Nikon Nikkor Z 28-75 mm f/2.8
11. Summary
Pros:
- excellent image quality in the frame centre across the whole focal range,
- sensible image quality on the edge of the APS-C/DX sensor,
- negligible longitudinal chromatic aberration,
- properly corrected lateral chromatic aberration,
- slight vignetting on the APS-C/DX sensor,
- lack of any serious problems with astigmatism,
- quick, silent, and accurate autofocus.
Cons:
- image quality on the edge of full frame should have been better,
- too high coma,
- performance against bright light leaves a lot to be desired,
- high vignetting on full frame.
It doesn't change the fact that the Nikkor Z 28-75 mm f/2.8 is a very good, and much cheaper alternative to the top-of-the-range Nikkor Z 24-70 mm f/2.8 S. If you combine the new lens with the ultra wide angle 17-28 mm f/2.8 zoom and, possibly, with the telephoto Z 70-180 mm f/2.8 device, presented not so long ago, it will be able to offer great opportunities to any user, even these very demanding ones.
Finally, it's worth saying something about a strange similarity between the Nikkor, tested here, and the first version of the Tamron 28-75 mm. Not only the number of elements and groups is the same for both instruments; also the number and position of different special elements, their shapes and distances between them are surprisingly similar. Of course after just looking at diagrams you'll never be sure that all radiuses of curvature and properties of glass are the same but even at first glance you can notice a really striking ressemblance and strong inspiration.
Please Support UsIf you enjoy our reviews and articles, and you want us to continue our work please, support our website by donating through PayPal. The funds are going to be used for paying our editorial team, renting servers, and equipping our testing studio; only that way we will be able to continue providing you interesting content for free. |
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I think we live in interesting times. Even a decade or two ago such a situation would be simply unthinkable. On the one hand you get such a cult company as Nikon, on the other hand a modest independent producer that, in the past, manufactured just and only cheap replacements of brand name lenses, called sometimes contemptuously 'mongrels'. Now Nikkor in its newest system uses a construction rejected by Tamron because they have launched its better successor on the market. In other words a lens deemed not good enough for Tamron now is used by Nikon. Indeed, the end of the world is coming...
Of course you should remember that you can't take photos with just a diagram. The quality of elements, their position in the system, the coatings, the barrel, inner apertures and ribs, proper blackening inside, all these are important factors as well, not to mention the quality of an autofocus motor or a different diameter of the mount. All these features influence not only image quality but also work comfort. It shouldn't surprise you that in some categories the results of the tested Nikkor differ from the results of the first Tamron version. I think this test was worth performing just in order to compare these two instruments to each other.
