Photography Life

PL provides various digital photography news, reviews, articles, tips, tutorials and guides to photographers of all levels

  • Lens Reviews
  • Camera Reviews
  • Tutorials
  • Compare Cameras
  • Forum
    • Sign Up
    • Login
  • About
  • Search
Home → Reviews → Cameras and Lenses

Nikon Z 28-135mm f/4 PZ Review

A power zooming lens with useful features for videographers, but overkill for stills

By Spencer Cox 23 Comments
Published On July 8, 2025

The Nikon Z 28-135mm f/4 PZ is a full-frame mirrorless lens targeted toward videographers and hybrid shooters. Although it isn’t Nikon’s first PZ (Power Zoom) lens, it’s their first that is meant for a professional audience. The high-end nature of the lens is evident not just in the build quality, but also the price of $2800. Is this lens worth buying, or should you choose something like the Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 S instead? In this detailed review of the Nikon Z 28-135mm f/4 PZ, we will answer all your most pressing questions about this interesting lens!

Table of Contents

  • Nikon Z 28-135mm f/4 PZ Video Review
  • Lens Specifications
  • Parfocal or Not?
  • Distortion
  • Vignetting
  • Lateral Chromatic Aberration
  • Sharpness
  • Nikon Z 28-135mm f/4 PZ vs Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 S
  • Conclusion
  • Where to Buy

Nikon Z 28-135mm f/4 PZ Video Review

Photography Life team member Libor Vaicenbacher has been using the Nikon Z 28-135mm f/4 PZ extensively in the field. Given the nature of this lens as a video-oriented tool, we decided to bring you a full-length field test in video form. The bulk of this video (indeed, everything where the lens isn’t visible on screen) was filmed with the Nikon Z 28-135mm f/4 PZ:

 

Lens Specifications

Although the video covers the most important aspects of using this lens in the field, I’ll continue the review with some more details that you may be wondering about, starting with specifications:

  • Full Name: Nikon NIKKOR Z 28-135mm f/4 PZ
  • Mount Type: Nikon Z Mount
  • Focal Length: 28-135mm zoom (4.8x zoom)
  • Angle of View (Full Frame): 75° to 18°
  • Maximum Aperture: f/4
  • Minimum Aperture: f/22
  • Aperture Blades: 9, rounded
  • Filter Size: 95mm
  • Lens Elements: 18
  • Lens Groups: 13
  • Special Elements: 4 aspherical, 3 ED, 1 aspherical ED
  • Image Stabilization: No
  • Internal Focusing: Yes
  • Internal Zoom: Yes
  • Control Rings: Zoom, focus, custom
  • Function Button: Yes (duplicated on side and top)
  • Switches: Zoom lever and A/M switch
  • Focus Motor: STM
  • Minimum Focus Distance: 34 cm (13 inches) at 28mm; 57 cm (22 inches) at 135mm
  • Maximum Magnification: 0.25× (1:4)
  • Mount Material: Metal
  • Weather/Dust Sealing: Yes
  • Dimensions (Length × Diameter): 178 x 105 mm (7.0 x 4.1 inches)
  • Weight: 1120 g (2.47 lbs)
  • MSRP: $2800 (Check current price)

That’s an advanced set of specs, and as you saw in Libor’s video review, the unique features of this lens work well. It is very well-built and handles smoothly in practice. But how does it perform in a lab environment? I decided to test that to see how it holds up, and the results are pretty interesting. We’ll start with distortion and work our way toward sharpness results.

Parfocal or Not?

When announcing this lens, Nikon said that “shifts in focus position and the center of gravity that occur with zooming have been minimized.” However, they stopped short of claiming the lens is actually parfocal. In my tests, I found that it is clearly not a parfocal lens. Small zoom adjustments are close enough, but going from 28mm to 135mm (or the opposite) will result in the focus position changing.

