I’m a little late to this thread, but I’m considering a Z50ii for travel. I already have the 14-30. Does it make sense to get the 12-28? I’m not bothered by the loss of 2mm at the wide end.
It would be smaller, a little wider, and add vibration reduction. If those benefits are worth the price, go for it! Otherwise I’d say that these two lenses are a little too similar to justify owning both.
Lars
December 26, 2024 12:39 am
The 12-28 hits the sweet spot for gimbal and drone use. The composite lens mount saves weight. Pair it with a Z30 for ultralight drone use.
Kay S.
September 19, 2024 7:09 am
There are two other ultrawide autofocus lenses for Nikon Z DX. Viltrox 13mm f1.4 and Yongnuo 11mm f1.8 Z DA DSM. Both would be great for astrophotography.
Thanks Kay, you’re right, and I’ve added a mention of the Viltrox 13mm f/1.4 to the review! The Yongnuo doesn’t appear to be available for the Z system yet, although it looks like it will be at some point.
How it compares to viltrox 13mm f1.4? Should I change viltrox to Nikon? Z50 is my second camera, use it with z7ii. But I still didn’t get wide angle for ff. Z50 perfectly with 16-50 and 24-200 for lightweight travel, but when I also take viltrox, it’s too much for dx. Or I should look into 14-30 for 3x price of 12-28… To much questions and none right answer 😁
Hi Pavel! I have yet to test the Viltrox 13mm f/1.4. I’ve had mixed experiences with Viltrox lenses – I love the full-frame Viltrox 16mm f/1.8, but I wasn’t impressed by the 24mm f/1.8 or 35mm f/1.8.
In any case, it looks like the Viltrox 13mm f/1.4 is pretty ideal if you plan to do Milky Way photography on Nikon DX. Otherwise I would get the 12-28mm PZ – it’s lighter, less expensive, and of course zooms. Even if image quality favors the Viltrox, the Nikon 12-28mm has plenty of image quality to go around.
Chris
September 17, 2024 12:09 pm
I purchased this lens for a trip to Norway and brought my Z50 along with a D750 + 70-200. No brainer, extra light, excellent quality for landscapes, VR is fine for interiors, a perfect combination. I would nevertheless have enjoyed a metal mount, because I swap lenses quite often. Now Nikon, please provide us with a Z-mount 16-80 f/2,8-4 !
Quel objo ce 16 80 en reflex dx ! Je l’ai gardé longtemps avec mon Z50 avant de passer en FF
Robert John
September 17, 2024 11:20 am
Still think this is an odd lens when the other dx offering is 18-140. Either do a 10-20 or make the longer zoom something like a 28-300 without compromising too much on f-numbers.
F-mount made more sense. The 16-80 and 70-300 made a decent combo with decent f-numbers. Or if you wanted range above all else, 10-20 and 18-300.
Agreed, I would have preferred a 10-20mm for that reason. I’m not complaining about having 28mm on the long end, but 12mm on the short end doesn’t feel quite wide enough sometimes. Maybe Nikon was thinking about the 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR as a potential pair for this lens.
This plus a 24-200 sounds like a very attractive and versatile combo. Cutting out the corners on the 24-200 will hide what is probably the biggest “defect” of that lens.
Then again, most UWA zoom lenses in this category are shorter at the long end, like 10-20, 10-18, etc… I find the 12-28mm much more usable without a second lens.
Ron Sundar
September 17, 2024 9:58 am
Superb article. Were these photos processed JPEG or Raw?
Thank you, Ron! I took all of these photos in raw, not JPEG. I imported them into my Lightroom catalog, did some editing, and exported them as JPEG for the web. Let me know if you have any other questions about my process.
Chris
September 17, 2024 9:50 am
I was happy to see this review. I take this lens along with the z50 when I’m hiking. A fantastic, light combo. My only disappointment was having to purchase the lens hood separately as mentioned.
Thank you, Chris! It’s a very good choice for hiking and travel. I’m happy with how I’ve gotten the weight down on my FX kit, although I can’t help but be tempted by this lens and a DX camera for international travel.
bg5931
September 17, 2024 9:44 am
When I was shooting DX, the 12-24/4 DX was my go-to landscape lens. I wonder how it would fare in a comparison with this new 12-28 DX. How much progress have we made since without truly noticing it because we hardly ever compare lenses across this amount of time? Quite a bit, I suspect.
It would be an interesting thing to test. We never put the 12-24mm f/4 DX through the lab back in the day, unfortunately. Although at some level it’s purely academic, because even if the image quality were just as good (very unlikely), the Z 12-28mm PZ makes much more sense as a native lens for Z DX shooters.
That describes a lot of things we test anyway, so I can’t fault you on wanting to find out the answer!
Rage1968
September 17, 2024 7:06 am
Thank you Spencer for this exhaustive review (as usual). I have the 3 Z Dx zooms (12-28 ; 16-50 ; 50-250) as a complement or as a spare during my travels and I appreciate all 3.
