Someone can explain me the meaning of this sentences: “…The techie in me wants to put sharpness as a con, and the photographer in me wants to put it as a pro. I leave it up to you to decide…” “The techi in me want to put sharpness as a con…” Why sharpeness as a con????
Sure – this lens is technically one of the less sharp Nikon Z lenses, especially among their prime lenses. However, it is still very sharp and definitely clears the hurdle of what is necessary to take sharp photos – for reference, it’s sharper than most Nikon F lenses.
Given those two facts, I decided not to put sharpness as a pro or as a con but instead leave it up to our readers to decide.
Daniel
December 4, 2024 5:00 pm
I’ve just bought that lens and I’m planning to use it most often alongside the Z 50 1.8. All signs are telling me it’s going to be a great duo!
Doug A
June 19, 2024 2:13 pm
I bought this lens in the SE trim to pair with the Zfc, which reminds me of my beloved FM2 that I let go many, many years ago. That camera paired most of the time with my 24mm f2.8 that I still have. Many “walk around” shots were made by “zone focusing” that 24. The 28 f2.8 works well with the Zfc and I’ve also used it on my Z5 for some nice shots. I agree however that my 24-70 f4, is probably better at 28mm and certainly more versatile for the FX format. The 28 f2.8 SE is a nice lens that’s great with the Zfc when I’m waxing nostalgic!
Rich Thomas
March 14, 2024 3:53 pm
About that Plastic Lens Mount.. Some years ago Roger Cicala posted an article on the LensRentals site that discussed the controversy surrounding plastic (polycarbonate) lens mounts. Among some of the interesting findings from his teams disassembly of damaged lens were the following items. 1. There were no meaningful differences in the percentage of damaged polycarbonate and metal lens mounts. 2. They would often see metal lens mounts attached to polycarbonate lens chassis, even in some premium lens and lens brands. 3. When a lens mount was damaged, often the polycarbonate mounts were easier to repair than the metal mounts, because the metal tended to distort, causing other internal problems with the chassis. There’s other interesting information inside the article, which was somewhat long, and since then there might have been changes in how the metal mounts are attached to the metal / polycarbonate chassis. It is good food for thought.
Steve M
December 28, 2023 7:29 am
I have the 24-70/2.8 on my Z9 most of the time … so this lens is not of interest to me, but it looks to be an excellent prime. Great photos.
Robert Scott
August 2, 2023 6:43 am
First, I think your reviews are invaluable. Thank you! Second, I could not figure out why you would compare the 28/2.8 with the 24-70/4 set at 24mm and 35mm BUT NOT AT 28mm. I don’t get it…
Thank you, Robert! We tested the 24-70mm in the lab several years ago and unfortunately did not test it at 28mm, so I only have the 24mm and 35mm data to compare against the 28mm f/2.8.
Oh… why didn’t I think of that?! Thanks again for the wonderful review and valuable information. It is much appreciated.
Walt Bizzare
December 11, 2022 3:45 pm
I bought this lens – before your review – to use with my Z7 II on backpacking trips to reduce weight. A lot of my photos have sun exposure so I’m concerned that this would pose problems without a lens coating. I may have to go back to the 24-70 F4 lens and an additional lb.
The 24-70mm f/4 is the better of the two lenses when the sun is in the frame, but it’s a hard question because the 28mm f/2.8 is so much lighter. I hope you find a good solution.
David Bush
December 6, 2022 9:48 pm
When you mention the higher vignetting, distortion, and chromatic aberration, are you seeing these with camera corrections on or off?
All of this is uncorrected of course. Corrections themselves take a toll on image quality (like higher noise in the corners after correcting vignetting) so I believe this is the fairest way.
Robert John
November 30, 2022 11:27 am
I guess one person’s ‘small’ isn’t another’s. I regard my D7500 and 18-140 as ‘small and light’, even if I take my 85/f1.8G as well. And both those lenses, bought used, cost less than the 28mm under review. Nikon seems to me to be doing some very strange things. Why is it messing around with these when there is a serious Z mount equivalent of the D500 yet to be made? What better camera could there be for the 400/f4.5?
Nikon definitely needs a mirrorless D500 equivalent, but I disagree that releasing lightweight lenses for a lightweight mirrorless system is “messing around.” If anything, I wish Nikon had prioritized lighter, inexpensive lenses like these sooner.
The comparison between the D7500 + 18-140mm is not relevant since that’s a crop-sensor zoom versus a full-frame prime. I’m a fan of the D7500 too, but if that’s the comparison you’re trying to make, it’s fairer to compare it against the Z50 + Z 18-140mm f/3.5-6.3.
It makes a ton of sense once you get them in hand. The full-frame Z bodies with the 28 or 40 are actually pretty dang small. My Z6 with the 40mm is noticeably smaller and lighter than my D600 with the 50mm. Actually, I’d say the Z camera is closer in total size to my FM2 than it is to my D600.
Ben
November 30, 2022 7:12 am
Interesting to read this review and also the review on the 40mm F2. Basically all of the findings reflect exactly what I’ve experienced by owning both of these. Despite their short comings, the small size is a huge win. It makes the full-frame Z bodies small enough to be an EDC camera.
Personally, I use the 28mm when I’m going to go out with just one single lens. When I carry the 40mm, I also typically carry my 24-200 as I feel those two pair together very nicely. The 28mm isn’t a whole lot better than the 24-200 at 28mm, while the 40mm at least offers a significantly brighter maximum aperture at 40mm vs the 24-200.