Is this a big deal? In some sense, it is – videographers certainly prefer the focus point to remain constant when zooming. On the other hand, there is still less focus shift than with most zoom lenses. It’ll be visible in a pair of photos, but it’s small enough that it won’t be obtrusive if you quickly refocus after zooming in a video. And indeed, you saw exactly that in Libor’s video review of the 28-135mm f/4 PZ – plenty of times where the zoom went from wide to tele, but none where I caught any noticeable focus shifts. Still, I wish that Nikon had found a way around this. My camera did not seem to compensate for focus changes via software when zooming in/out, or at least not enough to eliminate the effect.

Distortion

As expected from a midrange zoom, the Nikon Z 28-135mm f/4 PZ has some barrel distortion at the wide end and some pincushion distortion at the long end. It’s on the moderate to high side, particularly at 135mm, but can still be corrected without any major lingering issues. The maximum is 4.82% pincushion distortion.

Nikon-Z-28-135mm-f4-PZ-MTF-Distortion-Performance

Vignetting

This lens puts up a very respectable vignetting performance. It’s only significant at 28mm when shooting wide-open at f/4. The maximum of 1.89 stops is comparable to what we saw on the Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 S (1.81 stops). At the longer focal lengths, however, the PZ lens has a small advantage, maxing out at 1.20 stops (while the 24-120mm f/4 S reaches 1.45 stops at 120mm).

Nikon-Z-28-135mm-f4-PZ-MTF-Vignetting-Performance-Close

Nikon-Z-28-135mm-f4-PZ-MTF-Vignetting-Performance-Far

Lateral Chromatic Aberration

Chromatic aberration is a factor on this lens. It hits a maximum of 2.50 pixels of CA when shooting at 28mm and f/11. The performance improves beyond 28mm, and at 50mm, it is totally negligible. CA picks back up as you zoom into 70mm and beyond, with 135mm also being a little on the high end with nearly 2 pixels of CA by our measurements. You can see the test results here:

Nikon-Z-28-135mm-f4-PZ-MTF-Chromatic-Aberration-Performance

This is higher than I had hoped, and potentially high enough that you could see some small, lingering artifacts in very high-contrast corner areas (like tree branches against the sky) even after corrections. That said, it’s not a dealbreaker and is still within the realm of what can be corrected most of the time without issue.

Sharpness

I was very interested to see how the Nikon Z 28-135mm f/4 PZ would perform in terms of sharpness – even more than I am with most lenses! That’s because, as a video-oriented lens, it was designed for different priorities compared to most of Nikon’s lenses.

What priorities am I referring to? For starters, the lens has essentially zero focus breathing (as you saw in Libor’s video review). It also has minimal focus shift and great bokeh. And, in order to maintain its balance on a video gimbal, the lens does not change in length when zoomed or focused. All of this is very welcome, especially for videography… but there are always some tradeoffs in lens design, and most of these features tend to come at the expense of some sharpness.

With that said, let’s see how the Nikon Z 28-135mm f/4 PZ performs in our lab:

Nikon-Z-28-135mm-f4-PZ-MTF-Performance-28mm

Nikon-Z-28-135mm-f4-PZ-MTF-Performance-35mm

Nikon-Z-28-135mm-f4-PZ-MTF-Performance-50mm

Nikon-Z-28-135mm-f4-PZ-MTF-Performance-70mm-2

Nikon-Z-28-135mm-f4-PZ-MTF-Performance-105mm

Nikon-Z-28-135mm-f4-PZ-MTF-Performance-135mm

It’s clear that this is not a perfect performance, but it’s also not bad. For filming in 4K (which is about 8 megapixels), you will never notice any issues, even in the corners. 8K video (roughly 33 megapixels) could occasionally show minor optical compromises in the corners, but nothing that reaches a concerning level to me. I should also point out that our tests are done on uncropped RAW files, so if you shoot video in a 16×9 aspect ratio, the weakest of the corners – which are still fine – won’t be in your footage anyway. All in all, I think the sharpness of this lens is quite good for its intended use of videography.

I should also note that this lens has no meaningful focus shift, and only a small amount of classic-shaped field curvature. Nothing to worry about in either case.

What about for still photography? It’s still a sharp lens, but if you don’t need its specialized videography features, you might as well pick something that’s less expensive. The most obvious alternative is the Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 S, whose sharpness numbers I’ll show below. You can also read our full Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 S review to see its vignetting, CA, and distortion numbers.