I’m a little late to this thread, but I’m considering a Z50ii for travel. I already have the 14-30. Does it make sense to get the 12-28? I’m not bothered by the loss of 2mm at the wide end.
It would be smaller, a little wider, and add vibration reduction. If those benefits are worth the price, go for it! Otherwise I’d say that these two lenses are a little too similar to justify owning both.
The 12-28 hits the sweet spot for gimbal and drone use. The composite lens mount saves weight. Pair it with a Z30 for ultralight drone use.
There are two other ultrawide autofocus lenses for Nikon Z DX. Viltrox 13mm f1.4 and Yongnuo 11mm f1.8 Z DA DSM. Both would be great for astrophotography.
Thanks Kay, you’re right, and I’ve added a mention of the Viltrox 13mm f/1.4 to the review! The Yongnuo doesn’t appear to be available for the Z system yet, although it looks like it will be at some point.
REVIEWS about Viltrox 16mm f1.8 is expected
Published! photographylife.com/revie…16mm-f-1-8
How it compares to viltrox 13mm f1.4? Should I change viltrox to Nikon? Z50 is my second camera, use it with z7ii. But I still didn’t get wide angle for ff. Z50 perfectly with 16-50 and 24-200 for lightweight travel, but when I also take viltrox, it’s too much for dx. Or I should look into 14-30 for 3x price of 12-28… To much questions and none right answer 😁
Hi Pavel! I have yet to test the Viltrox 13mm f/1.4. I’ve had mixed experiences with Viltrox lenses – I love the full-frame Viltrox 16mm f/1.8, but I wasn’t impressed by the 24mm f/1.8 or 35mm f/1.8.
In any case, it looks like the Viltrox 13mm f/1.4 is pretty ideal if you plan to do Milky Way photography on Nikon DX. Otherwise I would get the 12-28mm PZ – it’s lighter, less expensive, and of course zooms. Even if image quality favors the Viltrox, the Nikon 12-28mm has plenty of image quality to go around.
I purchased this lens for a trip to Norway and brought my Z50 along with a D750 + 70-200.
No brainer, extra light, excellent quality for landscapes, VR is fine for interiors, a perfect combination. I would nevertheless have enjoyed a metal mount, because I swap lenses quite often. Now Nikon, please provide us with a Z-mount 16-80 f/2,8-4 !
That’s a good combo, I’m glad you enjoyed it!
Quel objo ce 16 80 en reflex dx ! Je l’ai gardé longtemps avec mon Z50 avant de passer en FF
Still think this is an odd lens when the other dx offering is 18-140. Either do a 10-20 or make the longer zoom something like a 28-300 without compromising too much on f-numbers.
F-mount made more sense. The 16-80 and 70-300 made a decent combo with decent f-numbers. Or if you wanted range above all else, 10-20 and 18-300.
Agreed, I would have preferred a 10-20mm for that reason. I’m not complaining about having 28mm on the long end, but 12mm on the short end doesn’t feel quite wide enough sometimes. Maybe Nikon was thinking about the 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR as a potential pair for this lens.
This plus a 24-200 sounds like a very attractive and versatile combo. Cutting out the corners on the 24-200 will hide what is probably the biggest “defect” of that lens.
Then again, most UWA zoom lenses in this category are shorter at the long end, like 10-20, 10-18, etc… I find the 12-28mm much more usable without a second lens.
Superb article. Were these photos processed JPEG or Raw?
Thank you, Ron! I took all of these photos in raw, not JPEG. I imported them into my Lightroom catalog, did some editing, and exported them as JPEG for the web. Let me know if you have any other questions about my process.
I was happy to see this review. I take this lens along with the z50 when I’m hiking. A fantastic, light combo. My only disappointment was having to purchase the lens hood separately as mentioned.
Thank you, Chris! It’s a very good choice for hiking and travel. I’m happy with how I’ve gotten the weight down on my FX kit, although I can’t help but be tempted by this lens and a DX camera for international travel.
When I was shooting DX, the 12-24/4 DX was my go-to landscape lens. I wonder how it would fare in a comparison with this new 12-28 DX. How much progress have we made since without truly noticing it because we hardly ever compare lenses across this amount of time? Quite a bit, I suspect.
It would be an interesting thing to test. We never put the 12-24mm f/4 DX through the lab back in the day, unfortunately. Although at some level it’s purely academic, because even if the image quality were just as good (very unlikely), the Z 12-28mm PZ makes much more sense as a native lens for Z DX shooters.
Yes, absolutely, I agree with that assessment. Pure curiosity with complete disregard for utility. :D
That describes a lot of things we test anyway, so I can’t fault you on wanting to find out the answer!
Thank you Spencer for this exhaustive review (as usual). I have the 3 Z Dx zooms (12-28 ; 16-50 ; 50-250) as a complement or as a spare during my travels and I appreciate all 3.
Thank you, Rage! That’s a great set.