I do have the Tamron 28-75 G1 I use on a D700 and it is a nice lens, but it doesn’t work with the FTZ adapter unfortunately. I have the 24-70/4 S for Z bodies and it’s a very nice lens. I’d like the see that compared to the Nikon 2.8. is 4x the price worth one more stop of light? Not for me, but I’m not a professional. If I did need 24/2.8 I’d be more inclined to go ultrawide with a 15-30/2.8, which I do have in Tamron FX and it works great with the FTZ adapter. If I wanted a lens in the $2000+ range id be more inclined to get a Tamron 35-150/2-2.8 when it’s available.
Marc Petzold
January 8, 2023 11:54 am
I don’t understand that (it was being known since the 1st rumors) Nikon licensed another Tamron Zoom design, but only the way old G1, and this lens here costs more, than the later, much sharper, better Tamron 28-75/2.8 G2 for Sony E-Mount, into a Nikon disguise…
Perhaps, Nikon doesn’t want anything “value” which could come close to their mighty 24-70/2.9 Z, which sells for a premium, of course. No offense.
You’re probably right about Nikon’s reasons – I wish they had gone with the G2 version instead. It’s not a bad lens as-is, but this shows that it could have been better.
Mark Laidlaw
December 24, 2022 4:06 pm
I think I fall into the category of “Real-World Photographer”. I shoot about 2 jobs/week, usually on location, photography is definitely not a hobby.
Main body is a Z9, with 2 Z6’s as backups or when I’m running multiple sets. Usually I shoot prime lenses because we’re shooting tabletop stuff, and I’ve got plenty of time to consider composition.
I own this lens, instead of the 24-70 f/4. I almost bought the 24-70 f/2.8S, but I can’t stand the ergonomics of it. The 24-70’s narrow zoom ring on the Z9 makes it uncomfortable to zoom in and out, and near impossible with one flick of the fingers without twisting your elbow. Although the optics aren’t anywhere near as good, the weight and shape of the 28-75 simply make it easier to use when you’re constantly zooming in and out.
My results match yours though. Good in the center, not great in the periphery unless stopped down. In the places where I’d use a 24-70 2.8, it’s fine. Not amazing, but not terrible. Would I use it for critical studio work, absolutely not. But for a general 2.8 zoom when shooting lifestyle work, it’s actually just fine, plus it feels better in the hands when you’re in the trenches and have to act fast.
That’s a very “real-world photographer” thing of you to do, Mark – choosing equipment based on ergonomics and speed of use, rather than utmost corner sharpness at f/2.8 :)
Christian
December 23, 2022 12:50 am
Great and detailed review as always! Keep up the good work. I am considering getting this lens for travel photography and general walk around lens. I am a photographer and use have z6 and z6ii along with 14-30s, 20s, 35s, 50s lenses and 105 1.4e So basically all my pro needs are covered with the above lenses. The z6 is also astromodified, but its usable for daytime images as well. Sometimes I wish myself I had a light walk around lens for travel. But it’s not an easy choice. 1. 28-75 2. 24-200 3. z30+18-140 4. z30+16-50 + 50-250
The 4 options are about the same price with the winter deals. Or option 5. get nothing and use my 35 for travel.
It sounds to me like you have the wide apertures covered with your prime lenses, so I don’t think the 28-75mm f/2.8 is the way to go for you. I think the 24-200mm (probably also carrying the 35mm or 50mm prime along) would make a more natural travel kit and extend your existing capabilities.
The Z30 + 18-140mm would also be a good alternative if you want something smaller and lighter. I don’t think I’d go with the Z30 + two lens kit unless you want much more reach on the long end. 140mm is already a lot on a DX camera.
Andrew Llewellyn
December 19, 2022 1:17 pm
Very measured review, and, very accurate, as I did buy this lens on offer. I also have the Z 24-120 f4 which gives me options. In the studio the f4 is heavier and sometimes hesitates to focus in low contrast light. The 28-75 f2.8 focuses better in low contrast situations and is lighter in weight. I am using it to shoot fashion and beauty and in most situations is sharp enough, as I am only using the central area, and sometimes you actually don’t want pin sharp for creative reasons
Thank you, Andrew! It sounds like you have good experience with both of them.
And even at its worst, we’re hardly dealing with a Lensbaby-type lens — it takes a lot of magnification in post-processing to see the weaker areas of the 28-75mm.
Alex
December 18, 2022 12:04 pm
Hi Spencer, thank you for the review! It would be great if you included some portraits as well. Do you think this lens can be used for close-ups or full-body portraits? Will the blur match or come close to the 50mm F2 lens blur when used at 75mm F2.8 ?
It would make a good portrait option at 75mm and f/2.8. The amount of background blur will be similar to the 50mm f/2 at that focal length / aperture. Although the 85mm f/1.8 S would be the best of the three options if you’re a dedicated portrait photographer.
As for close-ups, the 28-75mm f/2.8 does well with a 1:3 magnification. For something like flower photography, it would probably be enough. Otherwise the 50mm f/2 would be the better option.