Nikon Z 28-135mm f/4 PZ vs Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 S

28mm / 24mm

Nikon-Z-28-135mm-f4-PZ-MTF-Performance-28mm

Nikon Z 24-120mm f4 S MTF Performance 24mm

Both lenses are quite similar at 24mm, especially in the center and midframes. In the far corners, the 28-135mm f/4 PZ is a little sharper from f/5.6 to f/11, with the advantage at f/8 being the most significant.

35mm

Nikon-Z-28-135mm-f4-PZ-MTF-Performance-35mm

Nikon-Z-24-120mm-f4-S-MTF-Performance-35mm-2

At 35mm, the two lenses are quite similar again. The Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 S is a little better across the board at f/4 and f/5.6. At f/8, center and midframe results are comparable, but the PZ lens takes a bit of a lead in the corners. It’s a similar story at f/11, while the two lenses are totally comparable at f/16.

50mm

Nikon-Z-28-135mm-f4-PZ-MTF-Performance-50mm

Nikon-Z-24-120mm-f4-S-MTF-Performance-50mm-2

At 50mm, the Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 S is a little more clearly ahead. The central region is still pretty similar, but the midframes and corners definitely favor the 24-120mm f/4 S at f/4 and f/5.6. The results at f/8 are also slightly in its favor, but probably not by enough to care. By f/11 and beyond, the two lenses are comparable again.

70mm

Nikon-Z-28-135mm-f4-PZ-MTF-Performance-70mm-2

Nikon-Z-24-120mm-f4-S-MTF-Performance-70mm-2

70mm is a bit of a different story – the corners have sharpened on the 28-135mm f/4 PZ and weakened on the 24-120mm f/4 S. Central sharpness still favors the 24-120mm, but the situation is enough of a mixed bag that I wouldn’t say either lens has a distinct advantage at this focal length.

105mm

Nikon-Z-28-135mm-f4-PZ-MTF-Performance-105mm

Nikon-Z-24-120mm-f4-S-MTF-Performance-105mm-2

Here, as the corners weaken on the 28-135mm f/4 PZ, the 24-120mm f/4 S takes the lead again. It is clearly sharper than the 28-135mm f/4 PZ wide open, and a little sharper at f/5.6, especially in the midframes. The two lenses approach parity around f/8 and beyond.

135mm / 120mm

Nikon-Z-28-135mm-f4-PZ-MTF-Performance-135mm

Nikon-Z-24-120mm-f4-S-MTF-Performance-120mm-2

Finally, at the longest focal lengths of these two lenses, the pattern remains similar. Corner sharpness numbers are comparable across the aperture range (though they favor the 28-135mm f/4 PZ by a hair at f/8-11). The central and midframe numbers are also pretty similar starting at f/8. However, from f/4 to f/5.6, the less expensive 24-120mm f/4 S is clearly sharper from the center to the midframes.

All in all? The two lenses aren’t so far apart, but the Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 S is the better performer on balance. Granted, I can think of situations where I’d prefer the sharpness of the 28-135mm f/4 PZ – mostly relating to its small but consistent advantage in the corners at f/8. However, the Nikon Z 24-120mm f/4 S is generally sharper elsewhere, while also costing and weighing less. If you’re not a videographer, or at least a hybrid shooter, you probably don’t need to lust over the 28-135mm f/4 PZ.

Conclusion

There are many reasons why the Nikon Z 28-135mm f/4 PZ is a compelling lens for videography:

  • Zero focus breathing
  • No meaningful focus shift when adjusting aperture
  • Internal zoom without significant balance changes for video gimbals
  • Very smooth and effective power zoom
  • Seamless digital zoom to reach 270mm (effective) while maintaining 4K resolution without jitter
  • Beautiful background blur
  • Solid optical performance with no fatal flaws, though a little more CA than desired
  • Geared focus ring and useful form factor for dedicated video rigs

Yet, there are also some important reasons why this isn’t the lens I’d recommend for stills:

  • Pricey and specialized
  • A little tight on the wide end at 28mm; 24mm would have been preferable
  • Relatively large and unportable
  • Very critically – no better than lenses like Nikon’s 24-120mm f/4 S in sharpness, distortion, CA, or vignetting, but twice the price!