The kits you describe also line up with my experiences, Ben. The 28mm f/2.8 is what I picked when I needed a single tiny lens for carrying all day. Meanwhile the 40mm f/2 pairs extremely well with Nikon’s midrange zooms, and I used it a lot in tandem with the 24-120mm f/4.
Someone can explain me the meaning of this sentences: “…The techie in me wants to put sharpness as a con, and the photographer in me wants to put it as a pro. I leave it up to you to decide…” “The techi in me want to put sharpness as a con…”
Why sharpeness as a con????
Sure – this lens is technically one of the less sharp Nikon Z lenses, especially among their prime lenses. However, it is still very sharp and definitely clears the hurdle of what is necessary to take sharp photos – for reference, it’s sharper than most Nikon F lenses.
Given those two facts, I decided not to put sharpness as a pro or as a con but instead leave it up to our readers to decide.
I’ve just bought that lens and I’m planning to use it most often alongside the Z 50 1.8. All signs are telling me it’s going to be a great duo!
I bought this lens in the SE trim to pair with the Zfc, which reminds me of my beloved FM2 that I let go many, many years ago. That camera paired most of the time with my 24mm f2.8 that I still have. Many “walk around” shots were made by “zone focusing” that 24.
The 28 f2.8 works well with the Zfc and I’ve also used it on my Z5 for some nice shots. I agree however that my 24-70 f4, is probably better at 28mm and certainly more versatile for the FX format.
The 28 f2.8 SE is a nice lens that’s great with the Zfc when I’m waxing nostalgic!
About that Plastic Lens Mount..
Some years ago Roger Cicala posted an article on the LensRentals site that discussed the controversy surrounding plastic (polycarbonate) lens mounts. Among some of the interesting findings from his teams disassembly of damaged lens were the following items.
1. There were no meaningful differences in the percentage of damaged polycarbonate and metal lens mounts. 2. They would often see metal lens mounts attached to polycarbonate lens chassis, even in some premium lens and lens brands. 3. When a lens mount was damaged, often the polycarbonate mounts were easier to repair than the metal mounts, because the metal tended to distort, causing other internal problems with the chassis. There’s other interesting information inside the article, which was somewhat long, and since then there might have been changes in how the metal mounts are attached to the metal / polycarbonate chassis. It is good food for thought.
I have the 24-70/2.8 on my Z9 most of the time … so this lens is not of interest to me, but it looks to be an excellent prime. Great photos.
First, I think your reviews are invaluable. Thank you! Second, I could not figure out why you would compare the 28/2.8 with the 24-70/4 set at 24mm and 35mm BUT NOT AT 28mm. I don’t get it…
Thank you, Robert! We tested the 24-70mm in the lab several years ago and unfortunately did not test it at 28mm, so I only have the 24mm and 35mm data to compare against the 28mm f/2.8.
Oh… why didn’t I think of that?! Thanks again for the wonderful review and valuable information. It is much appreciated.
I bought this lens – before your review – to use with my Z7 II on backpacking trips to reduce weight. A lot of my photos have sun exposure so I’m concerned that this would pose problems without a lens coating. I may have to go back to the 24-70 F4 lens and an additional lb.
The 24-70mm f/4 is the better of the two lenses when the sun is in the frame, but it’s a hard question because the 28mm f/2.8 is so much lighter. I hope you find a good solution.
When you mention the higher vignetting, distortion, and chromatic aberration, are you seeing these with camera corrections on or off?
All of this is uncorrected of course. Corrections themselves take a toll on image quality (like higher noise in the corners after correcting vignetting) so I believe this is the fairest way.
I guess one person’s ‘small’ isn’t another’s. I regard my D7500 and 18-140 as ‘small and light’, even if I take my 85/f1.8G as well. And both those lenses, bought used, cost less than the 28mm under review.
Nikon seems to me to be doing some very strange things. Why is it messing around with these when there is a serious Z mount equivalent of the D500 yet to be made? What better camera could there be for the 400/f4.5?
Nikon definitely needs a mirrorless D500 equivalent, but I disagree that releasing lightweight lenses for a lightweight mirrorless system is “messing around.” If anything, I wish Nikon had prioritized lighter, inexpensive lenses like these sooner.
The comparison between the D7500 + 18-140mm is not relevant since that’s a crop-sensor zoom versus a full-frame prime. I’m a fan of the D7500 too, but if that’s the comparison you’re trying to make, it’s fairer to compare it against the Z50 + Z 18-140mm f/3.5-6.3.
It makes a ton of sense once you get them in hand. The full-frame Z bodies with the 28 or 40 are actually pretty dang small. My Z6 with the 40mm is noticeably smaller and lighter than my D600 with the 50mm. Actually, I’d say the Z camera is closer in total size to my FM2 than it is to my D600.
Interesting to read this review and also the review on the 40mm F2. Basically all of the findings reflect exactly what I’ve experienced by owning both of these. Despite their short comings, the small size is a huge win. It makes the full-frame Z bodies small enough to be an EDC camera.
Personally, I use the 28mm when I’m going to go out with just one single lens. When I carry the 40mm, I also typically carry my 24-200 as I feel those two pair together very nicely. The 28mm isn’t a whole lot better than the 24-200 at 28mm, while the 40mm at least offers a significantly brighter maximum aperture at 40mm vs the 24-200.
The kits you describe also line up with my experiences, Ben. The 28mm f/2.8 is what I picked when I needed a single tiny lens for carrying all day. Meanwhile the 40mm f/2 pairs extremely well with Nikon’s midrange zooms, and I used it a lot in tandem with the 24-120mm f/4.