Nothing here to get excited about. I’ve been told off before, but I do regard this as Nikon messing about when they could be developing a Z mount D500 and, say, a 10-20. Even Canon have managed the R7 (although without a decent lens). Aps-c is such a good camera format in terms of ergonomics and value for money, especially for wildlife. Over at Mirrorless Comparisons they are big fans of the 300/f4 with TCs on a Z mount.
A Nikon Z-500 APS-C/DX would being extraordinary. Especially because of the x1.52 cropfactor technically, for the birders, -wildlife shooters. So better Nikon should bring out a Z-500, instead of a Z-70….
Andrew
December 17, 2022 10:45 pm
Thanks for the review. Ultimately it is a more affordable offering than the 24-70 f2.8 with a little less quality.
Personally I would have liked to see something more innovative like a 35-85 f2.8 or even f2 lens for portraiture. Now that would make a new lens interesting beyond simply price.
Looks like a nice copy of the Tamron, nothing too exciting. The biggest issue with this lens is it’s competition. The F-mount 24-70mm f/2.8E VR adapts well via FTZ, especially on the Z9! It’s around $1000-$1300 USD in mint condition and it’s a better lens in every way. It’s autofocus is faster, it’s aperture is not only f/2.8…but it’s true to its value. I bet this 28-70mm is more like an f/3.5 T-stop wise…meaning I think it’s light transmission is nowhere near as bright as the F-mount. The next issue is the amazing 24-70mm f/2.8 S, which you can sometimes find used for a good price. I know someone who got one for $1250 and it was like brand new in the box and had the USA warranty card still in the box. So I’m just not sure how many people will ever buy this lens. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying it looks like a bad lens, I just wouldn’t pay $1000+ for this, no way. Too many amazing lenses in that price range.
I’ll check on the T-stop possibility later tonight and compare it to other f/2.8 lenses that I have on hand. In any case, you’re right about the good range of options from the used market. Midrange zooms are a pretty saturated part of Nikon’s lineup, especially once you start considering DSLR glass.
I owned f mount 24-70 2.8 and tamron f mount 24-70 g2. Yes, both of them are “better” lenses. But they are much heavier and bigger. As n wedding/event photographer I can’t stress how big difference does this make. Operating camera body, with flash and mid range zoom 2.8 lens for many hours, using only one hand is finally possible. Can’t wait for 70-180 and for sure I am buying 17-28 on spring. Currently I use Tamron 15-30.
I do have the Tamron 28-75 G1 I use on a D700 and it is a nice lens, but it doesn’t work with the FTZ adapter unfortunately. I have the 24-70/4 S for Z bodies and it’s a very nice lens. I’d like the see that compared to the Nikon 2.8. is 4x the price worth one more stop of light? Not for me, but I’m not a professional. If I did need 24/2.8 I’d be more inclined to go ultrawide with a 15-30/2.8, which I do have in Tamron FX and it works great with the FTZ adapter. If I wanted a lens in the $2000+ range id be more inclined to get a Tamron 35-150/2-2.8 when it’s available.
I don’t understand that (it was being known since the 1st rumors) Nikon licensed another Tamron Zoom design, but only the way old G1, and this lens here costs more, than the later, much sharper, better Tamron 28-75/2.8 G2 for Sony E-Mount, into a Nikon disguise…
Perhaps, Nikon doesn’t want anything “value” which could come close to their mighty 24-70/2.9 Z, which sells for a premium, of course. No offense.
Sorry typo, of course i meant the Nikon Nikkor 24-70/F2.8 Z-Mount, not F2.9 ;)
You’re probably right about Nikon’s reasons – I wish they had gone with the G2 version instead. It’s not a bad lens as-is, but this shows that it could have been better.
I think I fall into the category of “Real-World Photographer”. I shoot about 2 jobs/week, usually on location, photography is definitely not a hobby.
Main body is a Z9, with 2 Z6’s as backups or when I’m running multiple sets. Usually I shoot prime lenses because we’re shooting tabletop stuff, and I’ve got plenty of time to consider composition.
I own this lens, instead of the 24-70 f/4. I almost bought the 24-70 f/2.8S, but I can’t stand the ergonomics of it. The 24-70’s narrow zoom ring on the Z9 makes it uncomfortable to zoom in and out, and near impossible with one flick of the fingers without twisting your elbow. Although the optics aren’t anywhere near as good, the weight and shape of the 28-75 simply make it easier to use when you’re constantly zooming in and out.
My results match yours though. Good in the center, not great in the periphery unless stopped down.
In the places where I’d use a 24-70 2.8, it’s fine. Not amazing, but not terrible. Would I use it for critical studio work, absolutely not. But for a general 2.8 zoom when shooting lifestyle work, it’s actually just fine, plus it feels better in the hands when you’re in the trenches and have to act fast.