And there’s one big negative for videography as well:

  • This lens is not parfocal, meaning that the focus will shift as you zoom in

This leaves me with an easier recommendation than usual: consider this lens for video (if it’s within your budget and you don’t mind that it isn’t parfocal), but don’t get it for still photos. And that’s probably not a surprising recommendation, given Nikon’s positioning of this lens! But sometimes it’s good when there aren’t any major surprises in our reviews. Unless you need the video-specific features of the Nikon Z 28-135mm f/4 S, you can safely keep your current midrange zoom without feeling like you’re missing out.

Where to Buy

This lens is available for $2800 through any of our affiliates:

  • Nikon Z 28-135mm f/4 PZ at B&H – Check Current Price and Sales

Thank you for buying your equipment through the links above, whether it’s this lens or anything else! When you do, Photography Life gets a small percentage of the sale without costing you anything extra. It goes a long way to help us test more equipment.

Nikon Z 28-135mm f/4 PZ
  • Build Quality and Handling
  • Size and Weight
  • Sharpness Performance
  • Other Image Quality
  • Value

Photography Life Overall Rating

4.2
Looking for even more exclusive content?

On Photography Life, you already get world-class articles with no advertising every day for free. As a Member, you'll get even more:

Silver ($5/mo)
  • Exclusive articles
  • Monthly Q&A chat
  • Early lens test results
  • "Creative Landscape Photography" eBook
Gold ($12/mo)
  • All that, PLUS:
  • Online workshops
  • Monthly photo critiques
  • Vote on our next lens reviews
 
Click Here to Join Today
 

Related Articles

  • RED Cinema Cameras
    Nikon Is Acquiring RED
  • blue winged teal image 1
    Shooting Hand-Held Video with Nikon 1 CX 70-300mm
  • Nikon D800 f/1.8
    Depth of Field Comparison Between Nikon FX and CX sensors
  • Nikon28_135_f4_PZ
    Nikon to Develop the Nikkor Z 28-135mm f/4 PZ
  • Nikon Z 28-135mm f4 PZ Official Product Photo with Follow Focus and Matte Box
    Nikon Z 28-135mm f/4 PZ Announced: Zooming into the Videography World
  • Nikon Z6
    Nikon Z RAW Video Will Require a Paid Hardware Upgrade
Disclosures, Terms and Conditions and Support Options
Filed Under: Cameras and Lenses Tagged With: Lens Reviews, Nikon, Nikon Reviews

About Spencer Cox

I'm Spencer Cox, a landscape photographer based in Colorado. I started writing for Photography Life a decade ago, and now I run the website in collaboration with Nasim. I've used nearly every digital camera system under the sun, but for my personal work, I love the slow-paced nature of large format film. You can see more at my personal website and my not-exactly-active Instagram page.

guest

guest

23 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
nikos
nikos
July 16, 2025 9:21 pm

Very nice review!
I would like to ask, ok its not parfocal but in the video on youtube of your review at the end whilezooming i cant see and change on focus, maybe with the AF-F can correct the parfocus?

So as a hybrid shooter you recomend the 28-135? Is there any other option?
(usualy shoot 8k )
thank you

0
Reply
Spencer Cox
Spencer Cox
Author
Reply to  nikos
July 16, 2025 10:13 pm

Yes! Using AF-F, or frankly even using AF-C and holding down the focus button, would be enough that you won’t get obtrusive focus issues as you zoom with this lens. As a hybrid shooter, the 28-135mm f/4 would be the best zoom in Nikon’s arsenal, assuming that you don’t mind the price or size relative to, say, the 24-120mm f/4.

0
Reply
nikos
nikos
July 16, 2025 8:56 pm

“if you shoot video in a 16×9 aspect ratio, the weakest of the corners – which are still fine – won’t be in your footage anyway”
this sound to me wrong as i search the circle on the sensor is same so the 16×9 makes a wider and thinner, so with those diagrams it goes more on the edges
Maybe something missing?

