New NIKKOR Z 28-75mm f/2.8

[Roland Vink]

Specifications:
https://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/z-mount/z_28-75mmf28/spec.htm

Compared to Tamron 28-75/2.8 III
https://www.tamron.jp/en/product/lenses/a036.html

The new "Nikkor" is obviously a rebranded Tamron. Maybe instead of opening up their lens mount Nikon will licence some lenses from certain manufacturers. That allows them to increase their range of lenses more quickly while maintaining the style, quality and compatibility to the Z mount. The best of both worlds?

Nikon just need to introduce a 70-300/4-5.6 or 70-200/4, with the same 67mm filter size. That would make an incredibly useful two-lens kit.

dpreview also have newly released pictures of a Nikkor 800mm F6.3 PF lens 

[John Geerts]

I wonder, why this new lens when it's so close with specs. to the existing S 24-70 F/2.8  ?

[Netr]

I wonder, why this new lens when it's so close with specs. to the existing S 24-70 F/2.8  ?

This new lens is much cheaper. It is not an S lens. In fact it appears to be a T lens (Tamron) https://photographylife.com/news/nikon-z-28-70mm-800mm-announcements.

[Akira]

Tamron manufactured the 70-300/4.5-5.6 D ED zoom for the F mount in the past.  It is not surprising.  The Tamron 28-75/2.8 is well reputed, so it should be beneficial to for the casual Z mount users.

The MTF chart for both Tamron and Nikon versions appear to be identical as well:

https://www.tamron.jp/product/lenses/a036.html

https://www.nikon-image.com/products/nikkor/zmount/nikkor_z_28-75mm_f28/

Incidentally, Tamron has already renewed the optical design of the same 28-75/2.8 lens for Sony:

https://www.tamron.jp/product/lenses/a063.html?utm_source=jp-a036&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=lenses-a063

[John Geerts]

Thanks for all the links Akira. 

The E-Mount 28-75  is on discount now, so together with the TECHART TZE-01 adapter, one should have a fully working Z - lens?

[Akira]

Thanks for all the links Akira. 

The E-Mount 28-75  is on discount now, so together with the TECHART TZE-01 adapter, one should have a fully working Z - lens?

You are welcome, John.  I haven't come up with that idea!

[Bill De Jager]

As mentioned by Akira, it looks like this is the previous version of Tamron's 28-75/2.8:

The design, optical makeup and minimum focus specifications point strongly to this being a re-mounted, Nikkor-branded (and corresponding more costly) version of the Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 Di II RXD. Tamron has made zooms for Nikon in the past, which gives further weight to this idea. Interestingly, though, the specifications correspond to the original, stepper motor version of the lens, not the new 'G2' version which has a more complex optical design and uses a linear focus motor.

Digital Photography Review

[fish_shooter]

This lens suggests that it may not be too challenging to port a Sony E lens to Nikon Z. I am using port not like the drink but like moving SW from one computer platform to another like between PCs and Macs.

[Jan Anne]

Thanks for all the links Akira. 

The E-Mount 28-75  is on discount now, so together with the TECHART TZE-01 adapter, one should have a fully working Z - lens?

I have both the Techart and Megadap adapter, the former looks cleaner but can be finicky with third party lenses where the latter has the electronics more exposed but has better compatibility with most third party brands. Nikon keeps the AF protocol a closely guarded secret so both brands are reversed engineered like the few third party Zee lenses out there where the new 28-75/2.8 is a Tamron optical design with Nikon electronics which will probably focus faster than an adapted lens.

[John Geerts]

Thanks for the update and the extra information, Jan Anne ! .

[Wally]

Christopher Frost's review -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0iZUFYewwY

No surprise, he recommends the slightly cheaper Z 24-120mm S....

[Jan Anne]

Review from ePHOTOzine incl impressive MTF charts:
https://www.ephotozine.com/article/nikon-nikkor-z-28-75mm-f-2-8-lens-review-35887/performance

[chris dees]

It seems Nikon has some secret sauce put over it as the Tamron version I wasn’t that good.

[Ilkka Nissilä]

It does indeed seem to be a very nice lens. I handled the 28-75/2.8 briefly and it was very lightweight and easy to zoom. The Z 24-70/2.8 S has a stiffer zoom ring though seems very robust. Judging from those MTFs (from ephotozine testing) the 28-75 would seem to be entirely adequate for most practical purposes, with the 24-70 having a slight edge in MTF.

I have the 24-70/2.8 since yesterday and to me that lens is a bit heavy on a Z6 II and the zoom ring's stiffness makes operation a bit slower than I had expected. But the autofocus is ultra-quiet and that's amazing. I think that maybe for portrait sessions and such the 28-75 would be a nice complement being significantly more portable (given that I also may be carrying an off-camera flash setup, portability does help).

I noticed the Nikon examples from the 28-75 are very pleasant-looking images with nice rendering and bokeh, with the exception of one image which displayed significant onion rings.

Availability of the 28-75 seems also better than the 24-70/2.8 which is in short supply.

[Lucabeer]

Review from ePHOTOzine incl impressive MTF charts:
https://www.ephotozine.com/article/nikon-nikkor-z-28-75mm-f-2-8-lens-review-35887/performance

From what I have understood, ePhotozine measures at the "edges" and not in the actual corners. This might partly explain why their MTFs are always higher than those reported by other testers.

Personally, I only swear by three sources:

www.Photographylife.com (good technical consistency in their tests, and actual photographers using the lenses)
www.cameralabs.com (no MTFs, but plenty of actual images both at close and faraway distances)
www.lenstip.com (again, rigourous testing for MTF, but minus the actual photographic evaluation: this has led them to severely pan lenses that are actually very usable or good, because they only look at the numbers)

The French website www.lesnumeriques.com is also very good for MTF graphs, but they don't test many lenses.

If one combines the impressions from these websites "cum grano salis", one can get a reliable impression that doesn't stray much from reality.

On the other hand, I find that ePhotozine is a bit... overenthusiastic and their procedure overrates everything. And DXO Labs is completely meaningless to me (lots of numbers, but again no photographical sensibility).