 16mm? That would negate some of the benefit of the 14-30 versus 17-28, if one is interested in less than 17mm….
Good question! The corrected view of the 14-30mm really is 14mm. The uncorrected view is around 12-13mm.
@spencercox, how does the 28mm end of the Z 17-28 compare to the Z 28 2.8? Thank you.
I like Tamron and got a few of those, but I would never ever pay Nikon money for a Tamron lens.
That’s just dumb.
“I recommend updating your Nikon Z camera’s firmware to allow linear manual focus” Is that available on my z6? I researched online for a while but could only find a few lenses like the 70-200mm z and 400mm 2.8 tc z that supported it and only on the z9 and the mark ii models. Does every z lens support that on those cameras?
Unfortunately not, it applies to the Z6 II, Z7 II, and Z9 so far. It’s not the end of the world – I still use my Z6 and Z7 all the time for Milky Way photography, you just need to take a bit more time to nail focus on the stars.
Spencer, will you guys be reviewing the new Nikon 85mm f/1.2? Thanks for this review!
Yes we will! My plan is to prioritize reviewing all of the Z lenses. At this point, we’ve reviewed most of them, but there are still a few left to go.
How long do we have to wait for a 50 1.2 review? :)
I need to get a bunch of portrait samples with it first! I don’t want to just show my usual landscapes, no one buys a 50mm f/1.2 to photograph mountains.
That was quick: In the UK, this lens is already £120 off.
Nice! It seems like the type of lens that will go on sale pretty often.