0
Reply
Spencer Cox
Spencer Cox
Author
Reply to  nikos
July 16, 2025 10:11 pm

Good question! The 16×9 aspect ratio is a crop that cuts off the top and bottom edges of the camera sensor — that’s how it ends up wider and thinner, but it’s not actually an addition of space. Since we measure the sharpness on uncropped photos, our “corner” measurement actually falls outside the 16×9 area.

0
Reply
Mike
Mike
July 15, 2025 9:09 pm

Video lenses are never intended to be as sharp as a stills lens. Consider that most people shoot in 4K and that’s only 8mp. Video shooters often add diffusion filters to stills lenses to make them softer. I owned the Z 24-120 f/4 and it’s a stellar lens. But it’s not well suited for video work. Can be used for it but it’s not its focus. Its zoom function is smooth for photo purposes but trying to creep zoom induces jumps in focal lengths rather than smoothly arriving at another focal length. The external zoom is not great for gimbal use. I have owned the 28-135 for the last 4 months and it’s perfect for its intended use. Balances well, sharp but not overly so for video. The zoom ring feels like a very smooth mechanical zoom. Sometimes I forget it’s zoom by wire. And it’s sharp for stills. I’ve used it for motorcycle racing and it’s fine. Bonus points for the extra 15mm. Would I travel with it? No. The 24-120 is in its realm there. But it’s great to have different tools for different scenarios.

2
Reply
nikos
nikos
Reply to  Mike
July 16, 2025 8:58 pm

thank you for info, how is in 35-50 as from numbers feels week specialy on edges

0
Reply
Mike
Mike
Reply to  nikos
July 17, 2025 1:26 pm

It’s fine. I don’t shoot video of test charts or flat brick buildings. For photos there might be better options than a f/4 power zoom if corners are a concern. For the times I’ve used it for photos, corners are not a point of concern for the photo anyway. For video, at 16×9 you don’t see the 3:2 corners anyway.

0
Reply
Jakob Bo
Jakob Bo
July 8, 2025 9:16 am

Very interesting review, and I agree with your conclusion; this lens makes no sense to buy if you are solely shooting stills. Your lab tests are also quite revealing! I have never used the 24-120, but by the looks of it, it is quite a stunning lens.


With regards to the sharpness and CA-issues, many videographers and DPs are actively de-sharpening their image by either using pro-mist filters on set, or applying digital grain, halation, vignetting and even gate-weave in post. So I don’t think it would be a dealbreaker for most.

In my view, it is not particularly pricey for the functionality that it offers. I would argue that it is quite reasonably priced, when compared to PZ-lenses from for example Sony and Canon.

Anyway big thanks to Photography Life for taking the time to make these tests and writing such thorough and well considered reviews.

0
Reply
Spencer Cox
Spencer Cox
Author
Reply to  Jakob Bo
July 8, 2025 9:20 am

Much appreciated, Jakob! Yeah, I don’t think that there is any reason to worry about this lens’s sharpness or image quality for videography. Even the worst-performing corners would look great unless very fine, nonmoving patterns were in that portion of the footage (and even then, only 8K may reveal a little sharpness loss). I can’t imagine that mattering for 99%+ of shots; and if it does, you’re probably not beating it with a different zoom anyway, so just switch to a prime.

0
Reply
Jason Polak
Jason Polak
July 8, 2025 8:23 am

I don’t understand why the camera firmware hasn’t been given a function to compensate for the parfocal problem. It should be relatively easy, because it should be possible to easily derive the focus shift amount for almost every distance, and it wouldn’t be an intensive calculation either. So in video mode there should be an option that applies the focus shift seamlessly when zooming, which should also be physically possible given these modern lens designs. I guess in practice zooming in so much to see the effect isn’t really done so frequently…

2
Reply
Spencer Cox
Spencer Cox
Author
Reply to  Jason Polak
July 8, 2025 8:51 am

Oddly, the firmware did those parfocal corrections when I used the Nikon Z 28-400mm! With the 28-135mm PZ, it apparently didn’t engage any corrections, or if it did, they weren’t fully accurate on my camera. I’ll test it on a couple more cameras in the coming weeks.