That’s a very “real-world photographer” thing of you to do, Mark – choosing equipment based on ergonomics and speed of use, rather than utmost corner sharpness at f/2.8 :)
Great and detailed review as always! Keep up the good work. I am considering getting this lens for travel photography and general walk around lens. I am a photographer and use have z6 and z6ii along with 14-30s, 20s, 35s, 50s lenses and 105 1.4e So basically all my pro needs are covered with the above lenses. The z6 is also astromodified, but its usable for daytime images as well. Sometimes I wish myself I had a light walk around lens for travel. But it’s not an easy choice.
1. 28-75
2. 24-200
3. z30+18-140
4. z30+16-50 + 50-250
The 4 options are about the same price with the winter deals. Or option 5. get nothing and use my 35 for travel.
It sounds to me like you have the wide apertures covered with your prime lenses, so I don’t think the 28-75mm f/2.8 is the way to go for you. I think the 24-200mm (probably also carrying the 35mm or 50mm prime along) would make a more natural travel kit and extend your existing capabilities.
The Z30 + 18-140mm would also be a good alternative if you want something smaller and lighter. I don’t think I’d go with the Z30 + two lens kit unless you want much more reach on the long end. 140mm is already a lot on a DX camera.
Very measured review, and, very accurate, as I did buy this lens on offer. I also have the Z 24-120 f4 which gives me options. In the studio the f4 is heavier and sometimes hesitates to focus in low contrast light. The 28-75 f2.8 focuses better in low contrast situations and is lighter in weight. I am using it to shoot fashion and beauty and in most situations is sharp enough, as I am only using the central area, and sometimes you actually don’t want pin sharp for creative reasons
Thank you, Andrew! It sounds like you have good experience with both of them.
And even at its worst, we’re hardly dealing with a Lensbaby-type lens — it takes a lot of magnification in post-processing to see the weaker areas of the 28-75mm.
Hi Spencer, thank you for the review! It would be great if you included some portraits as well. Do you think this lens can be used for close-ups or full-body portraits? Will the blur match or come close to the 50mm F2 lens blur when used at 75mm F2.8 ?
It would make a good portrait option at 75mm and f/2.8. The amount of background blur will be similar to the 50mm f/2 at that focal length / aperture. Although the 85mm f/1.8 S would be the best of the three options if you’re a dedicated portrait photographer.
As for close-ups, the 28-75mm f/2.8 does well with a 1:3 magnification. For something like flower photography, it would probably be enough. Otherwise the 50mm f/2 would be the better option.
Thank you Spencer!
Nothing here to get excited about. I’ve been told off before, but I do regard this as Nikon messing about when they could be developing a Z mount D500 and, say, a 10-20. Even Canon have managed the R7 (although without a decent lens).
Aps-c is such a good camera format in terms of ergonomics and value for money, especially for wildlife. Over at Mirrorless Comparisons they are big fans of the 300/f4 with TCs on a Z mount.
I hope that they do make a D500-type camera for the Z system before long. The Canon EOS R7 looks good, maybe Nikon will decide to create a competitor.
A Nikon Z-500 APS-C/DX would being extraordinary. Especially because of the x1.52 cropfactor technically, for the birders, -wildlife shooters. So better Nikon should bring out a Z-500, instead of a Z-70….
Thanks for the review. Ultimately it is a more affordable offering than the 24-70 f2.8 with a little less quality.
Personally I would have liked to see something more innovative like a 35-85 f2.8 or even f2 lens for portraiture. Now that would make a new lens interesting beyond simply price.
Sure thing, Andrew! I agree, it would be nice to see Nikon branch out a bit now that they’ve filled in most of the common types of lenses.
Please fix the vignetting comment – it says it’s worst at 24mm, but that’s outside the focal range.
Good catch, thank you, Filip. Consider it fixed!
Looks like a nice copy of the Tamron, nothing too exciting. The biggest issue with this lens is it’s competition. The F-mount 24-70mm f/2.8E VR adapts well via FTZ, especially on the Z9! It’s around $1000-$1300 USD in mint condition and it’s a better lens in every way. It’s autofocus is faster, it’s aperture is not only f/2.8…but it’s true to its value. I bet this 28-70mm is more like an f/3.5 T-stop wise…meaning I think it’s light transmission is nowhere near as bright as the F-mount. The next issue is the amazing 24-70mm f/2.8 S, which you can sometimes find used for a good price. I know someone who got one for $1250 and it was like brand new in the box and had the USA warranty card still in the box. So I’m just not sure how many people will ever buy this lens. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying it looks like a bad lens, I just wouldn’t pay $1000+ for this, no way. Too many amazing lenses in that price range.
I’ll check on the T-stop possibility later tonight and compare it to other f/2.8 lenses that I have on hand. In any case, you’re right about the good range of options from the used market. Midrange zooms are a pretty saturated part of Nikon’s lineup, especially once you start considering DSLR glass.
I owned f mount 24-70 2.8 and tamron f mount 24-70 g2. Yes, both of them are “better” lenses. But they are much heavier and bigger. As n wedding/event photographer I can’t stress how big difference does this make. Operating camera body, with flash and mid range zoom 2.8 lens for many hours, using only one hand is finally possible. Can’t wait for 70-180 and for sure I am buying 17-28 on spring. Currently I use Tamron 15-30.