Nikkor Z DX 16-50/2.8 VR

[Airy]

It just hit the street today. I had it pre-ordered, because it seemed to remove some frustrations with the Zfc.

First, it has VR, while the Zfc has none. There is no VR on/off switch on the lens, a pity (you have to do it in-camera). VR seems less efficient that the in-camera VR of the Zf, but it is helpful. To be a bit more specific:

• good enough to help shooting dark places at low enough ISO
• not for "inverted panning" (sharp static background vs. blurred moving subjects), the kind of things easily done with OM m43 cameras for instance

Then, f/2.8 over the whole range. That reduces the frustration of having to use a zoom lens.

Then, the optics. Well, this is a "boring lens": it does everything well, but nothing is remarkable. Center is sharp at all apertures. At f/2.8, everything is reasonably sharp but the extreme corners (esp. at 16mm).

Autofocus is fine. Close focus is fine. No bizarre fringing.

First shot at 50mm, f/3.5; second shot at 27mm, f/5.6, all 1/15s exposure, handheld.

[Airy]

And here's my personal brickwall at f/2.8. As I wrote, the top right brick is somewhat mushy, but otherwise contrast is high.
Please do not confuse wavy distortion (not the case) with wavy brick laying (more the case).

Note: the vignetting is apparent, but the uneven lighting of the actual *scene* (the left is darker than the right) should not lead you to think that the lens is at fault.

[Airy]

... bottom line, this is going to be a very useful lens for most people, incl. myself. Do not expect any magic from it, so the photographer will have to perform the magics.

[Bent Hjarbo]

Thanks for sharing, I think of getting it for my Z50ii, instead of using the kit len 16-50.

[golunvolo]

Thank you Airy. It looks like a well balance walk around lens, if "boring"

[Les Olson]

Thank you for sharing.

The question is what to do when 16mm is not wide enough (most of the time, in my case). The options I can see are carrying the 12-28 and using it as a 12-16 - this assumes the 16-50/2.8 is better than the 12-28 in the overlapping range, because I am certainly not paying $1000 for a 28-50/2.8 - or using a wide prime. I have the Viltrox 9mm f/2.8, which is pretty good, especially at the price, but does anyone have any other ideas?

[MEPER]

The Z 12-28 is a nice sharp lens. It has VR also which is not very important for wide angle but nice anyway.
You don't have any wide SLR lenses you could try using adapter?
I have the AFS 12-24/4 DX but very bulky and I have not compared with 12-28 directly.

[Airy]

Thank you for sharing.

The question is what to do when 16mm is not wide enough (most of the time, in my case).

That raises the question, what is "wide enough" for you?

My sweet spot for ultrawide is 20mm on full frame (already since I bought the Canon FD 20/2.8 forty years ago). That translates to about 13mm on DX., so the cheap and good 12-28 might be the answer indeed, lacking any DX prime around 13mm FL.

For people hesitating between both formats, the Voigt 15/4.5 might be relevant.

[Airy]

Thank you Airy. It looks like a well balance walk around lens, if "boring"

I used "boring" on purpose. Not finding a reason to trash something or somebody is the new definition of boring

[Birna Rørslett]

That raises the question, what is "wide enough" for you?

My sweet spot for ultrawide is 20mm on full frame (already since I bought the Canon FD 20/2.8 forty years ago). That translates to about 13mm on DX., so the cheap and good 12-28 might be the answer indeed, lacking any DX prime around 13mm FL.

For people hesitating between both formats, the Voigt 15/4.5 might be relevant.

Viltrox has an excellent 13mm f/1.4 for Z/DX.

[Airy]

Viltrox has an excellent 13mm f/1.4 for Z/DX.

Aha. I'll look it up.

Edit: ah but (as expected) it is as bulky as its designation in Finnish : "VILTROX 13mm F1.4 XF -kiinnitys automaattitarkennuksella varustettu ultralaajakulmakamera ensisijainen linssi Fujifilm XT30 II -kameroihin"

[Bent Hjarbo]

I have the 12-28 f3.5-5.6 and is satisfied with the result it gives. A nice travel kit is the Z50ii with the kit lens and the 12-28.
I am planing on getting the f2.8 16-50 as it the new kit will still fit my small bag.

[Birna Rørslett]

Aha. I'll look it up.

Edit: ah but (as expected) it is as bulky as its designation in Finnish : "VILTROX 13mm F1.4 XF -kiinnitys automaattitarkennuksella varustettu ultralaajakulmakamera ensisijainen linssi Fujifilm XT30 II -kameroihin"

Finnish is not an easy language .

The lens is a bit on the bulky side, admitedly, but matches  say the excellent Viltrox 75mm f/1.2. Thus I often use the pair of them. Both handles very well on the Z fc (not on the Z30, however).  I also use either lens on Z9, since the DX format there gives ~19MPix files.

[Airy]

Some casual "tests". Here a comparison at FL = 50mm with my gold standard, the Zeiss Milvus 50/2. Same aperture (2., same speed (1/250s), same ISO (100), same place and time of course. The lighting conditions were variable though, and the lens change was not instantaneous. Zfc with Auto-WB. JPGs delivered by the camera.
The Nikkor pic is cooler (the Zeiss lenses tend to look warm: the 135/2 too, and the previous, non-Milvus, 50/2 MP was disturbingly warm),
slightly darker (as we will see, the light transmission is slightly less than the Zeiss').
Although the vignetting was corrected in-camera, the corners are darker. The Zeiss is already down one stop and does not show significant vignetting.
The background of the Nikkor shot looks more blurry (see upper left), but it can be either due to worse edge sharpness, or field curvature, or different blur characteristics (focus is somewhere near the middle of the central leaves), or any combination thereof.

But the Nikkor pic is quite acceptable. Or, in plain words, both are equally lousy.

[Les Olson]

Thank you everyone. I should say that the core use case for this lens is travel, so two lenses only, and light weight is essential. 

I am very happy with the 12-28 (it is significantly better than the F-mount 12-24/4 at the wide end). Sometimes 10mm would be nice, you don't have much control of background blur, and it is not a lens for portraits, or other short telephoto uses. So I have travelled with the 12-28 and 50-250, but most of the 50-250 range is wasted. The 16-50/2.8 would solve the aperture issue, and I am assuming it will be meaningfully better optically than the 12-28 in the overlapping range (I think that is a fair assumption, based on the Z mount track record and the lack of any retrofocus elements at 16mm). Which leaves me needing a second lens at the wide end.

The only reason I don't already have the Viltrox 13/1.4 is it weighs 450g - twice as much as the 12-28.

Viltrox also has an FX 14/4 that is travel-sized, but 14mm is only a shade wider than 16mm (which is why I don't have the 14-30/4).

Another option would be the 12-28 and a 50 or 56mm, but I tried that arrangement a few times with the D500 and never liked it.