1
Reply
Fouad
Fouad
July 8, 2025 6:58 am

The cons of the PZ are compelling.
The passing praise for the 24-120 f4 is on the spot.
The 24-120 is such a fine lens that it is one of the real steals in the Z line of lenses.
Very useful review.
Thanks!

3
Reply
Rage1968
Rage1968
Reply to  Fouad
July 8, 2025 7:40 am

If I would have only one lens, it will be the z 24-120 f/4 !

3
Reply
Jakob Bo
Jakob Bo
July 2, 2025 10:18 am

I purchased this at launch, somewhat on a whim, as I primarily work as a videographer, who also shoots portraits.

I have never experienced any issue with the f/4, especially with the fantastic dual native iso capabilities of the Z8 and Z6iii.

Having a 28-270mm servo zoom lens that weighs 1.1 kg, that delivers impeccable image quality, has greatly improved my effeciency on many sets.

The smooth zoom also helps me distinguish myself from competing videographers, as the look of a steady zoom can be quite sophisticated, and impossible to achieve with most still lenses.

In case anyone is curious, I also have the 24 f/1.8, 50/ f/1.8 and 70-200 f/2.8.

1
Reply
Spencer Cox
Spencer Cox
Author
Reply to  Jakob Bo
July 2, 2025 10:57 am

Glad you’re enjoying it! The smooth zoom feature is easy to overlook, but one of the main reasons to get this lens, in my opinion. Pretty sweet to function like a 28-270mm without losing video resolution or having a jittery point in the zoom.

1
Reply
Robert K Bouknight
Robert K Bouknight
July 1, 2025 7:48 pm

Certainly a different kind of review, and I enjoyed it. Thank you for doing something different!

0
Reply
Spencer Cox
Spencer Cox
Author
Reply to  Robert K Bouknight
July 2, 2025 10:56 am

Thanks, Robert!

0
Reply
bg5931
bg5931
July 1, 2025 5:09 am

Favourite part: “We have just climbed this big rock… to talk about the lens!” ;)

0
Reply
Spencer Cox
Spencer Cox
Author
Reply to  bg5931
July 1, 2025 10:45 am

Of course! You can’t talk about a lens accurately at sea level. That’s why I moved to Colorado.

3
Reply
Jan
Jan
Reply to  Spencer Cox
July 2, 2025 7:02 am

Hi, sorry but is this real or just sarcasm? :D I guess the thinner air at high altitudes creates a bit less haze, but would it be so important factor compared to other effects? :D

0
Reply
Spencer Cox
Spencer Cox
Author
Reply to  Jan
July 2, 2025 10:55 am

Hey Jan, just a joke! Sorry about any ambiguity :)

2
Reply
bg5931
bg5931
Reply to  Spencer Cox
July 3, 2025 3:00 am

It reminded me a bit of the rock climbing movies I used to watch (Chris Sharma, Adam Ondra etc.), where the hero invariably ended up sitting under a bush near the wall while providing a more or less lucid description of their favourite climb/project. ;)

0
Reply
Pete A
Pete A
Reply to  Spencer Cox
July 5, 2025 7:06 am

It’s a lot easier just above sea level than at or below it😀

2
Reply

Learn

  • Beginner Photography
  • Landscape Photography
  • Wildlife Photography
  • Portraiture
  • Post-Processing
  • Advanced Tutorials
Photography Life on Patreon

Reviews

  • Camera Reviews
  • Lens Reviews
  • Other Gear Reviews
  • Best Cameras and Lenses

Photography Tutorials

Photography Basics
Landscape Photography
Wildlife Photography
Macro Photography
Composition & Creativity
Black & White Photography
Night Sky Photography
Portrait Photography
Street Photography
Photography Videos

Unique Gift Ideas

Best Gifts for Photographers

Site Menu

  • About Us
  • Beginner Photography
  • Lens Database
  • Lens Index
  • Photo Spots
  • Search
  • Forum

Reviews

  • Reviews Archive
  • Camera Reviews
  • Lens Reviews
  • Other Gear Reviews

More

  • Contact Us
  • Workshops
  • Support Us
  • Submit Content

Copyright © 2025 · Photography Life

You are going to send email to

Move Comment